"President Obama was criticized for failing to attend, or send a proper surrogate to, the giant antiterrorism march in Paris on Sunday. That criticism was right."
Friedman, who almost never criticizes Obama, is at least partially correct. Obama was too busy with his golf game and ESPN to attend. Also, Obama is preoccupied with a nuclear deal with Iran, which has been busy fomenting Shiite terror around the globe for many decades. As was noted by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a possible nuclear deal with Iran:
"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."
Deplore Sunni terrorism in Paris while seeking an accord with a vicious Shiite regime? Quite honestly, this doesn't make much sense.
Friedman continues:
"Saudi Arabia has redoubled its commitment to Wahhabi or Salafist Islam — the most puritanical, anti-pluralistic and anti-women version of that faith. This Saudi right turn — combined with oil revenues used to build Wahhabi-inspired mosques, websites and madrassas across the Muslim world — has tilted the entire Sunni community to the right. Look at a picture of female graduates of Cairo University in 1950. Few are wearing veils. Look at them today. Many are wearing veils. The open, soft, embracing Islam that defined Egypt for centuries — pray five times a day but wash it down with a beer at night — has been hardened by this Wahhabi wind from Arabia."
Only Egypt has "tilted" to the right? Have a look at what has happened in Turkey, ruled by Obama's friend Erdogan, since the AKP came to power in 2002.
Friedman further observes:
"The Saudi government opposes the jihadists. Unfortunately, though, it’s a very short step from Wahhabi Islam to the violent jihadism practiced by the Islamic State, or ISIS."
Horse manure! A "short step"? There is no "step" whatsoever. Funding for ISIS and the al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front has been coming from "private donors" from both Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Volunteers for the armies of both of these organizations have been arriving from Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar wanted to block the funding and halt the movement of volunteer fighters, it could be accomplished in the blink of an eye.
Pressure from the isolationist Obama administration to halt this assistance to ISIS and al-Nusra has been non-existent.
So why should we have expected Obama to participate in the Paris rally? We shouldn't.
We can assume the entire NYT is now plotting revenge, after this review:
ReplyDelete"...police commissioner Bill Bratton dismissed as “crazy” a recent New York Times editorial that suggested Mayor Bill de Blasio "appeal directly to the public" and tell the police unions that have been criticizing him that they are trying to “extort” him and the city.
“That editorial is crazy. Are you going to go to war with the cops? What they’re advocating is basically go to war with the cops. What’s that going to solve?” Bratton said in a wide-ranging interview on "Charlie Rose." ..."
[from capitalnewyork's report, including Bratton's reveiw of the NYC newspapers. The NYT staff should now be wondering if they are safe from 'violent extremists']
Tom's topic is related. The Obama admin chose to NOT attend in Paris for many reasons, but it seems the main reason AG Holder had to leave Paris was too many French Jews were murdered, and, the USA admin seems very consistent in their support of censorship to avoid blasphemy!
Which totally messes up the false narrative that Holder et al borrowed from the palestinians: 'all American cops (implied: like the IDF), are racist'.
As I type the U.S. State Department is trying to figure out how to ship French Jews to Montreal, via the Keystone XL pipeline :)
sorry JG, am long past my expiration date.