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

















Not some stupid meaningless label.
Tommy must have forgotten that I keep a record of all of his posts.
Perhaps you people would do better to discuss the topic at hand rather than stroke your obsessions. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you look at his post in this thread, he doesn't really say anything about which he favors.
Just sayin' .... : - )
The fact that some things never transcend partisanship for some is very sad.
The semantics arguments come from your side of the aisle, doofus.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
:)
I guess its all a matter of perspective. terror looks different when you are on the receiving end of the bombs.
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.
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!
It seems that we have a true liveBot in our midst. As DelDolly so often and aptly says, "Please don't feed the trolls."
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.
He said it again just a couple comments below his first admission:
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.
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.
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.
I didn't know my bait worked so fast and was so delicious. Like a charm.
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.
I post completely pro bono :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like I said, you can't parse it to serve your purposes, and your lack of explanation only supports that.
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.
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.
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.
I say lighten up and accept what you dish out. It makes political discussions a lot easier to take.
This is the way I see it anyway, I hope I didn't offend.
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).
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.
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?
It's no wonder you offer nothing but drive by insults, you have nothing else.
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?
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.
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.
There is no semantic argument anywhere near that.
Have a good evening.
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.
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.
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.
You can prove this of course?
Credible links only...as always.
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!!