Shouldn't we be logical and respectful and as accurate as possible?
Before we call someone an idiot, don't we have a responsibility to know why we believe what we believe?
Reason and facts should build legs underneath a well-thought-out opinion.
Congresswoman Bachmann asked questions about security clearances and the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. For this, she is characterized as a "crazy" by one side...and thrown under the bus by her own party.
On this website, Bachmann is compared to Senator Joe McCarthy. He was a Senator who was said to see a Communist under every bed. He also was an outspoken Senator who died from alcoholism while still in office. Apparently the website thinks Congresswoman Bachmann sees a Jihadist under every bed.
There is a link to the follow-up letter she wrote which was well-sourced and in detail. If you are searching for facts about this issue, would you consider reading the LETTER?
Let's be reasonable. What the Congresswoman did was question the vetting process in light of Huma Abedin's obvious connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. It's not a witch hunt (as the website charges) if the connections are true. They are. Huma DOES have a mother and brother in the Muslim Brotherhood. Ms. Bachmann is asking if Huma was vetted, given those connections.
"Well, of course she was vetted" you may be saying. Still, here's why skeptics have concern.
1. Early in the administration, the name of the terror war was changed to "Overseas Contingency Operation". That perspective does not make me sleep better at night. The President seems to have a naive conviction that if he tilts toward Muslim nations, they will favor him. Has that happened?
If our protection cannot APPRAISE danger...how can we be safe?
2. In an argument before a House committee, James Clapper (our Director of National Intelligence) defended the Muslim Brotherhood as a secular organization. Secular? Our intelligence thinks that?
If our protection cannot DISTINGUISH the enemy...how can we be safe?
3. The administration refuses to say the words "Islamist terrorist". Instead, they call incidents like the Fort Hood shooting "workplace violence". Does anyone think that particular violence was only about the workplace? Tell me, is it a behavioral indicator to put on your calling card (as the shooter did) that he is a "soldier of Allah"?
A member of the Department of Defense said after the shooting that it would be worse to lose our policy of diversity than to have had the shooting itself. Really? The President still has not said that Islamic terrorism played a part in the shooter's act.
If our protection cannot IDENTIFY the name of our enemy...how can we be safe?
4. Reluctance by the top judicial officer of the land to use the words "Islamic terrorism" is disturbing. When you watch this Congressional hearing, you wonder who Attorney General Eric Holder thinks our adversary is. It took a linguistic gymnast to get through that hearing without saying the words "radical Islam". LINK
If our protection cannot SAY the name of our enemy...how can we be safe?
5. Vice President Biden. "The Taliban per se is not our enemy." The Taliban consider themselves to be an element of the umma (the worldwide community of the faithful), the Dar al-Islam, the Muslim world...and embrace Shariah just as al-Qaida. That by definition puts us in their crosshairs.
If our protection cannot UNDERSTAND our enemy...how can we be safe?
These are five big-picture examples of a troubling mindset. With that context, the Congresswoman's concern makes more sense. Our enemy is said to be "hydra-headed"; because they wear no uniforms, we're all jumpy. To think our protection may not have a grasp of the threat causes more uneasiness. Even so, our country was at her most vulnerable emotionally after 9/11...and even then, Americans were not anti-Muslim. NO ONE is coming after Muslims, but EVERYONE should be concerned about radical Islam.
If you ask my opinion, keeping America safe is a worthy goal regardless of who comes after you hollering "you Islamic homophobic crazy!" Please at least read the letter Michele Bachmann wrote.
Wouldn't that be reasonable before you certify her mental condition?
No comments:
Post a Comment