Posted on 11/11/2011 8:43:42 AM PST by opentalk
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech justifying Obama Administration Middle East policy changes everything. True, it isn’t surprising. I’ve been writing for almost three years about how the current U.S. government thinks these things.
Do not underestimate this speech’s importance. It isn’t a reluctant acceptance that Islamists might win elections and take over countries. It is an enthusiastic endorsement of that idea.
But now there can be no doubt that Obama’s Middle East policy is engaged in what might be the biggest blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy. Millions of people will bemoan it as delivering their countries into the grip of repressive dictatorships.
The speech can be summarized as follows:
Islamist regimes—at least those whose “behavior” is proper–are good. If Islamists exercise political power they will be moderate. Thus, the United States will not merely tolerate but will actually support Islamists taking power.
The Obama Administration is now on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah, and the Taliban (“moderate” wing). It is the equivalent of an American government telling you that Communism and fascism are no threat because they can be tamed by participating in elections and being in power
Thus, the Obama Administration has openly sided with Israel’s enemies. I don’t mean the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Saudi Arabia. That would be tolerable. We’re talking here about openly genocidal, antisemitic groups.
It has also sided with the enemies of the PA, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. It has sided with the enemies of democratic forces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon. Indeed, the U.S. government is working to empower the most dangerous.
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
...Clinton claims:
“Not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.”
... What’s striking about the administration’s position is the lack of the most basic logic. True, a political party with religious affiliations might “respect the rules of democratic politics.” But that doesn’t mean parties favoring a Sharia state in which, say, Muslims who convert to another religion are sentenced to death, fall into that category. There is no proof that Islamist parties “respect the rules of democratic politics” except their willingness to run in elections. The Nazis and Communists also ran in elections. So what?
And what is a moderate Muslim?
Hillary Clinton: It’s “Insulting And Dangerous” To Say “Muslims Cannot Thrive In a Democracy”…
Gee, duh, do ya think? Had this one figured 4 years ago!
Islam is like the KKK: It’s just the radical ones you need to worry about.
;-)
Pedophile-worshippers OFFEND me!
—Pedophile-worshippers OFFEND me!—
OK, you got me on that one. I’m clueless, I confess.
—Pedophile-worshippers OFFEND me!—
And no sooner did I hit post that I realized what you were talking about. Mohammad himself.
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. If you don’t answer the call and follow instructions, you are DEAD.
Islam is more than a religion: It is also a government of which Iran is the best example.
The Arab Spring was planned by Hillary, Dorhn and Ayers, and Code Pink. The goal was to make each country, including Syria, members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Furthermove, if a Muslim sincerely changes religions, he risks being eventually hunted down and beheaded. A loyalty oath for Muslims who renounce Islam and become citizens loyal to the Constitution is futile because lying in order to spread Islam is a virtue to them and encouraged.
Clinton claims: "Not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different...For now. They're also anti-Israel; Turkey has been increasing economic ties with Iran while ignoring international sanctions against Iran; they have identical policies toward the Kurds...
What I find ridiculous is they have now, openly, moved to the next level, i.e. from “moderate muslims” to promoting “moderate Islamists” as acceptable.
This is nothing new. For at least 21 yrs, the “moderate/reformist” faction of the Islamic Regime in Iran has been the darling of EU gov’ts & various US administrations. Because they could do business thru the ‘moderate’ faction w/ the Islamic Republic.
Even the Taliban in the mid 90s, w/ their full Sharia and all, was perfectly acceptable - until 2001 happened.
That’s why it has never been for humanitarian reasons, democracy or human rights.
Anyone have that link to Hillary’s plaintive cry after the Benghazi that was along the lines of “But we helped them, how could they do this?!”
If voting hasn’t made Democrats more moderate-quite thhe opposite- what makes them think it will work on people who think blowing up their kid to kill your kids is acceptable?
I don’t, but then, I don’t believe anything she says...so I pass by her statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.