Fiery 'Mr. President, Why Are You So Afraid of Words?' Judge Jeanine Blasts Obama's 'Dithering' ISIS Strategy
Last night, Judge Jeanine Pirro issued a scathing criticism of President Barack Obama's strategy for the war against the Islamic state, namely that he refuses to acknowledge that it's a war, both against Islamists and a state.
"After weeks of dithering on ISIS - no strategy, containing them, degrading and destroying them - finally, we are clear-eyed: a definitive counter-terrorism campaign against the Islamic state," Pirro said in her opening statement. "But not against Islam and not against a state."
"So, who are we fighting? Mr. President, why are you so afraid of words?"
Watch Pirro’s opening statement above, and read the full transcript below.
"After weeks of dithering on ISIS - no strategy, containing them, degrading and destroying them - finally, we are clear eyed. A definitive counter-terrorism campaign against the Islamic state. But not against Islam and not against a state.
So, who are we fighting? Mr. President, why are you so afraid of words?
You scrub national security documents of the word jihad - which is Muslim for "a war against unbelievers".
Why did your CIA director scrub "Islamist" before terrorists in the Benghazi talking points?
And why is the Ft. Hood shooter engaging in 'workplace violence' when he yells ‘Allahu Akbar’ and his business card says "soldier of Allah"?
Just weeks before a midterm election - the vast majority of Americans, Mr. President, believe you don't have a clue about foreign policy.
You refuse to use the word “war". What's with the "counter terrorism offensive"? Who do you think you are - Jack Bauer? This isn't "24".
When you bomb people, send in drones to kill people order a thousand military advisors to Iraq and they cut off our heads, I've got news for you - we're at war! Even your own pentagon says "we know we're at war." So, why?
Might not saying the word "war" allow your buddies in congress to avoid a war vote in an election year? And not sending ground troops be part of the same political calculation? Even the NY times says that your so-called Arab allies offer only "tepid support".
Now, the Arab world has everything to gain by the destruction of ISIS but are reluctant to join you because you are not a true ally, you are not a man of your word and because you are not there for them...
Evidence: Egypt. You supported the overthrow of American ally Mubarak for Muslim Brother Morsi. You remember your 2009 apology for being an American speech in Cairo where you handpicked two front rows of Muslim brothers.
Even Egyptians ousted this Muslim brother because he was too extreme: imposed Sharia law, released terrorists from prison and tried to give parts of Egypt to terrorists.
Their newly elected president has still not gotten the arms you gave to the Muslim brothers as they fight their own war against Islamic extremists.
Evidence: you got out of Iraq too soon. The consequences were predicted by your predecessor:
"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we're ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we'd be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous." – President George W. Bush
I guess he was right. Arabs in the region knew there would be chaos.
Evidence: Jordan. Saudi Arabia. And the United Arab Emirates were all ready to fight in Syria. But you backed out in spite of that red line. And so, the Arab world avoids specific commitments.
You want to avoid mistakes of the past? At least president GW Bush got 49 countries to support the Al Qaeda war. So far, you have nine. Your strategy has been feckless since day one.
You messed up big time by disclosing your failed attempt to rescue those now beheaded American journalists.
But you're clear eyed: “Now let's make two things clear. ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.” – President Barack Obama
Isis is not Islamic? I know the truth is hard for you - but let's get one thing straight. ISIS - your so called JV team - now up to 31,000 - is Islamic.
They are radical extremist Muslims, clearly a perverted form of Islam - just like Christian extremists who use Christianity as an excuse to kill. And yes they are killing moderate Muslims. Egypt - the largest nation in the Middle East - 80% Muslim - refers to them as Islamic extremists and terrorists.
Why is it so hard for you to say "Islamic extremists" or "radical Muslim terrorists"? If they're not Muslim extremists - why do they yell "Allahu Akbar"? If they're not Muslim - why is their leader Abu Baghdadi a PhD in Islamic studies? If they're not Muslim - why do they implement Sharia law? Why do they call for a caliphate - a central doctrine in Sunni Islam? And if they're not Islamic - why do they call themselves an Islamic state?
And by the way, Mr. President, what is the common denominator of Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al-Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, Taliban and ISIS? I know the truth is hard for you.
The fact that you say the majority of the victims are Muslims is irrelevant. Moderate Muslims not extreme enough for these terrorists die. And by the way, I don't know of any Christians blowing themselves up to meet 70 virgins.
And if the terrorists are not Muslims, why did a whole city of one million Christians run for their lives? And if they're not Muslims, why do we give them Koran’s when we imprison them?
And with all due respect, Mr. President, seeing as you can't figure out your own constitution's First Amendment and freedom of religion - who are you to say what is Muslim and what isn't?"
Watch the clip above.