About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Crowley, Fox & Friends advance false claim that Obama is reluctant to "acknowledge ... war on terror"

January 06, 2010 10:54 am ET — 93 Comments

In a Washington Times op-ed, nationally syndicated radio host Monica Crowley advanced the false right-wing talking point that President Obama does not use the word "terror" when describing attacks on the United States; on the January 6 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade echoed Crowley's attack, falsely claiming that the Obama administration "won't even acknowledge that we're in the war on terror or that a terror strike could occur." Crowley also falsely claimed that "we hear little to no true condemnation of these acts from the Muslim world," when, in fact, Muslim groups in the United States routinely condemn terrorism.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Crowley and Kilmeade falsehood: Obama administration uses "euphemisms" instead of "terror" to describe attacks

Crowley: Obama uses "euphemisms" when discussing terrorism instead of describing "the truth: terror against the infidel carried out in the name of Islam as part of a global jihadi movement." From Crowley's January 6 op-ed:

If you are trying to keep track of President Obama's euphemisms about the war against Islamic terror, he just added a new one. In his weekly radio address, he replaced "global war on terror" with "war on a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." In another attempt to be "anything-but-Bush," Mr. Obama has turned the simple, descriptive acronym "GWOT" into the mangled "WFRNVH." I think even members of al Qaeda are perplexed over the American president's determination to make even simple concepts maddeningly complex.

The "WFRNVH" now joins a motley collection of other powder-puff phrases the Obama administration is using to describe the current war, the attacks against us, and those who carry them out: "Extremism." "Attempted." "Isolated." "Incident." "Man-made disaster." "Overseas contingency operation."

Everything but the truth: terror against the infidel carried out in the name of Islam as part of a global jihadi movement.

Over a week after the Christmas Day terrorist attack aboard Northwest flight 253, Mr. Obama finally acknowledged that it was an al Qaeda operation, planned in Yemen. (And no, it was not an "attempted" attack -- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got as far as lighting an explosives-driven fire on an airplane in order to rain bodies on Detroit.)

But that's where Mr. Obama's recognition of the true nature of the threat ended. And it's precisely what's missing from his attempts to prosecute the "WFRNVH."

Kilmeade: Obama administration "won't even acknowledge that we're in the war on terror or that a terror strike could occur." On Fox & Friends, Kilmeade and his guest, Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney, echoed Crowley's argument that Obama and his administration shy from acknowledging terrorism. Kilmeade claimed that Obama "called the attacker [Northwest airline bomber] an 'isolated extremist,' and asked: "Can we trust the government to protect us from terrorism when they won't even acknowledge that we're in the war on terror or that a terror strike could occur?" Gaffney said that "the uses of euphemisms for the fight we're in, I think is deeply worrying and it is contributed, I'm concerned, to our enemy's perception that we're not serious."

From the January 6 edition of Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: It was last year, right after Janet Napolitano was confirmed as the nation's secretary of Homeland Security, that she tried to explain why she doesn't say "war on terror," saying, quote -- and here it is: "Although I did not use the word terrorism, I referred to man-caused disaster. It demonstrates we want to move away from the politics of fear." Well, after the attempted bombing of an airline over Christmas, she said, "The system worked," and that was the quote. And President Obama called the attacker an "isolated extremist."

Can we trust the government to protect us from terrorism when they won't even acknowledge that we're in the war on terror or that a terror strike could occur? Frank Gaffney is the president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. Frank, do those terms -- does that terminology -- does that worry you?

GAFFNEY: Well, I think the uses of euphemisms for the fight we're in, I think is deeply worrying and it is contributed, I'm concerned, to our enemy's perception that we're not serious. And what that means to them is they should redouble their efforts. And specifically, as we've talked about here many times, Brian, what that translates into is more of the violent kind of jihad, that their ideology -- they call it "Sharia" -- requires them to engage in.

In fact, Obama routinely uses the word "terror" and did so in discussing attempted Christmas Day attack

Sargent: "[T]he plain fact is that Obama has used the word 'terror' and its variants lots and lots and lots of times." As The Plum Line's Greg Sargent wrote in a blog post, "No matter how many times critics say otherwise, the plain fact is that Obama has used the word 'terror' and its variants lots and lots and lots of times." Sargent also noted that despite Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-SC) claim that Obama is not "willing to use the word," "[i]n his weekly address only 24 hours before DeMint made his claim, Obama used the term 'terror,' 'terrorism,' or 'terrorists' a half dozen times."

Obama repeatedly referred to the attempted Christmas Day attack as a "terrorist attack." In response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day, Obama addressed the nation on the incident and repeatedly described the attack as a "terrorist attack." From his December 28 remarks:

Good morning, everybody. I wanted to take just a few minutes to update the American people on the attempted terrorist attack that occurred on Christmas Day and the steps we're taking to ensure the safety and security of the country.

[...]

Thanks to the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew, the suspect was immediately subdued, the fire was put out, and the plane landed safely. The suspect is now in custody and has been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft.

A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.

[...]

Second, I've ordered two important reviews, because it's absolutely critical that we learn from this incident and take the necessary measures to prevent future acts of terrorism.

