Dhimmi-witted; the Obama Apologists

When George W. Bush occupied the office currently held by the Apologizer-in-Chief, he was roundly criticized by the Left for the seeming soft line taken towards the Saudis. Yet those voices have remained strangely silent in regards to his successor, who has turned softlining into an art form. According to a piece by Scott Wheeler in Newsmax:

---

“Democrats have been curiously silent on the issue of Obama’s affection for the Saudis, especially considering the fact that, when Bush was president, his relationship with the Saudis was a constant source of conspiracy mongering among the left. Sen. John Kerry sought to exploit Bush’s need for Saudi cooperation in the war on terror in the 2004 election. And who could forget the Democrats’ favorite film of that year: Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9-11,” which masqueraded as evidence of the Bush administration’s complicity with the Saudis in the attacks. Obama has declared whose side he is on; now the question is whether the Democrats prove to be as duplicitous on this issue as they do on most everything else.” Indeed, indeed; we were treated to endless clips of Bush holding hands with the Saudi king-a practice that signified equality in the Arab culture while Obama`s undisavowed bow signifies submission. Who is the one fornicating with the Saudi Royals? Bush knew that America had economic ties with them, and (wisely) tried to maintain good relations, but he never did make acts of submission to them. I say wisely because 1. Including Saudi Arabia as a target in the War on Terror would have been economic suicide 2. The Saudis were the beneficiaries of Bush the Elder`s protection from Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I and THAT was what lead to the attack on the Twin Towers and the second Gulf War-and the Saudi king understood this debt 3. The Saudis are aren`t overly popular in the Islamic world and are vulnerable to pressure. 4. Including the Saudis in the Axis of Evil would REALLY have turned the entire Islamic world against us as it would appear we were trying to establish a crusader empire and conquer their holiest of holies. Moslems would never tolerate infidels around Mecca, and none of the old colonial powers dared even try. Britain nibbled on the edges of the Arabian peninsula but never dared move inland, for fear of worldwide Jihad. We have been told ad-infinitum that we cannot fight the entire Islamic world, and the Left has always told us to respect the customs of others, but it turns out that they actually do want us to fight the whole Islamic world and disrespect their customs-at least when Republicans are in charge. Now the the O is in they want us to acquiesce to the most craven of Dhimmi acts to make nice. I agree the Saudis are a serious problem, but one that could be managed through diplomacy and economic pressure (of course, now that Obama has tossed away trillions of dollars that economic option is closed as we cannot afford an OPEC embargo). Bowing to medieval despots will not lessen their threat, only exacerbate the problem as their confidence grows. Peace has never been won by cowards. Bush may have treated them as equals and partners, but liege. Obama acts in a craven manner, consistent with either holding Dhimmi status (non-Moslem accepting the overlordship of Islam) or as a true Believer. This cravenness is his idea of rapprochement, but to the Islamic world (where strength is the first virtue) this appears as nothing but cowardice. Osama Bin-Laden pointed to America`s retreat from Lebanon and Mogadishu as proof that the U.S. was a cowardly place and that repeated attacks would eventually force an American retreat. Obama`s craven actions are not being interpreted as reasonableness but rather as weakness-and in the process is making Bin-Laden`s case. How many Jihadist training camps are filling because the American President is showing himself to be weakling? Of course, the Apologist-in-Chief has plenty of help from his friends in Congress and the media, who would rather reign in Hell as it were; the road to power has alwaysrequired getting foreign affairs out of the way, and they have labored so long todosothat they have come to believe their own propaganda. Without leadership we will blunder into worse trouble, and at present we have less than no leadership-we have harmful leaders who are feeding the beast. They are dhimmi-witted at best. But, no matter what happens, this Administration will always have George W. Bush to blame. Thank you for reading American Daily Review, conservative commentary without compromise