“ISIL is not Islamic”, Obama Says

   < < Go Back

from The Gray Area: (updated 9/12/14)

In President Obama’s speech Wednesday night there were at least 2 major statements that should concern those watching.

One, the President should have lost the confidence of every American listening to his speech tonight when he said “ISIL is not “Islamic.” Oh really! When they say they are setting up an Islamic State.

When they murder everyone, men, women & children, who do not agree with their version of Islam.

When others issue lists of 10 reasons why people should join ISIL. This list reads more like a liberal socialist, but includes references to the “Islamic State”.

Their are endless references to the fact this is an Islamic extremist group. To say otherwise is just ridiculous to a level that is hard to believe. Listen to this former Muslim correct the President and explain this erroneous reference. Worth the 8 minutes.

A President, who wants the country to believe he has our best interests at heart, would not make such a blatantly false statement. This attempt to protect the Islamic religion, while, by the way, he attacks the Christian religion in the USA, brings up even more concerning questions.

The left wing media and other echo chambers have come out since the speech saying that President Bush and others have said the same thing about terrorist groups. Read the transcripts and quotes they use from President Bush and others and see if they say the same thing to you. One references that these “terrorists are traitors to their own faith“, which is an accurate statement. Pres Obama says they are not Islamic, which is a lie. In the context of other half truths and outright lies he has told, and his skillful use of words and speeches, this was not a simple slip of the tongue. It was stated on purpose, designed to influence , which is understandable, but using false statements for that purpose is as Krauthammer says, President Obama’s Distinction Is “Both Patronizing And Ridiculous.”

And, the other primary statement of concern is the very “bold case for American interventionism” he makes, as stated by Chuck Todd, NBCNews. He recently said he wants to pull back from “military adventures” and announced his plan for gradually drawing down the U.S. military in a much maligned speech to military personnel at West Point on May 28th prior to ISIL’s emergence. This contradiction of purpose is a serious concern when we expect our leaders to have a plan – – but oh, ya, he said he didn’t have one two weeks ago. So what else should we have expected tonight.

Below is a detailed analysis of President Obama’s speech

from The Wall Street Journal,

President Is Authorizing Start of Airstrikes in Syria, Expanding Bombing Campaign in Iraq.

President Barack Obama is authorizing the start of airstrikes in Syria and expanding the monthlong bombing campaign in Iraq to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Islamist militants who recently beheaded two Americans, he told the nation Wednesday evening.

President Obama’s speech could be a pivot point that either revives his beleaguered presidency or reinforces doubts about his leadership.

The decisions, detailed in a prime-time address on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, would considerably deepen U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and mark an acknowledgment by Mr. Obama that the intensity of the threat from the militant group Islamic State requires the type of long-term, open-ended conflict he has resisted since taking office—and which he campaigned for the White House saying he would avoid.

Mr. Obama’s strategy to combat the extremist group that calls itself Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, is designed to help Iraqis reclaim large swaths of territory the group has overtaken since spilling over from its stronghold in neighboring Syria in recent months, administration officials said. That means the U.S. would for the first time strike at the group’s bases and havens in Syria, officials said.

“America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat,” Mr. Obama said. “I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

The president’s plan, which officials said has no timetable, builds on his authorization in August of airstrikes in Iraq to protect American personnel threatened by Islamic State and provide humanitarian assistance to besieged Iraqis.

Administration officials said U.S. airstrikes in Syria would be conducted in a targeted way that wouldn’t embolden President Bashar al-Assad.

“We will go after ISIL wherever they are, and that includes Syria,” a senior administration official said. “There should be no mistake that the United States is prepared to take action on both sides of that border.”

White House officials on Wednesday said the administration had authority to conduct the strikes in Syria in part based on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

That Congressional authorization allowed the U.S. military to strike “nations, organizations, or persons” who played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Some legal scholars have suggested it is a stretch to say Islamic State would be covered by the 2001 law. While Islamic State evolved from a group that was affiliated with al Qaeda, the group’s leaders have broken from al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan.

The administration has also suggested in the past that the 2001 authorization might no longer be as necessary, and had suggested they might want to see it repealed by Congress. But Wednesday’s announcement signals a potential shift for the administration, embracing a view that the 2001 law covers a broader array of groups.

The administration’s strategy carries significant risk. It relies heavily on the cohesion of a fledgling Iraqi government that formed this week and a tenuous coalition of Arab states and European allies that still isn’t fully formed.

Mr. Obama is also asking a divided Congress to vote this month to authorize the U.S. military to train pro-Western rebels in Syria who, like Islamic State, are battling the Assad regime. As part of that request, Mr. Obama wants lawmakers to approve a $500 million counterterrorism fund that would help arm and train the rebels.

The plan wouldn’t draw on U.S. combat troops “fighting on foreign soil,” Mr. Obama said. “This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground.”

Lawmakers from both parties signaled there was support for training and equipping the rebels, though many members said they wanted to hear more details from the president.

Mr. Kerry and Iraq’s new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, outlined part of the new U.S. strategy to combat Islamic State by forming a new Iraqi national guard to be made up largely of Sunni fighters located in contested areas of western Iraq.

These units will receive training from the Iraqi army, the U.S. and allied Arab states. U.S. and Iraqi officials hope they will allow for Baghdad’s government to overcome sectarian grievances with the Iraqi military that has emboldened Islamic State.

“This national guard, as it has been called, will protect the population of Iraqi cities and towns, and it will also deny space for” Islamic State, Mr. Kerry said Wednesday. “As it does that, it is going to be the key to guaranteeing that Iraq’s territorial integrity can be kept intact and, in fact, unthreatened.”

Mr. Obama said the group poses a threat to American interests, and if not confronted, could harm the U.S. While U.S. officials haven’t detected a specific plot from the Islamic State on American soil, Mr. Obama said: “Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners—including Europeans and some Americans—have joined them in Syria and Iraq.”

Wednesday night marks an inflection point in Mr. Obama’s presidency, which until now has been defined by his policies to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his reluctance to inject the U.S. military into conflicts overseas.

After overseeing the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq in 2011 and for three years resisting calls from allies and critics for U.S. military intervention in Syria, Mr. Obama is now a guiding hand in both conflicts for the remainder of his time in office.

In promising that the plan won’t deploy U.S. combat troops, and that it would include an international coalition, Mr. Obama is trying to adhere to the foreign policy doctrine he has pursued since running for the White House in 2008.

“The president is determined to ensure that the United States is not acting alone,” a second senior administration official said.

The president’s strategy, however, sets the stage for a major and prolonged deployment of American military power.

So far, the military has struck 212 Islamic State targets, intended to protect the Kurdish regional capital and important dams or support humanitarian relief missions.

The U.S. now is preparing a broader air campaign that could hit a wider variety of targets in Iraq, including Islamic State’s logistics hubs and supply lines. U.S. Air Force and Navy planes are also likely to act more directly in concert with Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the ground.

To improve coordination with Iraqi forces, Mr. Obama intends to send as many as 475 additional troops into Iraq.

More From The Wall Street Journal (subscription required):