The first review involves our watch list system, which our government has had in place for many years to identify known and suspected terrorists so that we can prevent their entry into the United States. Apparently the suspect in the Christmas incident was in this system, but not on a watch list, such as the so-called no-fly list. So I have ordered a thorough review, not only of how information related to the subject was handled, but of the overall watch list system and how it can be strengthened.

On December 29, Obama again described attack as a "terrorist attack" and used the word "terrorist" several times. From Obama's December 29 statement:

Good morning. Yesterday I updated the American people on the immediate steps we took -- the increased screening and security of air travel -- to keep our country safe in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. And I announced two reviews -- a review of our terrorist watch list system and a review of our air travel screening, so we can find out what went wrong, fix it and prevent future attacks.

[...]

There appears to be other deficiencies as well. Even without this one report there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together. We've achieved much since 9/11 in terms of collecting information that relates to terrorists and potential terrorist attacks. But it's becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have.

December 31 statement described the incident as an "attempted act of terrorism on Christmas Day." From Obama's December 31 statement "on Preliminary Assessments from Reviews Ordered on the Christmas Day Incident":

This morning, I spoke with John Brennan about preliminary assessments from the ongoing consultations I have ordered into the human and systemic failures that occurred leading up to the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas Day and about our government-wide efforts at continued vigilance on homeland security and counterterrorism efforts. In a separate call, I spoke with Sec. Napolitano to receive an update on both the Department of Homeland Security review of detection capabilities and the enhanced security measures in place since the Christmas Day incident.

Obama's January 2 weekly address focused on the "attempted act of terrorism aboard that flight to Detroit on Christmas Day." In his January 2 weekly address, Obama repeatedly used "terror" or some variation of the word to discuss the attempted Christmas Day attack and other terrorist actions. Additionally, Obama discussed the suspect's relationship with Al Qaeda and security measures in place to help prevent future attacks.

On January 5, Obama used some form of the word "terror" at least eight different times. In his January 5 remarks on the attempted Christmas Day attack, Obama used the words "terrorist," "terrorism," "counterterrorism," or some variation of the word at least eight different times.

Crowley falsely claimed Muslims rarely condemn terror attacks

From Crowley's op-ed:

Does every Muslim commit terror? Of course not. But those who do believe they are carrying out the Koranic command to "strike terror in their [infidel] hearts." This is one of the reasons why we hear little to no true condemnation of these acts from the Muslim world. Many Muslims may not seek to kill the infidel, but they don't want to condemn those carrying out the holy book command.

Muslim groups in U.S. routinely condemn attacks, and did so in response to attempted Christmas Day attack

CAIR: "[T]he suspect 'should get swift justice.' " A December 26 Detroit Free Press article quoted spokespeople for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Community Center-Detroit condemning Abdulmutallab. From the article:

"It was shocking to us," Imam Kazeem Agboola, head of the Muslim Community Center-Detroit, told the Free Press today. The mosque, whose congregation is predominantly Nigerian, opened last year and is part of the growing community of Muslims from west Africa moving to Michigan.

Agboola said that he and other local Nigerians he has talked to know nothing about the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23.

"We don't know this individual," Agboola said. "We don't know about his mission."

Agboola said that Abdulmutallab has nothing to do with their religion. "He does not represent the goal of Islam, the mission of Islam," Agboola said.

Dawud Walid, head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said that the suspect "should get swift justice."

Walid said he hoped that some Americans wouldn't face extra profiling in light of the incident given that they had nothing to do with it.

CAIR routinely issues statements condemning terrorism. CAIR's website has an entire page dedicated to highlighting its anti-terror campaigns and statements condemning terrorism, including a "Not in the Name of Islam" petition, which is "designed to disassociate the faith of Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims."

ISNA condemned Fort Hood attack. Following the November 5 shooting at Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) issued a statement saying: "The Muslim Public Affairs Council-DC (MPAC-DC), the Islamic Society of North America Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances (ISNA) and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council (AMAFVAC) completely denounce this barbaric act of violence. All three organizations unequivocally denounce the incident in the strongest terms possible and offer their deepest condolences to the victims and their loved ones. Further, they hope and expect that law enforcement officials will resolve this matter as swiftly and justly as possible."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by thaneb (January 06, 2010 11:05 am ET)
         
      Obama does acknowledge terrorism. It is "war on terror" Crowley and her ilk are pushing. The formulation "war on terror" is rightly avoided. It raises terrorists to the status of warriors rather than criminals, something they want. Why do Crowley et al persist in conveying on terrorists the status of warriors?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (January 06, 2010 11:11 am ET)
      3  
      What is a euphemism anyway but a substitute expression? in this case global war on terror", which was a convenient short-hand construction crafted by the Bush administration at least in part to suit its political agenda. If, for whatever reasons, political included, the Obama administration chooses to use a different expression, what's the problem? It's not like renaming a cow and calling it a horse...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 11:19 am ET)
      4 6
      All these buffoons and their "war on labels". Who cares anyway? Is it a war on terror or just a war, are they Islamic terrorists or political extremists, are they homicide bombers or suicide bombers, is it a crime or an act of war, is it global warming or climate change, are they liberals or progressives. Trying to make sure we all label it "correctly" is exhausting, and a ridiculous distraction to the action behind it, which is what is important.

