Politically Incorrect Words Censored by White House
Apparently the United States is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism," fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war." The only terminology officially permitted in the White House to describe our fight against terrorism is that we are "at war with al Qaeda."
John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office said, "The President does not describe this as a war on terrorism. We are at war with al Qaeda. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."
Brennan went on to discuss White House plans to increase aid to foreign governments for building up their military and social institutions, and to reduce factors that create environments where terrorists are bred, but he did not specify how the Obama administration plans to do that.
According to Brennan, President Obama is concerned about the way certain words influence how America views the fight against terrorism. One example Brennan cited is that it's wrong to say we are fighting jihadists because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal." He also said it risks "reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself."
Is the war on terror really over? The Obama administration can call it whatever they like, but forbidding certain words from being spoken in the White House does not change the fact that terrorism is still alive and well. The labels and political rhetoric used to describe the war on terror make no difference to those who want to harm us.
Published by Kim Linton
Kim Linton began her writing career in 2001 as a contributor for Ministrymaker Magazine. Kim's work has since been published on a variety of websites including Woman's Day and Intel, and featured on several... View profile
- Rudy Giuliani Riding the War on TerrorRudy Giuliani has found his defining issue in the War on Terror. While this issue is currently a good one for Candidate Giuliani, the question is how far can attachment to this single issue really take him in his run...
- The War on Terror: A Tragedy of Errors - Why It's Time to Cut Our Losses and RunThe so-called "war on terror" cannot be won by sending troops to fight in Iraq. The best way to achieve homeland security is to bring the troops home and begin using our human and financial resources to protect our na...
- 24, Fiction and the War On TerrorFighting the War on Terror is all that some presidential candidates have to offer
- Fighting the War on TerrorThe creation of a new combatant command for Africa is a recognition that the war on terror extends beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Is America Losing the War on Terror?Bush and Co. claim the war on terror is being won and that leaving Iraq would bring terrorists to your back door. Apparently, they are the only people in Washington who believe these things.
- Articles in Sociology: Discussing the 'War on Terror'
- At Least in Words, There is No More 'War on Terror'
- Is the War on Terror Winnable?
- Big Government Wants to Ban Big Food
- Bush vs. Iraq: How the war on terror became a war on Iraqi human rights
- War on Terror
- President Bush and "The War on Terror"
- The White House plans to increase aid to foreign governments to help build up their military.
- The Obama administration believes it's wrong to say we are fighting jihadists.
- Terminology used in the White House to describe terrorism has changed.
51 Comments
Post a CommentAmen to Janet Hunt's and Tony Vega's comments. It hasn't been that long since 9/11 for me, but I guess once a muslim always a muslim that will take up for all terrorists everywhere--especially the ones in that area of the world. And, it does seem that all common sense in the White house is gone until he is out of office. Great piece here Kim!
Johnny Yuma
First of all, I think Larry's comment was kind of rude. Next - I have to agree with Kristie - the last paragraph sums it up perfectly. It doesn't really matter what we call it...and the people who want to hurt us don't care, either.
Kim, in no way was "Larry (Guest)" appropriate, but I do believe President Obama is trying to figure out how to isolate and snuff true terrorists as opposed to fighting a general "war on terrorism" in which so many innocents are killed and maimed. I'm trusting the President. I don't think he's trying to censor "certain words from being spoken." He is just trying to focus on getting to the root of the evil. ~~~ mike ~~~
Yes, Kimmy, it's a terrible thing when blatant lies and propaganda are replaced with the facts and the truth: "at war with al Qaeda."
You see, in all Bush's arrogance and of course the plenty of ignorant Americans who lap this garbage up, America can never 'defeat terrorism'. It would be akine to declaring a 'war on evil' - not possible.
If at war with terrorism - start at home. Enough terrorists in the USA to keep right wing loons like yourself and the boneheads agreeing with you busy.
You people are dumber than the average beaver.
I always think it's hysterical when someone declares that two parties no longer have a dispute. Maybe he doesn't get that we didn't start the fire (resist Billy Joel...resist).
OBAMA'S worst is yet to come is what I beleive. I hope God can forgive my foolish pride for saying this.It's always good to find those who walk with the Lord and care about our country.Thanks
You summed it up so well in the next to the last paragraph. I couldn't agree more.
Excellent job!
Thanks for the update!
I just have to subscribe to you because I always forget to stop by to see what you are up to!! When I read this last week, I was flabbergasted! What the heck is this all about? Crazy nonsense, that's what! Oh...what next, Kim!