COPYCAT

What is it about the UK that Obama is in love with? At first, its health care system and socialist framework stands out. But now, we see him copying a poor play in their foreign policy book too. In a PJTV news article, I read

Last month, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and her senior staff privately met in Washington, D.C., with a select group of Muslim, Arab, and Sikh organizations. Among the mix were three organizations directly associated with an outlawed terrorist entity — the Muslim Brotherhood........

This program was imported from the United Kingdom. The Obama administration has decided to replicate the UK program to win over Muslims and to get them to collaborate with the federal government.

I gave the article a full read, trying to see if the plan to talk with this group of Muslims will be helpful. Unfortunately, all I see is them talking to the enemy, giving them their playbook.

The program requires bringing in Muslim groups as “partners” in a two-way information sharing program.

Walid Phares, director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, criticized the partnership concept:

“Through the so-called ‘partnership’ between the Jihadi-sympathizer networks and U.S. bureaucracies, the U.S. government is invaded by militant groups.” He warned that this policy embraced by the Obama administration “is how American national security policy has been influenced” by Muslim groups, who are duping administration officials.

A former U.S. intelligence officer told PJM:

The “counter-radicalization” program is something that the other side created for us. … It initially started in Britain. The Muslim Brotherhood groups suggested it. We went over there and got it. We thought it was a great idea and now we’re using it. It’s the enemy giving us a way to destroy ourselves.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological foundation for today’s terrorist organizations in the Islamic world. Founded in 1928, it is the oldest Islamic fundamentalist political group in modern times. Originally called the Society of the Muslim Brothers, today it is a hardcore supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah and considered the inspirational “father” of al-Qaeda itself.

It's nice to know we're in such good hands (forgive the sarcasm).

Reaction to the Napolitano meeting with the radical organizations was largely negative. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), a member of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Pajamas Media that while she applauded the administration’s effort to address domestic radicalization, she was “appalled” at the meeting with the radicals:

It is clear government agencies and officials do not get it. … [The meeting] is a dangerous policy and weakens our national security.

A former intelligence officer for the U.S. government told Pajamas Media:

The fact that the government reaches out to these groups, more than any other factor shows you how broken our intelligence apparatus is.

Steve Emerson, an internationally regarded anti-terrorism expert and the founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said:

[The meetings displayed] a fundamental naïveté and glaring lack of critical knowledge about the source of jihadism in the world today, which is the Muslim Brotherhood. … I’m not sure she understands what the Muslim Brotherhood is. It’s the parent of al-Qaeda and all terrorist groups, and confirmed by all the intelligence chiefs.

Rep. Sue Myrick:

Some of these groups DHS is involving in their meetings are presenting themselves as moderates, when in fact they are radical Islamists whose actions are part of the problem, and who will never be part of the solution. It is clear government agencies and officials do not get it.

Part of me hopes that its merely naivete and stupidity that is the cause of this flawed strategy rather than a deliberate step toward giving America over to the terrorists. I don't want to be conspiracy theorist, but some of their comments and actions sometimes makes me wonder. An example is wanting to retreat from Iraq before we achieved victory. More than once I've thought to myself, "who are they for?" Closing Gitmo, promising the terrorists that they won't be tortured, wanting to prosecute CIA agents for torture even though they were following the rules given to them, and giving the enemy their Miranda rights are more examples among others that make me question their allegiances.