White House: 'War on terrorism' is over

Vel

Platinum Member
Oct 30, 2008
7,007
4,018
1,030
Tennessee
Damn.. all this time we were just seeing things wrong. I think this administration is dangerously naive.


White House: 'War on terrorism' is over

'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms
By Jon Ward and Eli Lake WASHINGTON TIMES

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."
President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.



White House: 'War on terrorism' is over - Washington Times
 
From the article:

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

======================================

al Qaeda is the primary group the U.S. is fighting is it not? The phrase "war on terror" is an ambiguous and imbecilic phrase, in my opinion.
 
I welcome the specificity. Yes, we are at war with al Qai'da. "War on terror" had a tendency to imply that we're assuming the world policeman role.

Now, as for Obama having the stones to do what's right when it comes to killing terrorists, well, that's another topic.
 
The white house is waging a war on common sense.

because they acknowledged that you can't wage a war on an ideology? How curious. If we had fought "the war on fascism instead of a war against the nazi's, we'd still be fighting WWII.

The white house is waging a war on common sense.

And the White House is waging a war on terminology...again.

Remember "man-caused disasters".

What a bunch of boobs we got runnin' things up there.

heck of a lot better than the last eight years....
 
Maybe they will soon call it the war on pro life, gun owning, Jesus loving, freedom loving, working people ...yeah that is the ticket

Get on welfare, sign up for cash for clunkers or any other program, you will be safe.
 
"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

Works for me.

Changing the terminology isn't a minor deal.

Words have consequences, folks.
 
because they acknowledged that you can't wage a war on an ideology? How curious. If we had fought "the war on fascism instead of a war against the nazi's, we'd still be fighting WWII.
You mean like 'the war to end all wars' or 'the war to defend democracy', those kinds of ideologies?

heck of a lot better than the last eight years....
If Bush is the benchmark, anything can beat it, its the same as saying nothing.

BTW, I'll take Bush and his stupid wars over Obama and his stupid wars and insane spending.
 
"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

Works for me.

Changing the terminology isn't a minor deal.

Words have consequences, folks.

The left has been playing word games for years. With many consequences, and now we are at the point of erasing a term. :cuckoo:

Self destruct mode, is what the libs are on, by being complacent with this

We are at war with Islamofacism. But it seems the administration has a different war in mind
 

Forum List

Back
Top