      Not some stupid meaningless label.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (January 06, 2010 11:31 am ET)
        2  
        Homicide bombers. I forgot that one.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (January 06, 2010 12:22 pm ET)
          6  
          I recall tommy defending the use of the term homicide bombers, bizarrely claiming that it was more accurate or specific or some such nonsense.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (January 06, 2010 12:51 pm ET)
            4  
            Great memory ScienceBuff!

            Tommy must have forgotten that I keep a record of all of his posts.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 12:57 pm ET)
              2 4
              And this is proof of me being Tommy how?

              Perhaps you people would do better to discuss the topic at hand rather than stroke your obsessions. :)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (January 06, 2010 6:40 pm ET)
                   
                If you weren't "Tommy" wouldn't it been more appropriate for you to deny that you were "Tommy" and not asking for proof that you are "Tommy?" I mean its kind of like Al Capone saying "prove I had something to do with the St. Valentine's Massacre."
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (January 07, 2010 9:40 am ET)
                2  
                Maybe that's something for you to bear in mind when you reflexively respond to DellDolly as "Sue".
                Report Abuse
          • Author by shaggles (January 06, 2010 1:25 pm ET)
            3 1
            I don't know that right ON is Tommy and his post is reasonable. If someone else had posted the exact same thing they probably wouldn't have gotten all those thumbs down. I wish people would consider the comment more and the poster less.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by westla (January 06, 2010 1:30 pm ET)
              2 1
              Shaggles,

              You make an excellent point. Some people are so hung up on Tommy and/or Right On, it's not only distracting but way off topic. And if Tommy had an opinion on homicide bombers and Right On has a different one, then wouldn't that offer some evidence that they are not the same person.

              In any event, your post was dead on, thank you.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (January 07, 2010 9:52 am ET)
                   
                And if Tommy had an opinion on homicide bombers and Right On has a different one, then wouldn't that offer some evidence that they are not the same person.
                I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're not particularly familiar with who's being discussed. Tommy would contradict himself from one day to the next. He was never consistent, so that inconsistency can't possibly be taken as evidence of unique identity.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 06, 2010 2:29 pm ET)
              1  
              I agree completely, shaggles. Even if you disagree with RightOn's statement, it is certainly within the realm of reason to be baffled as to all the time spent parsing out the silly jargon of the "war on terror". I don't care who the poster is.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (January 06, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
              2  
              I'd intended my post to be more conversational than anything. I didn't have any sort of "gotcha" in mind. It's simply when I hear that stupid term, the first thing I think of is those exchanges with tommy. He is well-enough remembered here that I thought it would ring bells with others.

              That said, I am 98% positive that right ON is tommy. The styles and positions are exactly the same. I just don't really care. Any time I respond to what I believe is an alter-ego of another poster, I'm not inclined to make an issue of it. I'll just address the person by his/her new moniker and deal with the discussion.

              Also, for the record, I haven't contributed a thumbs-up or thumbs-down yet on this article. I try to reserve those for really exceptional posts. Or, rarely, if there have been a lot of comments in discussions where I've been pretty active, I'll go through putting in t-u's & t-d's because it makes it easier to spot new posts in the discussion.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (January 06, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
                   
                I'd respond by saying, "Fine" or "that's silly" but then I might be Tommy or Right On.

                Tommy and/or Right On is a valuable poster. I've had a lot of fun with Tommy over the years and he's always been a pretty good sport when we rag on him. He was able to take it as well as dish it out.

                I hope Right On is Tommy and I'll hate myself soon for saying this, but I miss him. Even though most of the time we wanted to strangle each other.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by westla (January 06, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
                     
                  Worrierking,

                  I believe Right On is Tommy too, although their differing opinions on homicide bombers and labels make me question that as they seem to be at odds with one another.

                  However, when it all boils down to it, none of us have anything to do with our chosen screen name anyway, so what difference does it make what name we chose or if we switch it up or operate under one name, or ten? It is the topic and the content of the posts that should generate the discussion, not trying to figure out "who" posted it.

                  But it does create an aura of mystery I suppose, and look, even I am commenting on it. But I like to be educated and informed on the issues of the day and how the right wing media filters much of it through their dishonest reporting and commentary.

                  Trying to figure out if Tommy is Right On may be an interesting sidebar, but not what keeps most of us here.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ScienceBuff (January 07, 2010 10:52 am ET)
                       
                    I believe Right On is Tommy too, although their differing opinions on homicide bombers and labels make me question that as they seem to be at odds with one another. - westla

                    If you look at his post in this thread, he doesn't really say anything about which he favors.

                    Just sayin' .... : - )
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by shaggles (January 06, 2010 6:18 pm ET)
                1  
                I wasn't pointing the finger at you in particular and I have no idea who gave all the thumbs down. It just seems to me that even if right On, Mookie von Zipper, proudconservative, k1dork or whoever else post something reasonable people refuse to take it at face value. The world isn't so black and white that you or I will never agree with what a conservative says and the cons who come here aren't always just trying to push our buttons. Just most of the time.;)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 6:29 pm ET)
                     
                  Another reason why the whole thumbs up/down thing is flat out ridiculous - Even I wasn't convinced of it before, after a thread in the last couple weeks where bruce1ace mentioned that he had a tough 2009 battling a bout with cancer and many of the replies wishing him well were slapped with a thumbs down, well, that is just unconscionable.

