First, here’s some background:
Andrew McCarthy Explains How The Obama Administration Has Been Infiltrated By The Muslim Brotherhoodhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibf_qKbQeEY
Published on Aug 9, 2012 by wwwMOXNEWScom
August 08, 2012 C-SPAN
Can’t watch the entire video online? Not to worry. PJ Media has the transcript.
Now for the crux of the matter:
As I’ve noted elsewhere (see here and here), the Washington Post‘s leftist columnist Dana Milbank covered my speech yesterday and writes a predictably disapproving take on it today. In it, toward the end, he mis-describes my exchange yesterday with his fellow lefty, Adam Serwer of Mother Jones.
Serwer evidently doesn’t understand the rudimentary difference between being an Islamist and being sympathetic to Islamists — or at least he pretends not to understand. So he thinks Obama’s support for same-sex marriage somehow destroys my argument that Obama is supporting the Brotherhood. This is a silly line of attack and I’ve addressed it a number of times, including in The Grand Jihad and at yesterday’s event (it’s in the Q&A section after my speech, over an hour into the event). Islamists and Leftists disagree on several points, but that does not prevent them from allying and collaborating, as they often do, on their many areas of mutual interest.
Following on Serwer, Milbank also distorts my prior assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood had concluded Osama bin Laden was “expendable.” Milbank writes:
Serwer also asked McCarthy about his 2010 suggestion that Obama was free to kill Osama bin Laden because “the Islamists [Obama] wants to engage have decided al-Qaeda is expendable” and counter to their peaceful takeover of American institutions. [Emphasis added.]
Contrary to Milbank’s suggestion, my statement about bin Laden being expendable had nothing to do with the killing of bin Laden, which happened a year later. When I made the statement in 2010, I was addressing the seeming contradiction between (a) Obama’s laudable aggressiveness in attacking al Qaeda safehavens in places like Pakistan and Yemen, and (b) Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood. The point was about political calculations — I never remotely suggested that Obama needed or thought he needed the Muslim Brotherhood’s permission to do anything.
By the time Obama became president in 2009, bin Laden had exhausted whatever use he had to the Muslim Brotherhood. Brotherhood leaders were by then condemning the 9/11 attacks, but not because they condemn terrorism — which they usually applaud. Unlike jihadist attacks in other places, strikes against the American homeland are counterproductive from their perspective. They are making good progress on their agenda of mainstreaming sharia through non-violent stealth jihad; terror attacks against our country, however, are guaranteed to provoke an aggressive response — at least in the short term. That would have the effect of rolling back the Brotherhood’s gains.
By contrast, the Brotherhood has supported al Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. personnel operating in Islamic countries — a straightforward application of classical sharia. Yet, many jihadist outfits besides al Qaeda now conduct those attacks. For purposes of the cost/benefit analysis the Brotherhood calculates on everything it does, al Qaeda’s contribution to that effort is welcome, but it is not necessary to sustain the effort.
To sum it up: By the time of his demise, Osama bin Laden had already served his purpose in furthering Islamic expansionism. In 2010, MB kingpin Yusuf al-Qaradawi asked western Muslims to “cool it” by holding off on the open terrorism for now, so as to make it easier for the MB to infiltrate western societies and attain power from within. Therefore, Osama bin Laden was now a political liability for the Muslim Brotherhood, in that his very existence drew attention to the likelihood of further terror attacks on US soil and to the great danger of Islam to the rest of us.
By agreeing (albeit reluctantly) to the Seal Team Six operation to kill Osama bin Laden, Obama disposed of a man who had become a political liability for the Muslim Brotherhood, and at the same time, gained an opportunity to portray himself as a victor in the “war on terror.”