The Expendable Bin Laden
As I’ve noted elsewhere (see here and here), the Washington Post‘s leftist columnist Dana Milbank covered my speech yesterday and writes a predictably disapproving take on it today. In it, toward the end, he mis-describes my exchange yesterday with his fellow lefty, Adam Serwer of Mother Jones.
Serwer evidently doesn’t understand the rudimentary difference between being an Islamist and being sympathetic to Islamists — or at least he pretends not to understand. So he thinks Obama’s support for same-sex marriage somehow destroys my argument that Obama is supporting the Brotherhood. This is a silly line of attack and I’ve addressed it a number of times, including in The Grand Jihad and at yesterday’s event (it’s in the Q&A section after my speech, over an hour into the event). Islamists and Leftists disagree on several points, but that does not prevent them from allying and collaborating, as they often do, on their many areas of mutual interest.
Following on Serwer, Milbank also distorts my prior assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood had concluded Osama bin Laden was “expendable.” Milbank writes:
Serwer also asked McCarthy about his 2010 suggestion that Obama was free to kill Osama bin Laden because “the Islamists [Obama] wants to engage have decided al-Qaeda is expendable” and counter to their peaceful takeover of American institutions. [Emphasis added.]
Contrary to Milbank’s suggestion, my statement about bin Laden being expendable had nothing to do with the killing of bin Laden, which happened a year later. When I made the statement in 2010, I was addressing the seeming contradiction between (a) Obama’s laudable aggressiveness in attacking al Qaeda safehavens in places like Pakistan and Yemen, and (b) Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood. The point was about political calculations — I never remotely suggested that Obama needed or thought he needed the Muslim Brotherhood’s permission to do anything.
By the time Obama became president in 2009, bin Laden had exhausted whatever use he had to the Muslim Brotherhood. Brotherhood leaders were by then condemning the 9/11 attacks, but not because they condemn terrorism — which they usually applaud. Unlike jihadist attacks in other places, strikes against the American homeland are counterproductive from their perspective. They are making good progress on their agenda of mainstreaming sharia through non-violent stealth jihad; terror attacks against our country, however, are guaranteed to provoke an aggressive response — at least in the short term. That would have the effect of rolling back the Brotherhood’s gains.
Saw you on C-span. You did a good job, especially with the two idiots. I wondered who the two plants, agent provocateurs, were. I commend you for your patience.
“For the Brotherhood’s present purposes, bin Laden was expendable”
Well put. Of course in reality the Brotherhood was embarrassed by bin Laden because his terrorism made their shared goals look bad. It was counterproductive. Killing his is, I think, a net benefit to the MB as it puts him out of the picture and takes away a reason the US wouldn’t want to back the MB (not that it would stop us entirely of course).
Killing bin Laden has certainly helped al-Qaeda of course, as now we have been on their side in wars in both Libya and Syria.
Also – its kind of embarrassing to see someone talking about the world, as you do Andy, versus the Washington reporters who are only concerned about the Washington game, about the fact that you are saying nasty things against their team.
Your C-Span speech was so perfectly excellent — constructed so well — point on point — very logical — and very, very clear. Crystal clear. Thank you.
There really was no room at all for misunderstanding what you said — not about the difference in the argument against “guilt by association” regarding rights and criminality, as opposed to privileged status of security clearances and the appearance of conflict of interest in government work (which one would think our “Senators” would be smart enough to understand without having it explained to them) …. or regarding the President, Muslim Brotherhood, or Bin Laden’s death … or — anything.
What they’re doing (Dana Milbank, etc.) — I’m sure you already know — it’s deliberate, false, pretend misunderstanding. Just an attempt to make waves and paint you in their colors. So low of them. It’s typical — no doubt you expected it. Your patience and grace is astonishing.
” I was addressing the seeming contradiction between (a) Obama’s laudable aggressiveness in attacking al Qaeda safehavens in places like Pakistan and Yemen, and (b) Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Obama was playing the role of Capt. McCluskey, the crooked cop in The Godfather: helping his buddies the Tattaglias take down the rival Corleones.
Why would islam disapprove of homosexual marriage? Marriage between homosexuals is hardly of concern when the capital offense under islamic totalitarianism is homosexuality itself. I would cynically opine that islam would actually approve of homosexual marriage since it would make it that much easier to identify and eliminiate homosexuals two at a time.
Obama knows all this too of course.
Moray,
Islam is so twisted and self-contradictory, you have to think like a Democrat to grasp its “nuances”
Mohammad was the originator of the “it depends on what the meaning of “is” is” style of divine logic to justify today what he forbade yesterday. Thus homosexuality is a regular accepted form of entertainment, AND a deadly sin, all at the same time.
Mohammad, and all his (adult male) followers are essentially allowed any vile deeds and acts as they so please, (rape, enslavement, torture, murder,) as long as there is some convoluted “logic” (read: rationalizations of the criminally insane)to justify the craving…
They (supposedly) abhor the notion of PAIRING in a ‘relationship” like a man and woman do, but if one is not “sexually mature” then its not sex. Its just an itch to be scratched, a little stress relief.
Thus, as long as a MAN has sex with a pre-pubescent BOY, all is fine. Its not “homosexual” because they’re not BOTH adults, having “adult sex” or some creepy “relationship” Allah frowns upon.