                  The fact that some things never transcend partisanship for some is very sad.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 11:31 am ET)
        3 3
        This from the idiot who thinks Janet Napolitano hasn't "taken responsibility"?

        The semantics arguments come from your side of the aisle, doofus.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 11:33 am ET)
          1 6
          You lost the argument there so you drag your insults here. Real impressive.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 12:12 pm ET)
            4 1
            I did not lose any argument there - you deserted once it was obvious that you had no leg to stand on.

            You still haven't explained how today's "Who cares anyway" fits yesterdays She needs to take responsibility".

            You say I am insulting you, but I am merely stating the obvious.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 12:37 pm ET)
              2 4
              I don't paid to revisit threads from the day before or patronize whiners such as yourself just so you get some attention, sorry.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 12:45 pm ET)
                4 2
                Oh, you just get paid to visit today's threads?

                Look, you simpering troll, you come here every day and read about how the "truthtellers" of the Right are lying to prop up your tottering belief system. You see the proof of their dishonesty, yet you cling to your demonstrably discredited philosophy.

                And you think I am insulting you by calling you a doofus? What other explanation could their be for your vapid regurgitation of Rightwing talking points? Would you rather I say that you are being willfully ignorant?

                Doofus was me being kind. Now, take your bibbling snotfest somewhere where people with only a thimblefull of brains reside - try Fox Nation.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by rsinebada7366 (January 08, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
                 
              reason and resolve; calling someone a doofus IS being insulting. Just work hard at not adding insulting names in your posts and you should be fine.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 06, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
            4  
            The poster who lost the argument about Janet Napolitano being falsely smeared by Republicans and rightwing pundits was you, RightON.

            Here's the link should anyone want to go check it out. RightON left at his regular quitting time, claiming that I was lying about Abdulmutallab buying a round trip ticket. What did RightON think 'proved' that I was lying? An opinion piece that had a couple of factual errors, including that the guy had bought a one-way ticket. News reports, including one from FoxNews, documents that he had purchased a round-trip ticket.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
              2 5
              Another whiner who lost the thread from yesterday who just cannot accept it. I do get paid to patronize you however, it's easy money.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 06, 2010 2:20 pm ET)
                3  
                Can you assure us of that? Now, I'm not asking for a guarantee here, just an assurance.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (January 06, 2010 7:37 pm ET)
                1  
                You'd be the whiner whose arguments were totally destroyed yesterday. You'd be the one who can't accept it, and won't go back there to acknowledge where you were wrong and/or corrected, just like you wouldn't do it on a previous thread from a couple of days before that, just like you never did on another thread a couple of days before that....

                I could go on and on. This is not a unique behavior here - you refusing to admit when your argument has been refuted. And it's not unusual for you to then declare that everyone else is whining either!
                Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 06, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
           
        I agree, RightOn. What age level is this that these guys are at where they believe they will feel more safe if Obama uses the same meaningless jargon they use? It is beyond belief that these adults actually believe the nonsense they are trying to sell to their audience.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 2:47 pm ET)
          1  
          Agree. These people are only investing in tearing down Obama to stroke their audience. So they manufacture outrage after outrage with the most ridiculous jabs they can muster. I don't play the right label, wrong label game. It goes nowhere.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 06, 2010 3:02 pm ET)
               
            And, maybe we are just both too "elite" and "educated" but I fail to see what they gain by engaging in this nonsense. I understand they oftentimes play to the lowest common denominator in their audience, but do they really engage in this silliness? They really believe that Obama would be doing enough in their opinion if only he used the same term that they use? Baffling.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 5:01 pm ET)
              2  
              The same ones that think he isn't an American citizen or that he is a Muslim, or whatever else they can hang on him unjustly because they'd rather not deal on issues alone. It's pathetic.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by jeff191 (January 06, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
           
        I thought stupid meaningless labels were the whole point of the article condemning Obama
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (January 06, 2010 11:20 am ET)
      3  
      All they need is the talking point. It doesn't need to have any substance.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (January 06, 2010 11:20 am ET)
      5  
      Even senior members of the Bush Administration are supportive of Obama's handling of the situation. They have to say it privately because they don't want the wrath of Darth Cheney coming down upon them, but they are supportive.

      As for the "war on terror," that was a phony name to begin with . . . it's like declaring a "war on SCUD missiles" or a "war on F16 fighter jets." Terrorism is an intangible weapon, a tool . . . kinda hard to declare war on an intangible. It's about as ridiculous as the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty. It's a war that can never be won.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 06, 2010 11:45 am ET)
        7  
        True, but they found that "War on Arab Muslims" didn't poll well. Sounded a little TOO racist / genocidal.

