10-21-2018 10:49:06 AM -0700
10-21-2018 07:00:54 AM -0700
10-19-2018 04:48:06 PM -0700
10-19-2018 02:33:10 PM -0700
10-19-2018 10:17:58 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Obama's Political Blitzkrieg

There are a host of issues there, too, from the gutting of military budgets on down. (Don't miss Patrick Poole's "Obama's National Security 'Not Top 10' of 2011.")  But this week's most sensational news concerns one Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Doha-based jihadist.  On December 29,  The Hindu reported that the Obama administration had turned to al-Qaradawi to help broker a deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Some data points:

* In 2003, Qaradawi issued a fatwa calling for and applauding the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

* He gleefully predicts that Islam  will “conquer” Europe and America.

* He extols  the terrorist activities of Hamas as “martyrdom operations.”

* He eagerly abets hatred of  Jews and the state of Israel (“Oh Allah,” he preached in 2009, “take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one”).

So why is the Obama administration turning to this man to negotiate with the Taliban? (Why are we “negotiating” with the Taliban at all?) Is it more "smart diplomacy"? The Hindu opines that the deal, which reportedly provides for the release of terrorists in Gitmo, lifting of UN sanctions on its leadership, and recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political group, is an effort to give the U.S. “a face-saving political settlement ahead of its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan which is due to begin in 2014.”

This story has not been corroborated by the Obama administration; neither have they denied it. If true, it would be a stunning act — one in a series — of capitulation to the forces of radical Islam. And that is doubtless why The New York Times devoted a long front page story to the report, detailing Qaradawi’s  hate-filled pronouncements  and providing a history of his efforts to advance the cause of Sharia law. If the report is accurate, noted the Times, “It would mark one of the most shameful chapters in American history.”

WAIT!  Sorry, that wasn’t The New York Times. Somehow, our former paper of record hasn't got around to this story yet. Leave aside the front page: there's nary a mention of it by the Gray Lady.  No, the analysis I quoted comes from Andy McCarthy at NRO, who begins by somberly observing that “the surrender is now complete” and ends with that sentence about “one of the most shameful chapters in American history.”

After thousands of young Americans have laid down their lives to protect the United States from jihadist terror, President Obama apparently seeks to end the war by asking Qaradawi, a jihad-stoking enemy of the United States, to help him strike a deal that will install our Taliban enemies as part of the sharia state we have been building in Afghanistan. . . . In return, the Taliban will pretend to forswear violence, to sever ties with al-Qaeda, and to cooperate with the rival Karzai regime.

Depressing, isn’t it?