Is President Obama Breeding More Terrorists?

By 19 Comments 960 views

“My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”

-Barack Obama

A protester shouts slogans as she holds a composite portrait of President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush, during an anti-U.S. and anti-war rally in front of the U.S. embassy in Seoul June 16, 2009. REUTERS/Jo Yong-Hak

Not everyone on the left (nor the Ronulan right) were fooled into pulling the lever for Obama in 2008, as the anti-war candidate who would end the war(s) and bring our troops home. Yet pull the lever they did when the alternative was John McCain (although if it were Ron Paul in '08, perhaps the Code Pink vote would have gone to the GOP). Some on the anti-war left read between the lines of Senator Obama's rhetoric, yet were willing to take a gamble on “hope and change” after 8 years of “Bush's wars”.

But now that they've experienced almost 4 years of an Obama presidency in action, how much has actually changed and how much has stayed the course?

I believe some of this is merely continuity of government. Regardless of the “R” or the “D” next to the name of any president, there is still some consistency on certain policy issues as it relates to America's national security.

Yet for so many Democrats who relentlessly criticized President Bush, they fail to recognize or acknowledge their own hypocrisy when they now support a president who perpetuates much the same or similar policies his predecessor was known for: Renditions, signing extension to the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, airport screenings perceived as an intrusion on our civil liberties, troop surge (in Afghanistan for Obama), NOT bringing the troops home any sooner on Iraq than what was negotiated under Bush, (natural) expansion of armed Predator drone attacks begun in the Bush era, Guantanamo not closed down, military tribunals, indefinite detentions and no legal rights for enemy combatants….

In some ways, President Obama seems to be trying to out-Bush Bush when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror overseas contingency operations (a rose by any other name…):

Targeted assassination of American citizens.

Killing of terror suspects over capture through an increased usage of armed UAVs. (Just think if it were discovered that President Bush wanted to oversee a personal “kill list”).

President Obama launched a charm offensive on the Muslim world (as did President Bush under far less media fanfare).

Turkish demonstrators step on a poster of President Barack Obama during a protest in Istanbul April 7, 2009. REUTERS/Gurcan Ozturk

We were told that America lost its moral standing in the world; that anti-Americanism was on the rise, all thanks to President “you're either with us or with the terrorists” Bush.

March 5, 2010 An Indonesian Muslim student throws a shoe at a banner of President Obama during a protest against his planned visit outside the parliament in Jakarta. Obama is scheduled to travel this month to the world's most populous Muslim country where he lived as a boy, By Dita Alangkara, AP

Well, President Obama seems to be carrying on the American tradition of breeding anti-American sentiments along with Islamic ire, in his own way.

Are we any more popular amongst Afghans today than we were under a Bush presidency?

How about in Pakistan?

S.S Mirza/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Pakistanis protesting a weekend airstrike by NATO forces on the Afghan border burned an effigy of President Obama and NATO and American flags in Multan, Pakistan, on Monday.

And how about in Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaeda:

Aden, Yemen — Across the vast, rugged terrain of southern Yemen, an escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.

After recent U.S. missile strikes, mostly from unmanned aircraft, the Yemeni government and the United States have reported that the attacks killed only suspected al-Qaeda members. But civilians have also died in the attacks, said tribal leaders, victims’ relatives and human rights activists.

