Mark my words, it’s coming.

You can see it by merely reading between the lines of the news of that last few days.

Don’t be surprised if, even before the election takes place, or shortly after, Barack Obama gives the word to start freeing some of the most dangerous terrorist captives as a way of appeasing the Islamic world and especially the Muslim Brotherhood, which is throwing its weight around the Middle East.

You probably read stories recently about how Obama “considered” releasing the “blind sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, to Egypt to quell the uprising there.

Now, just to remind you of who the “blind sheikh” is: He was the mastermind of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. His goal was to destroy the Twin Towers eight years before his friends and allies did so on Sept. 11, 2001. More than 1,000 people were injured in that attack. Abdel-Rahman was convicted in a court of law of those offenses.

Yet, just a few days ago, a three-page intelligence report was unearthed that revealed just two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited “sons of Egypt” to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh “even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.”

Of course, that should surprise no one. But what should shock us to our very core is the fact that the U.S. State Department began “actively negotiating” with Egypt’s president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody.

State Department mouthpiece Victoria Nuland discounted the report – sort of. Here’s what she said: “Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the ‘blind sheikh,’ there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians.”

No plan? To my knowledge? We have not been approached?

That’s not really answering the following questions: Did the U.S. State Department consider releasing him? Would the U.S. State Department consider releasing him? Is there any scenario under which the U.S. State Department or Barack Obama would consider releasing him?

I believe the answer to all three is an emphatic “yes.”

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see it happen – sooner rather than later.

Think about it. Just suppose Egypt promised not to attack Israel and to observe the Camp David Accords in exchange for the release of this terrorist mastermind.

Do you really believe Obama wouldn’t make that deal?

Suppose Egypt said it would prevent any future attacks on the U.S. Embassy or U.S. interests in exchange for this psychopath.

Do you really believe Obama wouldn’t make that deal?

Suppose the new Libyan government made a similar offer.

Do you really believe Obama wouldn’t make that deal?

I’m sure he would.

Right now, Obama needs time. He doesn’t want to see the Middle East blow up in his face any more than it already has before Election Day.

He might send them Michelle if he could get such an assurance.

That’s the way his twisted mind works. He would do anything – and I mean anything – to secure four more years.

It’s just a matter of time.

In fact, if he is re-elected, God forbid, it’s a guarantee.

He won’t release Jonathan Pollard, who represents no threat to anyone, to Israel for his bogus spying charge.

But he would happily release the “blind sheikh,” a cold-blooded murderer to a hostile Muslim country, in a heartbeat if the right-sounding deal came along.

That’s who Barack Obama is. That’s what our State Department is like. And that’s just one more reason why we need a change at the top in November if we are to save this country from disaster.

 

Receive Joseph Farah's daily commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Joseph Farah’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Where we will email your daily updates
  • A valid zip code or postal code is required
  • Click the button below to sign up for Joseph Farah's daily commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

 

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.