The root cause that Obama will reveal to a waiting world
If past is prologue, if what Obama has said before is a guide to what he will say now, then Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard has figured out what Obama will discover to be the “root” cause of the Fort Hood massacre:
It looks like the man who killed 13 soldiers and police at Ft. Hood was a Muslim radical who hated America, resented our occupation of Muslim lands, would not be photographed with women, and chanted “Allahu Akbar” before he launched a one-man terrorist attack, but according to CBS White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, Obama wants to know what really made him do it:In short, Muslim terrorism exists because the West is insufficiently progressive. If all people’s needs were truly taken care of, if all people, especially Muslims, were lifted out of poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair, which are the root causes of terrorism, then terrorism would end. How else can a dyed-in-the-wool liberal like Obama see it? The evil of terrorism can’t possibly be something voluntarily chosen by the Muslims themselves; such a notion would remove the onus on conservative whites who truly are the source of all evil in the world, as Obama learned at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. To say that Muslims, on their own initiative and choice, and not pushed by some external force, believe in doing these bad things, would cancel the liberal and black belief that all evil comes from whites. Obama’s entire world view is grounded in the conviction of white guilt and nonwhite innocence. Therefore, whatever root cause he finds, we can reasonably predict that the root cause will not be that Muslims believe in a god who commands them to wage holy war against non-Muslims, and that Nidal Hasan was putting this holy war into practice. If Obama says this or anything like it, I will fall on the floor.
Jonathan L. writes:
Have I never confessed to you that I voted for Obama in the last election? I voted for him solely because I felt the country could not stand four more years of Bush style “conservative” foreign policy, and to me McCain seemed more “Bushian” than Bush in his commitment to wildly reckless neoconservatism. After the recent Iranian election unrest I felt vindicated in my choice, as I have no doubt that in contrast to Obama’s commendable aloofness, McCain would have attempted some sort of harebrained military intervention on the assumption that the majority of “freedom-loving” Iranians would rally to our cause.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 07, 2009 12:03 PM | Send