Donald Trump Implies Obama May Be Linked to Terror. Is He Right?




Last December, we saw 14 Americans shot down by a husband and wife terror team, at at a San Bernardino Christmas party. Sunday 49 Americans were shot dead in Orlando by a lone terrorist.


Both incidents were ISIS-inspired.


Neither Hillary Clinton, nor her former boss, Barack Obama shows any awareness that we’re in a war, nor any comprehension of the enemy. They both avoid connecting terrorism with Islam, according to them, because that would be saying we are at war with a religion. This, even though ISIS calls itself “the Islamic State.”


Donald Trump has ripped both of them for refusing to make that connection. He’s also blasted Obama’s tepid response to this war that is now being fought in our cities, saying that he “doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands.” Hillary Clinton called Trump’s remarks “shameful” and “disrespectful.” Setting aside the issue of whether Trump truly believes what he’s saying, or is talking for political effect: he has raised a legitimate question that merits examination.


Our sham war on ISIS


Since both attacks were in the name of ISIS, how fares Obama’s “War on ISIS”? In a speech, he updated what he called “our campaign to destroy the terrorist group ISIL. [Obama’s term for ISIS]” The president said we’ve ratcheted up our fight against ISIL. He also said we’ve hit them with, “so far, 13,000 airstrikes. That sure sounds like a lot.


But: he authorized targeted strikes on ISIS on August 7, 2014. That was 684 days ago – thus, there’s been an average of only19 airstrikes a day. Considering that during Desert Storm we flew some 1100 a day, that’s not a lot. As for the ratcheting up, the Department of Defense lists on its website six strikes on June 15th against ISIL in Syria and twenty in Iraq.


Can any reasonable American call that a serious effort to “destroy the terrorist group ISIL”? Those harboring doubts should compare that effort to Obama’s involvement in the ill-advised overthrow of Libya’s Qadaffi by NATO. The Daily Beast reports massive American military support for Operation Odyssey Dawn, as the action was called, during the 6-months of war to the date of the article:


“An international naval force gathered off Libya…. [A] dozen U.S. warships … were the biggest contingent in this armada. In the opening hours of the campaign, an American submarine, the USS Florida, launched 100 cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses, crucially opening an entry corridor for the airstrikes that followed.” DefenseTech.org describes the capabilities of the weapon used:


“The Tactical Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, Block IV – uses internal GPS, a video camera and a satellite data-link to allow commanders to reroute the weapon in-flight; allowing it to take pictures of potential targets, change targets and even hit moving ones. The missiles fly low-to-the ground at nearly the speed of sound for up to 900-miles to reach their targets.” The site says 200 Tomahawks were used on Libya, by the Florida and the destroyer USS Barry, by August 4, 2011, the date of the article. The page includes a video of the terrible beauty of this weapon of war, used against Iraq during Desert Storm.


ISIS is in Iraq and Syria. There’s a record of Russia’s use of an equivalent missile in Syria. Tomahawks are just not worth using against ISIS? There’s more. “U.S. tanker aircraft refueled European aircraft on the great majority of missions against Gaddafi’s forces. U.S. JSTARS surveillance aircraft tracked Qadaffi’s forces, and Predator drones relayed detailed targeting data, to limit civilian casualties.


The Daily Beast gives American airstrike data from March 19th to “late August”:


“In all, the U.S. had flown by late August more than 5,300 missions, by Pentagon count. More than 1,200 of these were strike sorties against Libyan targets.” And this was not a “war of annihilation,” as a serious attack on ISIS would be. Quick math: about 60 American air strikes a day.


Why was Obama so much more resolute in Libya? We were making sure the Libyan rebels succeeded in overthrowing Qadaffi. Who were these rebels?


In the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi interim report, perhaps aptly titled “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror,” experts like Clare Lopez, Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (Ret.), Lieutenant Colonel Allen West (Ret.) and other strategic experts concluded this:


At the time of his overthrow, Muammar Qaddafi was an ally of the United States in the Global War on Terror.


On 17 March 2011 the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1973 for a “No Fly Zone,” ostensibly to protect Libyan civilians caught up in the hostilities between Libyan government forces and the rebel forces, which were dominated by the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qa’eda.


The following day in London, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced U.S. government support for the Brotherhood-led Libyan Transitional National Council in its revolt against Qaddafi.


The U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qa’eda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion. The jihadist agenda of AQIM, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.


Taqiyya sunrise at the Obama White House


A proper defense requires knowing the enemy, Sun Tzu famously said. Certainly, any effort to confuse the nation about who or what we are fighting impairs our ability to defend ourselves. Is this merely misguided ideology, or is it giving aid and comfort to the enemy? The Left – and the enemy itself – have used political correctness to render Islam a forbidden topic of discussion, to veil the menace of jihad and to render our once-potent intelligence community farcical.