“These attacks are making people say, ‘We believe now that al-Qaeda is on the right side,’ ” said businessman Salim al-Barakani, adding that his two brothers — one a teacher, the other a cellphone repairman — were killed in a U.S. strike in March.

~~~

as in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where U.S. drone strikes have significantly weakened al-Qaeda’s capabilities, an unintended consequence of the attacks has been a marked radicalization of the local population.

The evidence of radicalization emerged in more than 20 interviews with tribal leaders, victims’ relatives, human rights activists and officials from four provinces in southern Yemen where U.S. strikes have targeted suspected militants. They described a strong shift in sentiment toward militants affiliated with the transnational network’s most active wing, al-Qaeda in the ­Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP.

“The drone strikes have not helped either the United States or Yemen,” said Sultan al-Barakani, who was a top adviser to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. “Yemen is paying a heavy price, losing its sons. But the Americans are not paying the same price.”

In 2009, when President Obama was first known to have authorized a missile strike on Yemen, U.S. officials said there were no more than 300 core AQAP members. That number has grown in recent years to 700 or more, Yemeni officials and tribal leaders say. In addition, hundreds of tribesmen have joined AQAP in the fight against the U.S.-backed Yemeni government.

The first Predator drone strike in Yemen happened in 2002. So is expansion of this program under President Obama a natural extension of “Bush policy”? Would we have evolved in this direction no matter if it were McCain or Obama in office today?

Liberal and anti-war critics believed that Bush's approach to answering the global jihad movement- by treating al-Qaeda's 2001 attacks as an act of war rather than as a law enforcement issue- was exacerbating the problem and creating more terrorists. Not less.

So is President Obama now responsible for breeding more terrorists?

Since the Bush-era of terrorist-hunting and killing, homegrown jihadis seem to be a rising menace.

al-Qaeda- the “Base”- may not be the same organization with the same exact players it once had- but it is still alive, metastasizing, adapting, branching, and inspiring.

And is there also hypocrisy coming from the right, criticizing the current PotUS (D) for policies they would be supporting today were it carried out by an (R) PotUS?

The shadow of the head of U.S. President Barack Obama falls upon a copy of the U.S. Constitution as he makes a speech on America's national security at the National Archives in Washington, May 21, 2009. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

jfdghjhthit45

19 Responses to “Is President Obama Breeding More Terrorists?”

  1. 1

    Nan G

    Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize within days of taking office.
    By the time he went to get the prize money he had already killed more civilians via drone attacks ostensibly aimed at terrorists, than Bush had in all his 8 years!
    Even now he defines all adults as terrorists when it comes to drone attacks.
    But he personally takes baseball card sized photos and info on terrorists into his private area and makes the thumb’s up or thumb’s down decision on if they live or die.
    What does he do with so little information?
    Call up his Muslim overlords in Iran for consultation?
    Pray over the cards?
    What?
    And why never capture one of these guys?
    Would they be able to connect the dots …..back to Obama?

  2. 3

    A.Men

    King obama rewards America’s enemies and punishes America’s allies! And sends his fat, ugly Beard out on every t.v. channel every day to punish the American taxpayers!

  3. 5

    joetote

    The Ft. Hood shooter, you know the “alledged shooter” who cannot and will not be referred to as a Radical Muslim Extreme Terrorist or anything else has still not been tried and SHOT! Seeing this administration appears to be purposely dragging it’s feet on this issue, the argument can easily be made that YES he is breeding terrorists! A Radical Muslim piece of slime slaughtered our soldiers yet he still lives!? WTF!

    Obama has made it quite clear in his words and actions that in his eyes, the “misunderstood” Muslims are the victims and in turn has given tacit approval of their actions, his phone baloney rhetoric aside!

  4. 6

    Richard Wheeler

    Nan#1 The whirring of helicopters.

    Word Well done as always. I think we’re confirming being C.I.C. requires a different mindset than being a Sen. or Gov.

  5. 7

    another vet

    These people always have and always will hate our guts. They want all of us dead. It doesn’t matter who the President is. There is no doubt that there has been a double standard in this country as far as the left accusing Bush of breeding terrorists and then not saying the same for Obama who has essentially continued Bush’s policy of “kill or capture” with regards to terrorists, a policy which if implemented in the ’90’s, may have prevented 9/11. There is no reasoning or hope for these people. The moral of the story- kill them all and let God sort ‘em out.

  6. 8

    johngalt

    And is there also hypocrisy coming from the right, criticizing the current PotUS (D) for policies they would be supporting today were it carried out by an (R) PotUS?

    Is it hypocrisy on my part, or the part of other conservatives, to criticize Obama on this, when we are merely attempting to criticize his hypocrisy? I don’t think so.

    But Obama’s hypocrisy goes much deeper than a simple continuity of policy regarding terrorists. It’s actually worse, as his policies have evolved from the capture of terrorists, to the killing of them, to the specific targeting of them. It’s not his policy itself that I find detestable. No, on a certain level I can agree that some terrorists simply need to be erased from the earth before more innocents are harmed. What I find detestable, in Obama’s case, is his evolution from demonizing Bush’s capture and inter policy as an extreme evil, running a portion of his 2008 campaign(started in 2006 when he became Senator from Illinois) on this, to extend to the killing of terrorists by being specifically targeted. If capture and inter is an evil, then isn’t specific targeting a greater evil? And the rubes who still support him defend his hypocrisy by issuing generalized “but it’s different” type statements. Blind support for someone is blind support no matter how you look at it.