But when a BOY cant be found, well, Allah (and Bill Clinton?) would be perfectly understanding in two men who would PREFER to follow the commandments if they were possible, but since they arent (no little boys around to rape) well then, whats a Jihadist to do? Islamists, like democrats, get points and exemptions for their “good intentions”
Homosexuality is RAMPANT in islamic culture…and its also forbidden.
Go figure.
As for why the Academic Gay left and the islamists get along so well Politically here…
“the enemy of my enemy, is my friend”
The immoral and dishonest will always find ways to justify their actions…
Sometimes they become religions, sometimes they become political parties.
At all times, they are a house of cards that cannot withstand scrutiny. Thus we have fatwas and suicide bombers from one, and “just shut up” from the other.
They sought him here, they sought him there
Those Special Ops sought him everywhere
Asking all if you should see him, please do give a yell!
That demmed elusive OBL
They sought him here, they sought him there
The Special Ops sought him everywhere
Oh, Binny, how the Special Ops did implore you
Simply to come out from hiding in a mosque or under your bed
With all your hiding it was such a chore to smash your fracken head!
Great article
If Dana Milbank does not object to the Muslim Brotherhood effectively vetting administration officials does that make him an Islamist or merely sympathetic to Islamists?
Even Obama is eventually expendable under the Muslim Brotherhood strategy. An Islamist’s history book will footnote Obama, if at all, as a Judas. Killing Osama does not change that, or knock Osama out of a more prominent place in history. Is there something Obama could do to change that?
So he thinks Obama’s support for same-sex marriage somehow destroys my argument that Obama is supporting the Brotherhood.
It’s stunning, what passes for logic in the leftist mind, the kinds of leaps that pass for thinking.
It would drive me crazy to speak to such people.
They are making good progress on their agenda of mainstreaming sharia through non-violent stealth jihad; terror attacks against our country, however, are guaranteed to provoke an aggressive response — at least in the short term. That would have the effect of rolling back the Brotherhood’s gains.
Stealth jihad for the formerly violence addicted Islamists and stealth Marxism for America’s Leftists. Billy, Barack, Van et al. have abjured violence in favor of community organizing.
Guess they all think they’ll catch more flies with honey (and offers of free lunches) than with vinegar.
(however, they still wet their pants over occasional purveyors of violence, like the Occupiers, old habits die hard)
It amazes me when, to this day, American officials hang themselves up on questions like asking about particular events or “terrorist acts”…Is it is or is it izznt “al qaeda”? The movement is so much bigger and wider than one single organization.
Although he may hold some exalted place in the lore, Bin laden is as expendable to Islamists as Jeremiah Wright and the grandmother who raised him were to Obama.
Everybody is expendable in every totalitarian enterprise, be it islamist supremacism or internationalist subversion. Sauron has no friends, only tools.
You did an outstanding job in your presentation of the nature of the Islamist strategy and organizations and I applaud your challange to our political leadership and by extension, to our journalist class, to confront the threats and attacks by our enemies the Islamists and especially the Muslim Brotherhood.
The embrace of Islamists by Obama, I found, predates his US Senate election, as witness the statements of his friend Ali Abinimah, the Chicago based Islamist propagandist. However we classify Obama and Clinton, Islamist, or sympathizer, or whatever, they are complicit and therefore an extreme danger to our nation themselves.
A terrible thing to grasp and say, but how else can you assess Obama and Clinton once you appreciate the Islamists agenda and attacks by the Brotherhood and other Islamists on the west and our nation.
The reality is, if as a leader, you support and do not confront terrorists you are an accomplice.
Read, ‘THE COMING:A TRUE STORY OF HORROR’ @ Amazon.com. If you don’t think Islam is about to destroy america…Unbelievable!
Since the Saudi/Qatar royals-sponsored Muslim Brotherhood is intent on supremacist, racist, sexist and violent (both psychological/physical) Arabic-Islamic world domination, slavery (especially of women/girls in evil Saudi-Arabic veils), destruction/mass murder of Israel-Jews & Christians & OIL/MINERAL/LAND ROBBERY – thus it is highly likely, all kinds of evil Jihadist terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, Taleban, Hamas, Salafist, Nigeria’s Boko Haram and Somalia’s al-Shabaab are actually created/sponsored by the Saudi-Qatar royals/Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden might be just a small fish in this big dirty and most dangerous game played by Obama and his beloved Saudi king and the MB! Look at the Al-Qaeda’s branch, the Muslim World League that Huma Abedin (Clinton’s Chief-of-Staff)& her Muslim Brotherhood’s parents’s org worked with, is based in Saudi Arabia. I really suspect, Osama bin Laden is executed right away, under the order of Obama (& the Muslim Brotherhood), just as top Taleban leaders are also being executed by drones in Pakistan, instead of being held up as War prisoners under the Geneva Convention so as to gain more vital information, is in order to cover up the top secrets of such organizations.
As to Obama backing gay marriage, does the term “taqiyah” ring a bell for anyone? It is the tenet of Islam that says it is acceptable to lie if it advances Islam. Even if Obama were a Muslim, it would be completely acceptable to claim support for gay marriage to get re-elected so he could advance the spread of Islam.
What are good pianos and good recording software to make beats?
mcmann penn