David Petraeus’s recent opinion piece in The Washington Post entitled “Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamic terrorists” targeted Donald Trump’s recommendation about curbing Muslim immigration. The retired general’s accusations are typical of the rash of strawman arguments now common from the Obama/Clinton camps.
Indeed there is rhetoric out there that arguably helps our enemies. For example, President Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to acknowledge that we are at war with Radical Islam. “Islam is a religion of peace,” and the terrorists are “not representative of the Islamic faith,” we’re told. Obama even goes so far as to equate the Islamic terrorist attacks happening today with the Crusades, almost a millennia in our rearview.
That kind of pretzel logic does benefit the terrorists, particularly when it comes from a sitting commander in chief and she who would succeed him.
Donald Trump’s comments were in response to the San Bernardino slaughter, another terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamic extremists. Trump seeks to have a national debate about our immigration policies and how to make America less susceptible to attacks from radical Islamists. “We have a serious problem. It’s a temporary ban” Trump told Brian Kilmeade of Fox News. “This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.”
For that Petraeus dialed up the bigot card: “I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse . . . against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.” Petraeus adds “those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaida and the Islamic State.”
Well, there was no “hate speech,” as Petraeus calls it, prior to 9/11 when Islamic terrorists flew airplanes into the Pentagon and the twin towers. Ditto for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the simultaneous attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in 2000, at the Boston Marathon, or countless others, all of which were carried out by terrorists who self-identify as Muslims.
That might be an “inconvenient truth,” but it is nonetheless true, and we ignore it at our peril.
We get the same fabricated premise from President Obama, who insists upon freeing the worst of the worst terrorists in Guantanamo, many of whom his own administration acknowledges will resume killing us. Because, we’re told, Guantanamo is a “recruiting tool” for terrorists.
See the short list above for terrorist attacks carried out prior to the existence of Gitmo. If Petraeus wishes to cite things that make Americans less safe, he could start there.
Not surprisingly, those who are speaking loudest against Trump are also those whose actions have arguably compromised our national security. That includes one each David Petraeus, who deliberately mishandled classified documents, to include illegally giving them to his mistress.
It includes Secretary of State Clinton, who set up her own insecure and imminently hackable personal server, loaded it with thousands of state secrets and then lied about it.
It includes President Obama, who cut a legacy-building nuclear deal with Iran. A deal with insufficient means of verification that gives hundreds of billions of dollars to a rogue nation bent on Israel’s destruction.
A deal that removes economic and military sanctions and puts the world’s biggest state sponsor of terror on a glide path to a nuclear bomb.
And Trump is the problem?
What is really happening is that intolerance of other views has taken firm hold of the political left in America. Be it Democratic politicians or on college campuses, “hate speech” is now any idea with which they don’t agree.
The left worships at the alter of diversity, unless it is diversity of thought. It is unfortunate if Petraeus, who was known for his ability to “think outside of the box” during his military career, is affixing himself to this oppressive drive to eliminate public discourse.
Clearly our immigration policies should be reviewed. FBI Director Comey reports active ISIS investigations ongoing in all 50 states. And then there is Tashfeen Malik, one-half of the deadly San Bernardino duo, who had more red flags in her profile than a Bernie Sanders rally. Yet she waltzed right in on a fiancé visa.
How many more Maliks are out there?
The fact is that there exist large factions of Islamic terrorists who are determined to murder as many Americans as possible, regardless of what we say or do.
A temporary pause in Muslim immigration may or may not be a viable solution. But enough with the dangerous, lockstep political correctness coming from our political leaders. Find the courage to have a wide-ranging discussion about how to protect the Homeland.
Respectfully, Petraeus, that isn’t “inflammatory discourse”; that’s just common sense.
Patrick Murray (colonel, U.S. Army, retired) was part of a military-diplomatic exchange program between the Pentagon and Department of State, where he served in the Bureau of Political Military Affairs in Washington, D.C. In 2005, Murray became the U.S. representative to the Military Staff Committee at the United Nations in New York under Ambassador John Bolton. After retiring from the Army in 2009, Patrick became the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress in Northern Virginia. He is the author of "Government is the Problem." For more of his reports, Go Here Now.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.