        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        :)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeff191 (January 06, 2010 2:56 pm ET)
             
          how about 'evil doers" or bad guys, what about nogoodniks, or scalawags. we need a war on rapscallions and a crusade on crumb bums. then I will feel secure
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (January 06, 2010 11:29 am ET)
      4  
      He should be reluctant to acknowledge the Halliburton advertising campaign known as the War on Terror. That's different from actual terrorism which he has acknowledged.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeff191 (January 06, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
           
        War on Terror(SIC) War of Terror

        I guess its all a matter of perspective. terror looks different when you are on the receiving end of the bombs.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (January 06, 2010 11:31 am ET)
      2  
      So, Dick Cheney hands out the company line, and now we can see who else is choosing to be a member of the 'club'. Not surprisingly, FOX Propaganda leads the parade, leaving Dick with Grand Marshall duties to attend to. Dang the facts, full speed ahead! Right? Yeah. Very very very far right.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by edgewaterprog (January 06, 2010 11:44 am ET)
         
      Is the commentator from the Washington Times conflating jihad and sharia?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (January 06, 2010 12:26 pm ET)
      2  
      Republicans have discovered that propaganda is much more profitable than governing. They know that they have a core base of about 28% who are stupid enough to believe whatever they say... all they have to do is convince another 23%, and most of those people aren't really paying attention anyway.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (January 06, 2010 12:32 pm ET)
      3  
      Hmmm, I seem to remember the last occupant of the WH dancing around the whole "GWOT" thingy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (January 06, 2010 12:43 pm ET)
      5  
      Obama is so reluctant to embrace the war on terror, that he increased the military budget to cover down on future needs for soldiers on the ground.

      Obama is so reluctant to embrace this war on terror that he increased troop presence in Afghanistan not once, but twice.

      Obama is so reluctant that we've been launching weapons into Pakistan off of our drone aircraft in the region.

      Obama is so reluctant that the US and GB are supporting the training and standing up of an anti terrorist force in Yemen.

      Obama is so reluctant that Gitmo remains open, and will remain open for the foreseeable future.

      Obama is so reluctant that US forces have taken part in engaging terrorists in Yemen over the last couple of weeks.

      As is always, truth and reality fly in the face of what these conservatives are saying Obama is doing, compared to what is actually happening.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by retiredinsf (January 07, 2010 8:57 am ET)
        2  
        magnolia: "Obama is so reluctant that we've been launching weapons into Pakistan off of our drone aircraft in the region."

        And Afghanistan, killing innocent bystanders without the benefit of being given their Miranda rights, having an attorney, and a trial in front of a jury of their peers - like KSM, at an estimated cost of over $100 million of our money, in NY, near the place where he has admitted the planning of the 9/11 WTC killings of close to 3,000.

        Translation: Obama authorizes confirmed Muslims who have killed thousands are to be considered American citizens, yet kills dozens of Muslims arbitrarily. And libbies don't see the hypocrisy!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
      4 4
      To all members: please take note that we now have an admission from right ON that he is a paid troll (from above):

      I don't paid to revisit threads from the day before or patronize whiners such as yourself just so you get some attention, sorry.


      It seems that we have a true liveBot in our midst. As DelDolly so often and aptly says, "Please don't feed the trolls."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 12:58 pm ET)
        2 4
        LOL
        Report Abuse
      • Author by westla (January 06, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
        1 3
        ReasonandResolve?

        What is the point to this? I don't believe anyone is paid to post their opinions on this website, why would MMFA pay anyone when people contribute freely every day? It doesn't make sense. I think Right On was just poking fun at you and it looks as though you took his bait.

        If I want to respond to anyone on any topic I will do so. I resent being told to whom I should or shouldn't respond to. It is nobody else's business, so I hope you or DellDolly stop admonishing posters.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 1:34 pm ET)
          3  
          MMfA wouldn't pay anyone - the Right wing special interest groups do, however. You can respond to anyon you like - I never said you couldn't. You will note that I said "please".

          He said it again just a couple comments below his first admission:

          Another whiner who lost the thread from yesterday who just cannot accept it. I do get paid to patronize you however, it's easy money.


          Why should we respond to him - even if he is lying about how he makes a living? It is up to you to decide, but I guess I just figured you had better things to do with your time than responding to someone who gets paid to NOT pay attention to logic.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by westla (January 06, 2010 1:44 pm ET)
            2 4
            Right On can certainly be a provocateur but he also instigates another point of view and often times does it intelligently. Sure, he often opines about "liberals" with unfair sweeping generalizations but so do many progressives here about conservatives, and they rarely get called on it. That appears a little hypocritical to me.

            As for who pays or doesn't pay him, or what time he posts here and what time he quits, those have absolutely nothing to do with the content of his posts. They seem to just be brought up by those who are having a difficult time countering what he is offering.

            If you don't want to respond to him, then why do you? I rarely respond here but I read every day and enjoy the varying opinions and points made by many.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 1:53 pm ET)
              3 1
              I quit responding to him the moment I read his admission that he is paid to take a certain position. I have never lost an argument with him. He consistently fails to back up anything he says with facts. Opinions that aren't backed with facts aren't worth much, are they?

              His "another whiner who lost the thread from yesterday" is just another example of the Right using falsehoods to prop up their beliefs - say it often enough and it must be true, right?

              When someone is paid to hold fast to a position, it loses all credibility. And the fact that he argues his position with lies and half-truths further undermines him - while doing a disservice to the intelligent conservatives who have been consistently villified by this new wave of dittoheads and "neo-cons" who haven't a clue what real conservatism means, the conservatism of my father, of Goldwater, and of Bill Buckley.