Obama and his acolyte Hillary Clinton are the top practitioners of this disinformation campaign, by denying Islam’s connection with terror. If we intend to defeat our enemy, we first must recognize this is likely a tactic to achieve our defeat – then we must reject it.


Donald Trump has declared, as president, he would suspend immigration from Muslim nations with a record of terrorism against the West, until we “are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country.”


This is at least a plan to take action, but it’s nowhere near sufficient. Perfect screening is patently impossible, because even non-terrorists will bring their medieval culture with them, and that culture is incompatible with ours.


But even Trump’s insufficient declaration was met with resistance – from Republicans, like Speaker Paul Ryan, who responded:


“The smarter way to go is to have a security test and not a religious test…. This is a war with radical Islam. It’s not a war with Islam. Muslims are our partners.”


Unfortunately, his statement is similar to those of Obama and Hillary Clinton; it’s the polar opposite of the truth: the religion itself is the problem.


The truth is ISIS-style punishments for offenses against shariah is not an aberration of Islam – it’s mainstream Islam. Frank Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, said:


“President Obama and Hillary Clinton are struggling to deflect mounting criticism about their willful blindness to the fact that we confront a global jihad movement that seeks to destroy our country and its people. They refuse to acknowledge that many millions of Islamic supremacists – not just relative handfuls of inexplicably “violent extremists” – are using both murderous jihad and stealthy subversion to impose worldwide the brutally repressive form of totalitarianism known as sharia.”


The emasculation of our intelligence services


Ryan’s notion that “Muslims are our partners,” essentially in fighting shariah, hangs on the fantasy that there is a “moderate Islam,” itching to work with us to defeat terror. That, in turn has encouraged an appalling partnership between the FBI and the enemy itself, in the form of Islamist advocacy groups the DOJ has “identified as fronts for international terrorist organizations” in court.”


The advocates of PC scored their greatest win in 2011 when, as Patrick Poole wrote in TheBlaze, the Obama White House compelled the FBI and other agencies to purge all federal government training materials of biased materials – content linking Islam with terror – in response to a letter signed by fifty-seven U.S. Islamic groups, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and CAIR. It was sent to Obama’s ‘counterterrorism czar’ John Brennan,” who is CIA director, today. Interestingly, Brennan refers to Jerusalem as “al Quds.”


CAIR and ISNA were among the groups the Bush DOJ had identified as terror fronts.


On February 8, 2012, FBI Director Mueller met with representatives of some of the Islamic groups that had signed the demand letter. A report on ISNA’s website reflected that “more than 160,000 pages of documents, were reviewed by subject matter experts multiple times. Consequently, more than 700 documents and 300 presentations of material have been deemed unusable by the Bureau and pulled from the training curriculum.” [Emphasis added.]


As for exactly what was purged, a study done by terrorism expert Stephen Coughlin for Rep. Louis Gohmert revealed that certain words – some of which were used hundreds of times in the 9/11 Commission Report – had vanished from the FBI’s Counter-Terrorism Analytical Lexicon, words like: “Islam,” “Muslim,” “jihad,” even “Al-Qaeda.”


Yet, then-FBI director Mueller told members of the House Judiciary Committee in 2012 that “I can say absolutely and with certainty that political correctness played no role in the efforts I undertook to make certain that we will give the best training to our personnel.”


When members of Congress asked for the names of the “subject matter experts” who had reviewed the training materials, the FBI classified their names.


The consequences of impairing national security


Has this hobbling of our security services compromised the War on Terror?  WND reports: “Newly retired Department of Homeland Security agent Philip Haney discovered that a case he had developed while on the job might have prevented the San Bernardino attack if it had not been shut down by his agency and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.


“Now, Haney tells WND that the mosque where Orlando killer Omar Mir Siddique Mateen worshiped several times a week also has a tie to that case.” That case, which Haney developed in 2011 uncovered “a worldwide Islamic movement known as Tablighi Jamaat,” said WND, “Within a few months, the case drew the ‘concern’ of the State Department and the DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office because the Obama administration believed it unfairly singled out Muslims.”


After the Orlando shooting, Haney – within a few hours – discovered open-source information linking the shooter’s mosque, the Islamic Center of Ft. Pierce, with the Institute of Islamic Education, which was “a major component of Haney’s Tablighi Jamaat case.” Because the Administration also deleted 67 files that contained info on the Institute, the FBI was unable to make the connection when they had Mateen under investigation.


Trump is likely unaware of all this, but apparently his accusation was on target.