Step back for a moment and survey the upheaval in the Muslim world in the last few years and contemplate the policies of the Obama administration toward the changes that have taken place. What you will see is a consistent pattern—not a successful policy, mind you—that reveals the worldview of our president.
Let’s start with Egypt. Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled that country since the early 1980s, was forcibly removed from power. Now, he certainly wasn’t a wonderful leader, in the sense that we would have wanted someone like him as our president, but he at least was an ally of the United States and continued the policy of openness toward Israel begun by his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, allowing diplomatic relations between the two countries.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which believes Israel must be destroyed, helped stir up the citizens to remove Mubarak; the demonstrations led to his abdication of authority. The new Brotherhood leader then looked the other way as Christians and their churches were attacked; some were martyred and churches were burned. The country was falling into chaos until the military stepped in and ousted the Brotherhood.
What was President Obama’s response throughout all of this? He supported Mubarak’s removal and the installation of the Brotherhood. He then was dismayed when the Brotherhood lost its power. Now Egypt doesn’t even consult with America when it decides to take action in the Middle East, something unheard of previously. Its leaders just don’t trust Obama.
What about Libya? The strongman there for decades, who originally took over in a military coup, was Moammar Qaddafi. He was a tyrant. Ronald Reagan included Libya under Qaddafi as one of most destabilizing and dangerous countries in the world. Of Qaddafi, Reagan once quipped, “He’s not only a barbarian, he’s flaky.” And Reagan was right.
Yet Qaddafi at least could be cowed into backing off of his most outrageous ventures. Reagan bombed Libya and Qaddafi then pretty much stopped bankrolling terrorists. When George Bush invaded Iraq, Qaddafi concluded the better part of discretion was to halt his research into weapons of mass destruction. He didn’t want a U.S. invasion of his country.
It certainly was understandable to support the overthrow of Qaddafi when disgruntled elements in Libya rose up against him. But questions should always be asked: what will follow a deposed leader, and will it be an improvement or will things be even worse? We found out quickly: the Benghazi atrocity, the rise of the Islamists, and now even the takeover of Tripoli. Last week, we witnessed video of Islamists partying at a former CIA residence, even diving into the pool. This is an acute embarrassment for the U.S.
Obama’s policy toward Libya was to support Qaddafi’s ouster by using bombing raids, then allowing the radicals to take control. Again, there was little thought as to the consequences.
He repeated that scenario in Syria, which is ruled by Bashar al-Assad. He’s a barbarian as well. One can imagine support for taking him out. Yet, again, who exactly is the opposition? The nucleus of that opposition has turned out to be what we now call ISIS. Assad remains in power, yet it is clear that Obama’s sympathies lie with the opposition, regardless of the presence of terrorists in their midst. Wherever ISIS has taken power—now in a portion of Iraq—Christians have suffered the most.
The ISIS base of operations is in Syria, but the president has, remarkably, no plan for dealing with this terrorist organization. How do we know? He said so in a press conference last week. That even had liberal supporters wondering what’s going on in his head.
Personally, I don’t mind anyone wearing a tan suit, but what occurred here was nearly inconceivable: some in the media focused more on his choice of sartorial splendor than the substance—or lack thereof—of his statement:
Does he recall that ISIS has declared it wants to raise its flag over the White House? Does he have any concept of what leadership entails? Have his sympathies for supposed oppressed peoples led to an ideological blindness that could have dire consequences for all of us?
If one were to ask if Obama even believes there are real terrorists out to destroy America, I’m afraid this is the answer we might get:
And while he does believe evil exists, he has strange ideas about the sources of evil:
I’ve said this many times, but it bears repeating now: we are in deep trouble with this man occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He can’t be removed until 2017, but we can take a major step in reversing his reign of error this November. We have a responsibility to do so.