              When THOSE conservatives come around to have a real discussion of the issues, I will happily engage. These n00bs are trolls and they are not interested in actual discussion.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
                3 5
                "I quit responding to him the moment I read his admission that he is paid to take a certain position"

                I didn't know my bait worked so fast and was so delicious. Like a charm.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 06, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
              1 3
              I agree, westla. I would prefer to argue the merits of any debate. I agree with RightOn sometimes and we disagree many times - sometimes vehemently. However, in my family arguing politics or religion or sports is what we do. We argue. We even get heated and make silly name-calling attacks on one another. But, it is not personal and we still argue the merits of our beliefs. I am quite sure I am not 100% correct in all my beliefs, I have been proven wrong a few times in my life. So, I have no problem arguing with someone who disagrees with me. It may even be possible they are correct.

              I appreciate the idea that RightOn does debate the merits of an argument with me. He is not a spoonfed partisan like Floyd, Kdork, Fakeliberal, etc. As a side note, if he gets paid for this - good for him. I hope he gets paid well. I get paid well to do a job I enjoy. I wish it was to post here, I hold no jealousy nor ill will towards him for that.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
                  1
                Fair enough
                Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 5:19 pm ET)
                  1
                Also, because mikechuck, you are a thoughtful poster who deserves a real answer and not one that's a shot; No, I do not get paid from anyone to post here. I guess I should be flattered that someone would think so but the idea is so ridiculous that the others that actually believed me deserved their "baiting".

                I post completely pro bono :)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (January 06, 2010 8:00 pm ET)
                  1 1
                  No one in their right minds believes that you don't get paid. There are several signs, but one of the clearest signs is your stop time - times when you don't post, because you're going home for the night. You'll just leave in the middle of a discussion, never to return. The idea isn't ridiculous. It's the only reasonable conclusion one can come to that explains your behaviors.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 9:39 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Well, in fairness, he might be posting while he is being paid to do some other job.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (January 07, 2010 10:14 am ET)
                         
                      That's true, although I wonder what that job might be. If he's not in charge, then I'd like to know how he gets away with posting for almost eight hours on some days. If he's a business owner, then he's not restricted to the same eight hour shift that is reflected by his posts. He'd almost have to be some mid-level manager who doesn't have a lot to do. It's certainly possible.

                      I'd also disagree with Dolly in how it's the "only reasonable conclusion". He easily could abandon threads because he has trouble admitting his emotional reactions don't make for strong arguments.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 11:35 am ET)
                        1  
                        I am flattered that many of you spend time trying to figure out why I am here, or when I am here, or what time I "quit" or what time I "start". It warms my heart, let me know when you all reach consensus.

                        Oh, and Brabantio, I find it interesting that you now criticize my arguments when you recently admitted that you have no problem stooping to lying or misrepresenting my positions just so you can "win" an argument.

                        I would say try and keep your own arguments honest instead of trying to trash mine, which is exactly what you said you'd do, come to think of it.

                        Now you go back to figuring out my schedule, that'll keep you busy. Enjoy your day.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (January 07, 2010 12:43 pm ET)
                             
                          I don't think your schedule needs to be "figured out". It's 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern. How often have you strayed from that by more than 30 minutes?
                          I find it interesting that you now criticize my arguments when you recently admitted that you have no problem stooping to lying or misrepresenting my positions just so you can "win" an argument.
                          Why are you still trotting out that lie? You've been smacked down on that bogus charge half a dozen times at least.
                          And the next time you feel misrepresented, it's now known that the person doing so can simply attribute a motivation to "conservatives" and then apply that to you, no matter what you wrote.
                          That's referring to your behavior, and how people behaving how you do can get out of any responsibility for misrepresenting you. I didn't even imply that I had any intention to misrepresent you or lack of conscience for misrepresenting you or anything of the sort. You're not going to be able to parse my words to suit your purposes, so you should really ask yourself what you think you're accomplishing here.

                          What I find funny is how your opinions are supposed to be sacred, and everyone is just supposed to accept them regardless of their merit, but when I express my opinion you feel the need to misrepresent me. You're not exactly undermining my comment about your emotional reactions. Did you even notice that I'm challenging the "paid troll" argument? If noting your obvious schedule really causes you to fly off the handle all by itself, maybe you should take a step back and evaluate things a bit.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by westla (January 07, 2010 12:48 pm ET)
                            4  
                            The obsession with Right On or Tommy by some on this website is truly bizarre.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
                               
                            "no matter what you wrote"

                            Whew, thank you for finding your exact quote and including it, I had forgotten the thread it was from.

                            Oh, and if you think it looks good for you based on that little operative phrase I reprinted above, well, I would say, ahh, !No.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (January 07, 2010 4:17 pm ET)
                                 
                              I have no idea how that phrase is supposed to justify your accusation. The point is that anything you write can be misinterpreted by someone, and by your behavioral standards there's nothing you can do about it. Why that phrase is supposed to imply that I had any interest in lying about what you say is a mystery.

                              Like I said, you can't parse it to serve your purposes, and your lack of explanation only supports that.
                              Report Abuse
                  • Author by retiredinsf (January 07, 2010 9:18 am ET)
                    1  
                    DD: "No one in their right minds believes that you don't get paid."

                    Too funny. Even for DD.

                    BTW, thanks for thinking I have more then one "mind". While I agree one could come to such a conclusion based on my unpaid, yet profound posts, I have just one brain.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 2:07 pm ET)
                       
                    "No one in their right minds believes that you don't get paid"

                    Ahh, (blush) Thank you Sue. I do appreciate the compliment. To think that you and others here feel my contributions are worthy of monetary compensation makes me feel very proud. Not everyone is paid that kind of tribute around here.