    I truly believe that Obama could be seen whipping his dog bloody and the media and Obama supporters would defend his action to the extreme, even to the point of blaming the whipping, somehow, on conservatives and the right. Tell me I’m wrong.

  7. 9

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @Ditto:

    There is a definable difference in the Bush Administration didn’t also alienate most of our allies.

    I agree that Bush didn’t alienate most of our allies; but that’s also another charge that liberal opponents made against the “cowboy” “unilateral go-it-alone” president.

  8. 10

    another vet

    @johngalt: Hypocrisy and the left are synonymous. They would be screaming for Bush to be tried for war crimes if he were in office right now.

  9. 11

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @another vet:

    They would be screaming for Bush to be tried for war crimes if he were in office right now.

    They’re doing it right now, while he’s out of office. To be sure, like Kucinich and Paul, there are those who are consistent in their positions regardless of political party, criticizing Obama who’s still in office:

    “Right now Guantanamo is still open, people are still being held there and are still being tortured there.”

    In response to questions about the difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations, he added: “If President Bush was the President of extra-judicial torture then US President Barak Obama is the President of extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just begun.”

    After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mohamad said: “Powerful countries are getting away with murder.”

    One of the most typically heard human rights-related comments about the Tribunal’s recent success in the post 9/11 reign of terror leads the comments on Press TV’s breaking news coverage of this event: “Obama and his cohorts need also to be tried for crimes against humanity.”

  10. 12

    Aqua

    @johngalt:
    Exactly!! Pat Leahy would have been screaming for W’s impeachment if W had offed Al-Whacki in Yemen. I’m fine with President Obama offing someone like Al-Whacki, I don’t care if he prays over cards, lights candles, or offers burnt chicken quarters to Ares. What I do have a problem with is the hypocrisy of the left.

  11. 14

    joetote

    @Nan G:

    Hi Nan,

    I really hate to agree on that, but unfortunately I’m afraid that’s what will be. After all, we can’t be harming a misunderstood Radical Muslim who’s sole belief is death to any infidel who refuses to cow tow to the tyranny that is Radical Islam! And to think we have people who actually subscribe to this inane idea that this is anything other than what it is. Terrorists and the world in general are no longer even remotely respectful of the U.S. As you know,I used Hassan just to bolster my point, but the plain fact is this Anti-Israeli, Muslim supporting President is in fact giving Radical terrorist of all ilks open invitation to do whatever they want because “we will understand”. Please excuse me here, but this is and has been total bullshit! And I truly believe this President has in fact aided and abetted this behavior, even if he is to dumb to realize it.

  12. 15

    another vet

    @Wordsmith: Those making the criticisms would be the first to complain if we didn’t gather the intelligence to stop an attack or failed to kill someone who later carried one out. The left will be calling Bush a war criminal long after he dies. They have to keep their version of history going.

  13. 16

    Poppa_T

    Speaking of drone usage…isn’t it great that President Obama cares so much about confronting and containing terrorism, both foreign and domestic, that we will soon have 30,000 potentially armed drones assuring our compliance safety.

  14. 17

    Greg

    Not everyone on the left (nor the Ronulan right) were fooled into pulling the lever for Obama in 2008, as the anti-war candidate who would end the war(s) and bring our troops home.

    Throughout the 2008 campaign Obama advocated winding down and ending U.S. combat involvement in Iraq. He repeatedly called for increased troop strength in Afghanistan and stated he would do that as President. As early as 2007 he clearly stated that the U.S. must be willing to unilaterally strike terrorist targets in Pakistan.

    Which part of that did the people who “pulled the lever” for Obama in 2008 fail to understand? I was taking all of those statements into account when I voted for him. They were part of the reason that I did.

    I approve of the results, from Osama bin Laden on down.

  15. 18

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @Greg:

    Which part of that did the people who “pulled the lever” for Obama in 2008 fail to understand?

    You’re someone who actually pays close attention to political rhetoric. People like Medea Benjamin and anti-war pacifists weren’t fooled and noted when he talked hawkishly during the campaign (as the NYTimes link notes. Obama was hailed as an anti-war candidate who would bring our troops home. Do you not click on links provided?). And some of the rest of the paragraph you didn’t blockquote:

    Some on the anti-war left read between the lines of Senator Obama’s rhetoric, yet were willing to take a gamble on “hope and change” after 8 years of “Bush’s wars”.

    You were paying attention. Some others were paying attention. Others were shocked when he has behaved in ways that your side mercilessly criticized Bush over. For political partisans and those enraptured by the messiah of Hope and Change, they still don’t care and don’t recognize the hypocrisy.

    Opposition to Bush had a lot to do with the “R” by his name and rancor over the 2000 election. If he had a “D” by his name, the compassionate conservative president would be seen as anything but “extreme right”. I think he governed center-right and held did some things liberals should be proud of (ask Bono).

  16. 19

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Wordsmith
    on
    here is another one from MAY 30 2012
    related to november 2012 events predicted to come