A Deal With The Devil?
Let me start off by saying that I can only find one source to verify this story. I also want to thank BoBo for his twitter post that alerted me to it. I have found the National Review Online to be a pretty reliable source, but I will wait for outside verification before accepting this as gospel fact. Before I get into this story, I want to remind you of a moment back during the campaign. In May of 2008, then President Bush was speaking to the Israeli Parliament when he said the following.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,"
In what now appears to have possibly been a Freudian slip, President Obama defended himself from a charge that was not specifically leveled at him.
"Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel,"
Then Candidate Hillary Clinton seemed to assume the comment was directed at Obama as well when she said the following.
"President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous, on the face of it and especially in light of his failures in foreign policy," she said. "This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced."
There are very few events that take place in this world that truly sadden me. I don't mean in the Liberal "I feel your pain" kind of way. I mean that sick, wrenching feeling in the pit of your stomach kind of sad. While I have been in large part disgusted with the Obama Administration, I have taken some relief in the fact that most of the damage he has done can at some point be reversed. His Chavez like takeover of private industry could at some point be reversed when the businesses are given back to their rightful and legal owners. His push for a carbon tax seems doomed to fail at the hands of a Senate who needs to be re-elected, and hence wants little to do with the largest tax hike in American History. His "World Apology Tour" could be dismissed as the routine playing out of a tragic American mistake if he is resoundingly defeated in four years. I have considered only one of his proposals to live up to the rhetoric one hears on many other Conservative talk shows, as presenting a real threat to "America as we know it". That is, until I clicked this link.
Let me be clear that I do not wish to rush to judgment. I have attempted to validate this story, and have found this article to back it up, and I have no idea as to the credibility of the site as it is my first dealing with it. Another site called Military World also posted this article confirming it. National Review Online, however, is reporting that about two weeks ago, the Obama administration released Laith Qazali after extensive negotiations with the Asaib al-Haq terror network. This violates a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists. This policy is based on the simple common sense understanding that negotiating with terror groups simply encourages them to take more hostages to enable them to carry out further negotiations. The NRO article goes on to report the following.
The Obama administration has not only released Laith Qazali, it has been in negotiations to release his brother, Qais Qazali, as well. The negotiations and release were carried out in flagrant disregard of the longstanding policy against exchanging prisoners for the release of hostages. Undermining that policy endangers all American troops and civilian personnel — as well as the troops and civilian personnel of our allies — by encouraging terrorists to kidnap them to use as bargaining chips.
If these allegations turn out to be true, what does that mean for our Country? Obviously, it weakens us in the eyes of our enemies. Certainly it extends nothing less than an open invitation to terrorists to use our troops as pawns in a strategical chess game with this Administration. It signals to terrorists that their actions will be met not with swift reprisal, but with political negotiations. It lends an air of legitimacy to terrorist groups that is typically reserved for lawful World Governments in good standing with the International Community. It releases the terrorists back to the terror networks that they run, freeing them to commit more of the deadly activities that lead to their capture in the first place.
So what actions did these men commit? The men stand accused of masterminding a devastating attack on a US base in the city of Kerbala early in 2007 in which five American soldiers were killed. When the Khazali brothers were arrested in Basra in March 2007 the US said they had a document containing detailed military information about the Kerbala camp. The military world article goes on to point out how President Obama intends to work the deal without giving off the appearance of negotiating with terrorists.
A further problem is that the Iraqi government, Britain and the US do not want to be seen to be releasing prisoners in exchange for hostages. But a solution appears to have been found by Asaib al-Haq promising the Iraqi government that it would renounce violence and join the political process. This enabled the Iraqi government to say that the group could not do so while it held hostages, but it also suggested to the US that Asaib al-Haq could not be expected to cease armed actions while its leaders were being held in prison.
Sadly, this sounds like the faulty logical conclusions that President Obama would come to. Once again, the absolute lack of judgment evidenced be Barack's relationship with William Ayers rears its ugly head. Let's apply that logic to domestic terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Assume for a minute that the militia to which these men belonged began capturing hostages and demanding the release of their cohorts. Assume that the promised to live a peaceful life inside the political process if only they were reunited with their friends that pulled off the Oklahoma City bombing. We would mock the idea. We would ridicule anyone who suggested it. Wouldn't we?
Yet isn't that strikingly similar to what happened in the case of one William Ayers? While he openly admits to taking part in the bombing of targets here in America and openly states that he wishes he had done more, we are told that he is an esteemed professor now so we should accept him. Yet even Ayers himself didn't have the audacity to hold hostages and demand the release of his fellow Weathermen who were convicted, sentenced, and did time. Perhaps he underestimated his situation.
If this story holds as true under the scrutiny it is bound to receive in the coming days and weeks, understand what it means to this Country and for this Administration. This alleged act of President Obama lends aid and comfort to our enemy. It further emboldens terrorist groups by giving the impression that the long standing policy of non negotiation has come to an end. The only way to prevent this from happening is for our Congress to step in and meet this news with the appropriate action of Impeaching this President for treason, and that's not going to happen.
It is my sincerest hope that the National Review Online and these two other sources have this story wrong. If not, who will save us from ourselves?
Discuss This Article In The Axis Forum