                    I will continue to try and live up to your expectations and post comments that deserve cash rewards.

                    Again, thank you.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 07, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
                     
                  I assumed as much, RightOn. To be honest, because we have had some good arguments I sometimes enjoy poking you with a stick when I make generalizations about right-wingers. I, personally, find it to be a humorous response to your sometimes generalizations about the left.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 1:33 pm ET)
                       
                    Mike,

                    I make many generalizations about the left and liberals, obviously anyone with a smidgen of intelligence would know that that is exactly what they are - stereotypes. When I use them it goes more to the philosophy of some than any personal swipe, I assume that is also understood. I take no offense when those on the left do the same because just as mine are, there is an element of truth in all stereotypes. As there are many exceptions. Some people are just too touchy. Glad you are not one of them.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 07, 2010 5:34 pm ET)
                         
                      I think it's actually fun. Now that my house has babies in it, I very rarely get to spend any time in the local tavers. But, when I did I always enjoyed the discussions I had with those friends that I disagreed with that also possessed a thick skin and a quick wit. Nothing so boring as agreeing with someone all the time.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (January 07, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
                           
                        Exactly, it stimulates the mind and both sides can poke holes in the others opinion. Because none of us have the right answer all the time, or the right viewpoint. That is why there is such division politically, people's opinions are shaped by so many different ways. A well placed jab and an off the cuff harmless insult keeps one on their toes. And it's politics for crying out loud. I guess maybe we don't get so easily offended because we don't seem to be umbilically tied to one party or another, so the swipes at either, for me, are mostly "meh". I admit I am a cynic but it doesn't mean we have any less passion in what we believe. It's just that our opinions don't through the Democratic or Republican filter before we say what we think.

                        I say lighten up and accept what you dish out. It makes political discussions a lot easier to take.
                        Report Abuse
          • Author by westla (January 06, 2010 1:52 pm ET)
            2 4
            Also, what right wing special interest groups do you believe pay him. I have seen Right On heavily criticize Republicans, talk show and radio hosts from the right wing, Fox News, the religious right and many other "special interest groups" from the right. So why would they pay him to criticize them? Again, it doesn't make sense. I think he just gets under many of your skins and you are just looking for anything to throw at him.

            This is the way I see it anyway, I hope I didn't offend.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 2:01 pm ET)
              3 1
              I would have to say that his posts are generally consistent with the positions of the tea-partiers. I have never seen him take a position that would put him at odds with the dis-enchanted right, those who no longer register as Republicans, who feel the Republican party has abandoned its base.

              I could be wrong, but I don't see much point in worrying about it. He is just one voice - and he has never contributed anything but his opinions, as far as I can see (which wouldn't be so bad if he would just back them up with facts - or if he appeared to know the difference).
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pongotwistleton (January 06, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
                2 3
                Reason-less Twit: I would have to say that his posts are generally consistent with the positions of the tea-partiers. I have never seen him take a position that would put him at odds with the dis-enchanted right, those who no longer register as Republicans, who feel the Republican party has abandoned its base.

                Right On: All these buffoons and their "war on labels". Who cares anyway? Is it a war on terror or just a war, are they Islamic terrorists or political extremists, are they homicide bombers or suicide bombers, is it a crime or an act of war, is it global warming or climate change, are they liberals or progressives. Trying to make sure we all label it "correctly" is exhausting, and a ridiculous distraction to the action behind it, which is what is important. . . .

                These people are only investing in tearing down Obama to stroke their audience. So they manufacture outrage after outrage with the most ridiculous jabs they can muster. I don't play the right label, wrong label game. It goes nowhere.


                Yeah, his views are really lockstep with the teabaggers, you freakin moron.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  Once - one post - and only coincidental that it fell on this thread. Only yesterday he was arguing the other side of that, demanding that Janet Napolitano "take responsibility" for the failure of the intelligence community to connect the dots - as though that was not really just asking for the words, when the actions are really what matter and she is hard at work doing her job to ensure such a breakdown does not occur again.

                  That, my friend is the same silly argument. It is a semantic argument, a rhetorical argument, not based upon fact, not based upon actions - simply based upon a desire to have people use the language HE feels is appropriate.

                  So, you tell me - since rightON can't seem to_ why has he chosen this thread to take the polar opposite position? What changed from yeasterday to today? Did someone tell him to be reasonable today - is it his turn to be reasonable today?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 5:12 pm ET)
                    1 3
                    How can you possibly think this issue about stupid talk show hosts' behavior has any comparison with the head of homeland security? The only comparison is that I am asking all be held accountable for their words and actions, I have never advocated anything else. Talk show hosts don't interest me the way the head of our national security does. I know here at MMfA the rightwing blowhard personalities are the biggest worry out there, red meat to all you.

                    It's no wonder you offer nothing but drive by insults, you have nothing else.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 6:18 pm ET)
                      2  
                      It is still an attack based upon semantics, not actions. Is that so hard for you to see?

