Obama and Clinton did create the Islamic State!
By Mark Alexander
Predictably, the vacuum left by the 2011 Obama-Clinton retreat from Iraq created the resurgence of a far more dangerous incarnation of global Muslim terrorism.
He is, of course, correct. But Trump refuses to accept the fact that he has no control over how Leftmedia talkingheads spin whatever he says — and spin they did!
Now, anyone with a lick of common sense knows that Trump wasn't being literal; that he wasn't asserting that Obama and Clinton went to Iraq and filed documents of incorporation to establish ISIL and the Islamic State. Unfortunately, common sense is not common among the dumbed-down mass media. And, sadly, it's even more rare among low-information voters whose worldview is shaped by the mass media.
Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt gave Trump the opportunity to clarify his statement, asking him, "You meant that he created the vacuum — he lost the peace?" Trump responded, "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS. ... I give him the most valuable player award. I give it [to Hillary] too, by the way."
Apparently he didn't read the recent editorial from New York Times' media editor Jim Rutenberg suggesting that journalists have an obligation to display prejudicial views against Trump.
In his recent opinion/analysis, "Trump is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism," Rutenberg insisted, "If you believe [Trump is dangerous], you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century and approach it in a way you've never approached anything in your career. [Your reporting must] move closer than you've ever been to being oppositional."
Rutenberg notes, "That is uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I've ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? ... It upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital 'J' we've been trained to always strive for."
Really? "Mainstream, nonopinion journalism with a capital 'J'"? I'm not sure what "textbook of American journalism" Rutenberg thinks the Times and the vast majority of likeminded Leftmedia pontificators were using before 1965, but for the "past half-century" unmitigated journalistic bias has been the standard operating procedure at the Times.
Briefly, let me note that when it was founded in 1851, The New York Times was a struggling purveyor of crude and sensationalistic "yellow journalism" — until purchased by Adolph Ochs in 1896, who had perfected his trade first as owner of the Chattanooga Times in 1880. Ochs coined the paper's slogan, "All The News That's Fit To Print," in order to distinguish it from its primary competitor, The New York World, which was a model for the hyperbolic coverage that now dominates the MSM.
The World was the product of Joseph Pulitzer, who within two years of purchasing the paper in 1883 had turned it into the highest circulation broadsheet in New York — with the help of his ties to the Democratic Party. Pulitzer, once having seen the error of his journalistic ways, declared, prophetically, "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself."
It is ironic that the Times now claims 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news outlet, given that Adolph Ochs' wealthy leftist great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the current publisher of the Times, now presides over one of the most "cynical, mercenary, demagogic press" outlets on the planet. That would help explain the precipitous drop in its circulation in the last two decades.
But I digress...
Back to Trump's indictment of Obama and Clinton for having seeded, sprouted and nourished the Islamic State. How did they do it?
In response, nine months into the first year of his presidency, George W. Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, which had been a safe haven for al-Qa'ida. In 2003 he launched Operation Iraqi Freedom in order to remove the despotic Saddam Hussein from power and thus eliminate his ability to complete his nuclear WMD program. (Ask the Kurd's if Hussein had chemical WMD.) Bush's objective was also to keep the battle on their turf and off of ours.
Five years later, under Bush's leadership, al-Qa'ida, the world's dominant Islamic terror network, was either contained or defeated in its Middle Eastern and global areas of operation.
In 2008, an utterly unqualified freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, won the Democratic Party's presidential nomination by centering his campaign on "ending the war in Iraq."
His Republican opponent, John McCain, when asked how long we should stay in Iraq, replied, "One hundred years" — as in whatever length of time it takes to ensure that al-Qa'ida and other terrorist organizations did not re-emerge. McCain insisted we should maintain 25,000 troops in the region, basing his response on the same rationale for maintaining forces in Germany and Japan since WWII — keeping the peace, preventing the rise of another despotic regime, and providing a strategic regional bulwark.
Obama and Clinton skewered McCain for that suggestion, but he was right.
In 2009, Obama, the newly elected foreign policy neophyte, upended Bush's long-term strategy of establishing a forward military operating capability in Iraq and maintaining stability in a region where we have very critical national interests. Obama thus set a new course for retreat and withdrawal from the Middle East.
In 2011, having let expire the Bush administration's status of forces agreement (SOFA) that helped secure our hard-won gains in Iraq and the region, Obama declared, "Everything Americans have done in Iraq, all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding, the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has led to this moment of success. ... We're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq."
Just look at Iraq today.
In 2012, amid the cascading failure of his domestic economic and social policies, Obama centered his re-election campaign on his faux foreign policy successes and a couple of cynical poll-tested mantras, "Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. I did," and, "al-Qa'ida is on the run."
This false campaign narrative was the motive for Clinton's Benghazi cover-up, which put forth the lie that the attack on Americans there was prompted by an "Internet video" rather than a resurgent al-Qa'ida network of terror.
In the final 2012 presidential debate, Obama chastised his opponent, Mitt Romney: "You say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. And the challenge we have — I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong."
Despite Obama's re-election, clearly Romney, as with McCain in 2008, was right.
Predictably, the Obama-Clinton "hope and change" strategy in the region catastrophically failed. The vacuum created by the Obama-Clinton 2011 retreat from Iraq led to Shi'ite factionalism within its government, giving rise to Sunni opposition, and the emergence of ISIL and its codification as the metastasizing Islamic State terror network.
Obama and Clinton effectively created the resurgence of a far more dangerous incarnation of Muslim terrorism than that which Bush had largely defeated by 2008. The Islamic State is now the predominant asymmetric terrorist threat to our domestic, national and global security. That notwithstanding, in 2014 Obama was still insisting, "We've contained them."
And the Obama-Clinton policies in the region have unleashed an epic humanitarian crisis across the Middle East.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are, in fact, the founders of the Islamic State. Given their wanton nuclear empowerment of Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and the expanding capability of Islamic terror networks now targeting the U.S., the Islamist attack on our nation in 2001 will one day seem minor when compared to the detonation of a fissile weapon in a major urban center.
That notwithstanding, the duplicitous Leftmedia have diverted from Trump's correct contention about Obama and Clinton, and have spun it into nonsense.
Indeed, Clinton's free Leftmedia spin is worth billions of dollars in advertising, as they endeavor to create an impenetrable gauntlet to any chance of a Donald Trump election victory in November — opting instead to intentionally back Hillary Clinton and her prolific record of malfeasance.
In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote of Liberty and the First Amendment, "Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
But the press is only truly "free" if it is free from the incessant bias of partisan political agendas such as those aligned against Trump in favor of Clinton. Sadly, most of the mainstream media are slaves to the ruinous agenda of the Socialist Democratic Party.
Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.