The three legs of Obama’s Islam policy

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline sums up the reasons why, despite advance warnings of likely attacks on our interests in both Egypt and Libya, we made no preparation for attacks, our guards had no live ammunition (at least in Egypt), and our security guards fired no shots back except for warning shots in the air:

[B]oth the policy and the ethos of the Obama administration is to stand in denial of the Islamic extremism that’s rampant in the Middle East, place the blame for any extremism on past policies of the West, and placate our enemies through conciliatory statements and gestures.

No wonder we were unprepared for yesterday’s attacks. No wonder that, in response to the attack in Egypt, our embassy there issued a craven statement apologizing, in effect, to the attackers—a statement that the State Department surely had to clear. No wonder that, so far as I can tell, the body count for the other side is zero.

It’s worth repeating the three points in the first quoted paragraph, because they are exactly correct, and what I have been saying (especially the first two points) for many years: (1) we deny the existence of Islamic extremism; (2) when extremism does occur, we say that this extremism has nothing to do with Islam but was caused by our bad behavior toward Muslims; and (3) when extremism does occur, we make appeasing gestures toward the people attacking us.

However, let us remember that Romney also denies the existence of Islamic extremism, since, according to him, jihadism is an entirely separate entity from Islam.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 14, 2012 11:59 AM | Send