                      For the record, here are some of Napolitano's under-reported words: “Our system did not work in this instance,” she said. “No one is happy or satisfied with that.” http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1209/system_did_not_work_3b634a50-3a24-4e4e-8467-079e76a6d1d0.html
                      Since we are attacking semantics, I would ask you to consider that, since she is at the top of Homeland Security, when she says "our system", she is referring to herself as much as to anyone else - so your argument that she has not taken responsibility still relies on a semantic or rhetorical hingepin that is fallacious at its core.

                      Now, as to this little business about you being a paid shill: I took you at your word. I didn't "fall for" anything. I had never accused or suspected you of anything in that regard previous to your assertion. So, I am guilty of naivete. I will do my best to never believe you again - how is that?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 6:39 pm ET)
                          2
                        Simply because you dragged a previous topic's discussion into this one only as a vehicle to lob an insult, plus that fact that I am not revisiting a topic I discussed yesterday on a completely unrelated thread today, house rules you know, despite your insistence that there is some connection.

                        Just because you cannot accept our disagreement just goes to your pettiness, or something. Tough, we disagree and you don't like it. Well, get over it.

                        And you have every right not to believe one word I ever say, don't worry, I won't lose any sleep.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 6:44 pm ET)
                          2  
                          I look for consistency in a person's positions - and I simply pointed out how inconsistent your position is - semantic arguments are ALL semantic arguments and they ALL beg the question. Today's semantic arguments make no sense to you, yet you made one yesterday.

                          That is not a simple disagreement, no matter how hard it is for you to understand. and my poining it out is not petty - unless you consider an expectation of intellectual honesty to be petty.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 6:51 pm ET)
                              2
                            There is no semantic argument whatsoever concerning Napolitano. I have no clue where you come up with that. She is the head of an agency created to keep our homeland secure. We nearly had a major terrorist attack in our skies where hundreds of Americans would have died. Not one thing she or her department did thwarted that attack in any way. She is in charge, the buck stops with her, it's her agency from the mailroom to her direct orders.

                            There is no semantic argument anywhere near that.

                            Have a good evening.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 7:14 pm ET)
                              2  
                              It most certainly IS a semantic argument - she merely failed to take responsibility using the words you seem to require. You can try to paint it any way you like, but she did, in fact, take responsibility. I showed you the proof - but you chose not to accept those words as taking responsibility. Too bad for you.

                              You have said that the buck stops with her, hence SHE IS HOMELAND SECURITY - that is what you have said, yourself, not me. So, when she says "Our system did not work", according to YOUR BLEEPING DEFINITION, she has taken responsibility.

                              Live with it, doofus.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (January 06, 2010 7:26 pm ET)
                              2  
                              Furthermore, these are your words: "Trying to make sure we all label it "correctly" is exhausting, and a ridiculous distraction to the action behind it, which is what is important.

                              Not some stupid meaningless label."

                              So, why does labelling it correctly mean so little to you today and so much to you yesterday? You, yourself, have said that actions are what matter, yet you are demanding that Janet Napolitano "label it correctly", rather than judging her by her actions.

                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by DellDolly (January 06, 2010 8:03 pm ET)
                              1  
                              See, it was time for him to go home, so he just up and quits. That's a clear sign of a paid troll.

                              Secondly, he can't defend his argument, so he simply says something that's already been refuted, just as though it had never been refuted. That's not the sign of an honest person looking for an honest debate on the topic.
                              Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (January 06, 2010 5:12 pm ET)
                  1 2
                  pongotwistleton, Thank you.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (January 07, 2010 9:26 am ET)
               
            the Right wing special interest groups do, however.


            You can prove this of course?

            Credible links only...as always.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by jeff191 (January 06, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
             
          im getting tired of MMFAs self appointed hall monitors
          Report Abuse
    • Author by SMTDL (January 06, 2010 12:55 pm ET)
      2 1
      Elementary school kids across the country must be confused by the blather from adults on this..The President says we are at war with Al Qaeda and other extremist groups that use Terrorism as a tactic...but we will defeat them using all of our resources!!!
      How is it a euphemism to use a more correct description of what the conflict is.War on terror is almost like saying war on weather to address climate change!!!
      Bush and the neo cons quisckly started War on terror /axis of evil/bring it on/mission accomplished and other famous Cowboy jargon that can now be dropped for real descriptions of what is happening!!!The man just committed more troops,money and blood to Afghanistan,already started to address Yemen even before this attack and he's called weak on keeping us safe!!Bush ignored Afghanistan for 7 years and didn't do much in Pakistam or Yemen or to address Iran at all..just IRAQ,IRAQ,IRAQ.....and that makes us behind where we should be!!Obama tries to get the whole AL Qaeda war back on track and semantics are used as smoke screens!!Pathetic cowardly behavior as usual from those attacking him this way!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Mr. Katanga (January 06, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
         
      This is the "best" they can do now? Nit Pick about the choice of words Obama will use? Awesome, Fox. Just Awesome!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rtejon (January 06, 2010 4:59 pm ET)
      1  
      I doubt if the people on Pakistan's northern border really care what we call it, because they're living it, all the same.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gamoss1 (January 07, 2010 8:19 am ET)
         
      Just puke out the lies on Fake Nooze. The sheep are too stupid and lazy to check out the truth. I am so sick of these people that stare into the camera and state bold face lies. They know it will ooze out into the trailer parks and gain a foothold among weak minded zombies. Their goal is to undermine this administration any way they can. How do they sleep. Evil is as evil does.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.