Jihadists have enjoyed some decent success in America during the Obama years -- as this list of attacks from Investors Business Daily shows --including:
6/1/09: After visiting Yemen for 16 months, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad murders a military recruiter;
11/5/09: Nidal Malik Hasan, shouting "Allahu Akbar," kills 13 and wounds 29 on a Ft. Hood army base;
3/4/10: A Muslim convert, John Patrick Bedell, shoots and wounds two Pentagon policemen;
4/15/13: Boston bombings.
Bill Gertz, a reporter long considered to have some of the best sources in the military/intelligence community, sets out what might well explain these failures: An FBI policy forbidding the linking of Islam and jihad created and enforced by Obama administration political appointees:
U.S. officials familiar with the FBI’s counterterrorism training program and its controversial public outreach program to Muslim groups said FBI policy toward Islam—that it should not be used to describe those who seek to wage jihad or holy war against the United States and others they regard as infidels—has prevented both effective counterterrorism investigations and training.
The officials said the problem is that most field agents understand the nature of the threat but have been hamstrung by policies imposed by senior FBI leaders who are acting under orders of political appointees in the Obama administration, including Islamic advisers to the White House. The policies have prevented the FBI from conducting aggressive counterterrorism investigations of Islamic radicals or those who are in the process of being radicalized.
If this is true, it is an outrage. Political correctness shouldn't get in the way of the #1 responsibility of the President (and the executive branch he heads): Keeping America safe.
Yet there are clues that raise legitimate suspicions. Remember how the DoD refused to classify Nidal Malik Hasan's attack as terorrism, referring to it instead as "workplace violence"? Remember how Janet Napolitano tried to re-name (Islamofascist) terrorism as "man-caused disasters"? Ever noticed how -- as Charles Krauthammer points out -- the President goes to comical links to avoid using any words that would even imply a connection between radical Islam and terrorism?
Indeed, in his own book, The Audacity of Hope, the President seemed to view FBI interviews in the wake of 9/11 as a unjustly oppressive to Muslims, writing:
In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
This exquisite sensitivity to such feelings can be tolerated in a state senator (or even a US senator), but they are a big problem if a President decides that they must be honored at virtually all costs. But is that what's been happening?
There is no doubt that the President and the rest of his appointees are genuinely saddened by the deaths of all of those mowed down by jihadists on their watch. The problem is that they are so enmeshed in a politically correct world-view that they are unwilling to identify hard realities (surprisingly and ably explicated by Bill Maher, of all people) and then act accordingly -- even in the interest of doing their duty to their fellow Americans: