From FrontPage Mag. I guess I am not alone in my skepticism of The One’s intentions regarding our enemies and allies.
The Obama Administration and Radical Islam
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Alex Alexiev, adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute in Wash. D.C.
FP: Mr. Alexiev, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
During the last election campaign you wrote that if Barack Obama emerges victorious “the loudest cheers could come from the sworn Islamist enemies of our civilization.”
What are your views of President Obama’s policies with respect to radical Islam so far and do you still believe that the Islamists have a reason to be happy with the new administration?
Alexiev: With a caveat that it is still too early in the new administration’s tenure to form a definitive opinion, I’d have to say that the Islamists, foreign and domestic, have every reason to be happy with the direction in which the president is taking the country. This is particularly clear in the realm of foreign policy, but is also manifesting itself in domestic policy.
Dising our allies is not a good start for pres. Zero. Sucking up to our enemies is even worse.
FP: Give an example. Start with the domestic situation.
Alexiev: Well, as I said, it is still early and the administration is not yet fully staffed – especially in the second-tier staff positions – so we don’t yet know what direct role radical Islamists are likely to play, but let me give you two examples that indicate either remarkable ignorance on the part of the White House with respect to Islamism or else a sympathetic attitude that is troubling.
The first is the invitation to the head of ISNA, Ingrid Mattson, to participate in the inauguration celebration as a guest of the presidential box. Now, it is well-known that ISNA is a key player in the Muslim Brotherhood subversive networks in this country and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terror financing trial. What must be particularly galling to our counter-terrorism officials is that Mattson and ISNA are still being coddled by the White House despite the fact that last November the HLF conspirators were found guilty on all charges and Justice refused to remove ISNA from the list of unindicted co-conspirators. Exactly what kind of message is Mr. Obama trying to send to our law enforcement?
The second case has to do with the notorious Saudi shill Charles “Chas” Freeman. He has been roundly criticized for his strident anti-Israeli and pro-Communist Chinese views and such criticisms are of course valid. But what’s much more important in my view is the fact that he has been a paid Saudi agent of influence for a long time, including publishing and promoting Islamic and anti-American propaganda in our schools. For a man who should objectively be considered a security risk to be been appointed the head of the National Intelligence Council is simply unconscionable. And yes, Freeman ultimately exited the stage, but the fact that he was appointed for the position speaks volumes.
He did his damnedest to sneak good old “Chas” into his administration. I think he did sneak enough snakes in to do a very thorough of destroying this country.
FP: Closing Guantanamo? Do you consider it a domestic or a foreign policy issue?
Alexiev: It cuts both ways really but the latest news from the administration could make it more of a domestic issue. We have just been told by Attorney General Eric Holder that the administration is now considering releasing some of these murderous thugs in America, since their own countries won’t have them, in order for Mr. Obama to keep his promises to the loony Left to close the facility next year. It is not difficult to imagine some of these cutthroats promptly reverting to jihad on American soil courtesy of the American government.
Now “Gun Grabber” Holder gets into the picture. If he as his way, we will all be disarmed and defenseless when they acquit those murderous thugs into the population.
FP: The recent foreign political initiatives of the White House?
Alexiev: It is clear that after only nine weeks in power, President Obama is embarked on a dramatic reorientation, or should I say about face, of American foreign policy in the direction of appeasement of our enemies and indifference or worse toward our friends, something we last saw under Jimmy Carter.
Take Obama’s eagerness to talk to those that don’t want to talk to us like the mullahs in Tehran, the decision to steer $900 million to Gaza, which, whatever the spin, means Hamas, and new efforts to appease Putin by reneging on our missile defense commitments to the Eastern Europeans, to name just a few examples.
In the process, the president has also reneged on key campaign promises. Let’s just take the Afghan issue for a minute. You would remember, Jamie, Obama’s tough campaign rhetoric about invading Pakistan to deny sanctuaries to the Taliban, going to the “gates of Hell” to get Osama bin Laden and winning the “good war” in Afghanistan as opposed to the bad war in Iraq.
I disagree on this one point of his, the people who voted Obama in could not care less about Osama Bin Laden, they would most likely invite him over for dinner.. They were consumed by BDS (Bush Deraignment Syndrome), hating anything that has the conservative taint has stolen their brains. Now Obama seems to be trying to outdo Carter. In my book, he has the dis-honor of being the worst president ever. I guess he wants to make it official. He can’t give away the Panama Canal, Carter did that, so I think we should keep an eye on other important things that he might give away. Like The Constitution, I don’t think he has any intension of using or following it.
Alex Alexiev has much more to say as he picks te rotting flesh from Obama’s worthless, skinny bones go here to read the rest. I would write more, but it is time for a nap. Getting up at three A.M. to go through news feeds is not as easy as it once was.