Image by jmtimages via FlickrPresident Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.via FOXNews.com - Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document.
The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."
The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document will be the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, like his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.
The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.
That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a "new beginning" in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terror and winning the war of ideas.
Yeah, winning the war on ideas on Islamists is so wrong, isn't it? Let's don't discuss flogging, honor killings and the infidels' beheadings that happens along the world...
More in Memorandum.
Crossposted from T&P.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=21d492a3-6f01-493c-beeb-1b3844b7ca6e)
6 comments:
Claudia AI,
Yet I'm certian he has no problems with the words Christian extremists.
The new enemy appears to be the "Tea Party", a group of radical extremists of all races who seek to supplant the seated Congress by voting for the opposition in November.
It's interesting to see that the enemies of the state and the NEW TERRORISTS are people who have not shown a predisposition to violence.
However, I anticipate a presidential pronouncement that white pensioners, not young Saudi Islamic radicals flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon...
Quote: ". . .The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education. . ."
So "President I Won" expands his 'spread the [US taxpayer] wealth' to fund further dawa thru jizya.
Would he perform any differently were he a devout muslim?
I wasn't attacked by a grizzly bear, I was attacked by a misguided omnivore.
@Damien:
Me neither. In fact, weren't pro-lifers named "domestic terrorists"?
@LL:
I anticipate a presidential pronouncement that white pensioners, not young Saudi Islamic radicals flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon...
Well, the former Pakistani ISI director says that US has not presented "evidence against Osama bin Laden".
So... if it's not important to "win the war on ideas", then he can think that, can't he?
This is absolutely insane...
@Anon:
Would he perform any differently were he a devout muslim?
Perhaps in that case he would be a little more cautious....
@Total:
;) Good joke...
Claudia AI,
True, and how many pro-lifers actually endorse thing like bombing abortion clinics?
Post a Comment