Obama tries to go full Or­wellian on the Is­lamic threat

Play­ing word games while Amer­i­cans die is the left at its worst

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By Mon­ica Crow­ley

Nearly two weeks af­ter Omar Ma­teen went on his Is­lamist killing spree in Or­lando, Pres­i­dent Obama, At­tor­ney Gen­eral Loretta Lynch, and The New York Times are still search­ing for his mo­tive. Per­haps it’s un­der the sofa cush­ion with some ran­dom change.

The left is so bor­ingly pre­dictable. Un­for­tu­nately, that pre­dictabil­ity is be­com­ing in­creas­ingly lethal.

Mem­bers of the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion and their wing­men in the press have been busy con­jur­ing up ways to change the nar­ra­tive from the truth — that this was an act of war against the United States — to lies ne­ces­si­tated by their ide­o­log­i­cal agenda. The car­nage had barely stopped be­fore they reached for the ter­mi­nol­ogy of “hate crime,” be­cause that’s some­thing they think they know how to man­age: de­fine it, pros­e­cute it, ex­ploit it for po­lit­i­cal pur­poses.

Is­lamic supremi­cism they can­not and will not fight. The global ji­had is an end­less, re­lent­less re­li­giously driven vi­o­lent move­ment of con­quest. It’s much eas­ier and po­lit­i­cally ben­e­fi­cial for them to deal with a “hate crime.” This is why Ms. Lynch an­nounced the Depart­ment of Jus­tice’s de­ci­sion to redact all of Ma­teen’s ref­er­ences to Is­lam, ji­had and Al­lah dur­ing his 911 call, which she later re­versed un­der pres­sure.

Go­ing full Or­wellian was a bit too much, even for the ul­ti­mate Or­wellian ad­min­is­tra­tion.

The corol­lary to the left’s false flag di­ag­no­sis is its false flag “so­lu­tion”: gun con­trol, which, of course, would never stop a com­mit­ted ter­ror­ist from car­ry­ing out an act of war. The ter­ror­ists of Sept. 11, 2001, slaugh­tered nearly 3,000 peo­ple us­ing box cut­ters and air­planes. The Bos­ton Marathon bombers used pres­sure cook­ers. Some of the Paris ter­ror­ists used grenades. And gun bans and strict gun con­trol from Brus­sels to Paris to Cal­i­for­nia didn’t stop those ji­hadi at­tacks.

But the left only cares about ad­vanc­ing its agenda, which means never let­ting a cri­sis go to waste (per left­ist rev­o­lu­tion­ary Saul Alin­sky), ap­pear­ing to de­fend an ag­grieved vic­tim class (in this case, gays) and at­tack­ing the Sec­ond Amend­ment.

Ma­teen’s sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion is com­pletely im­ma­te­rial. The only thing that mat­ters is that he was a com­mit­ted Mus­lim and ad­her­ent of ji­hadist ide­ol­ogy who had pledged al­le­giance to the Is­lamic State.

Another fact that mat­ters: In the Mus­lim world, ex­e­cut­ing gays does not come from a direc­tion­less urge to mur­der. It is Shariah and, there­fore, found across main­stream Mus­lim cul­ture. In 11 Mus­lim coun­tries cov­er­ing 100 mil­lion peo­ple, it is pun­ish­able by death, in­clud­ing in Afghanistan, where Ma­teen’s fam­ily is from, and in Saudi Ara­bia, which he had re­cently vis­ited — twice.

Those on the left can­not and will not ac­knowl­edge these facts, so they plunge us all into a deadly fan­ta­sy­land. They in­voke al­ter­na­tive ex­pla­na­tions and of­fer bo­gus solutions so they don’t have to dis­cuss — much less do any­thing about — the re­li­gious-mil­i­tary ide­ol­ogy com­ing at us. To make this about a “hate crime” or gun con­trol is to make ex­cuses for a ji­hadi ide­ol­ogy with mil­lions of ad­her­ents who openly hate, per­se­cute and kill gays. It ob­scures the truth about the Or­lando slaugh­ter and the true na­ture of the threat.

Facts and com­mon sense rarely in­trude on the left, be­cause noth­ing must be al­lowed to get in the way of its fun­da­men­tal trans­for­ma­tion of the na­tion. You’ve got to ad­mire left­ists’ to­tal com­mit­ment to their cause.

Sev­eral days af­ter the Or­lando at­tack, Mr. Obama at­tempted to de­fend his re­fusal to ut­ter the phrase “rad­i­cal Is­lam” to de­fine the en­emy. “Not once has an ad­viser of mine said, ‘Man, if we use that phrase, we are go­ing to turn this whole thing around.’ So,” he con­tin­ued, “there is no magic to the phrase “rad­i­cal Is­lam.” It is a po­lit­i­cal talk­ing point. It is not a strat­egy.”

If there is “no magic” to the phrase, then why doesn’t he just use it? And he says the phrase isn’t a strat­egy to fight it, but he’s never had a co­her­ent, ef­fec­tive one of those, ei­ther.

Mr. Obama doesn’t use ac­cu­rate ter­mi­nol­ogy for the en­emy be­cause if he did, he’d have to take more ag­gres­sive ac­tion to de­feat it, both abroad at home. He is un­will­ing to do that. And frankly, most Amer­i­cans wouldn’t care if he re­ferred to the en­emy as “rain­bows and pup­pies” if he ac­tu­ally fought this war the way it must be fought.

The dirty truth is that while Mr. Obama views these ji­hadi at­tacks as hor­ri­ble and de­plorable, he also sees them as trans­ac­tional costs of what he be­lieves is a pru­dent anti-ISIS strat­egy. In 2010, he told jour­nal­ist Bob Wood­ward, “We can ab­sorb a ter­ror­ist at­tack.”

The prob­lem is that we keep “ab­sorb­ing” these at­tacks while he put­ters about with his no-strat­egy “strat­egy.”

Mr. Obama may think he’s win­ning the po­lit­i­cal game, and in the short term, he may very well be. But he’s not re­ally fool­ing any­one. The Amer­i­can peo­ple get the threat. They un­der­stand the re­al­ity. And de­spite his ob­scene ef­forts, no amount of Or­wellian cen­sor­ship can change that. Mon­ica Crow­ley is edi­tor of on­line opin­ion at The Washington Times.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.