About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Word fixation: Pundits claim Obama "finally noticed" we are "at war" with terrorists

January 08, 2010 12:33 pm ET — 21 Comments

Following President Obama's January 7 remarks on the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing -- during which he stated, "We are at war. We are at war with al Qaeda" -- numerous conservative media figures have falsely suggested that prior to that speech, Obama had not characterized the fight against terrorists as a war. In fact, in his inaugural address, Obama stated that "[o]ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred," and he has repeatedly discussed terrorism as the rationale for U.S. military action abroad.

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

Media suggest Obama's comments mark departure from previous attitude toward terrorism

Wash. Times: "Glad he finally noticed." In a January 8 editorial titled, "Obama discovers the war on terrorism," The Washington Times stated, "Yesterday afternoon, President Obama announced that he made a significant discovery: 'We are at war.' Glad he finally noticed." The editorial later added, "Nothing Mr. Obama announced yesterday will make Americans safer unless and until his administration internalizes the fact that we are at war with violent Muslim extremists intent on destroying our way of life."

Huckabee: "[F]or the first time that I can remember, the president, at least today, said, 'We are at war.' " During the January 7 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News host Mike Huckabee stated of Obama's remarks: "[F]or the first time that I can remember, the president, at least today, said, 'We are at war.' That was a good step. But for a long time, we've acted like that we didn't really have a concerted enemy that was out to kill every last one of us. And that's what we're going to have to recognize."

NY Post: "It was a refreshingly truculent departure for the president." The New York Post asserted in a January 8 editorial: "President Obama yesterday inched closer to defining the true nature of the threat America faces from terror ists like the one who nearly downed an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day. 'We are at war,' he said, even acknowledging -- doubtless, to the abject horror of many senior advisers -- that al Qaeda actually draws its strength from Islam. It was a refreshingly truculent departure for the president -- and a dramatic improvement over his initial response to the attack, when he characterized bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as 'an isolated extremist.' "

Rich Lowry: "The president wakes up." Rich Lowry wrote in a January 8 New York Post column that "the president stepped before the cameras and delivered a stern, forceful statement. He punctuated it with a line that could have been written by Dick Cheney and was almost certainly prompted by his criticism: 'We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda.' " Lowry later wrote, "In the end, the most important line of the speech is that 'we are at war.' Those four words should sink deep down into his administration and permeate all that it does," adding, "Whether he likes it or not, Obama is a war president. If he talks like it more often, who knows? Word might even filter down to Janet Napolitano."

Pat Caddell: "[T]hey considered using the word war is a major step forward." During the January 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Pat Caddell asserted of Obama's remarks, "I think they considered using the word war is a major step forward. I was happy to hear him say it."

Carlson: Obama "now saying" we are "actually" at war. During the January 8 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated that Obama "was very presidential" when he said "we are at war," adding, "He sounded like George Bush, because he talked about the war -- not on terror -- but we are at war." Co-host Gretchen Carlson also stated during the program that Obama was "front and center yesterday giving his speech -- three and a half hours delayed -- telling the American public, 'Guess what? We actually are at war.' " Carlson later added, "We are at war. That's what President Obama is now saying."

But Obama stated that we are "at war" with violent extremists prior to his January 7 remarks

Obama: "I made it very clear -- our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." During his January 2 weekly address, Obama stated that on the day of his inauguration, he "made it very clear-our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred, and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations." Obama further stated: "And make no mistake, that's exactly what we've been doing. It's why I refocused the fight-bringing to a responsible end the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and dramatically increasing our resources in the region where al Qaeda is actually based, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's why I've set a clear and achievable mission-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent their return to either country."

Obama: "[W]e are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans." During his December 10, 2009, Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Obama referred to the "effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks" and stated that "we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land." He later stated that "I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. ... Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms" and added that "religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan."

Obama: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred ... we will defeat you." During his January 20, 2009, inaugural address, Obama stated that "[o]ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." He later added: "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken -- you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Obama has repeatedly spoken of the U.S. mission to defeat Al Qaeda

Obama: Defeating Al Qaeda is "our purpose in Afghanistan." On March 27, 2009, Obama stated that the U.S. is involved in Afghanistan because "al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban --- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." Obama later added, "We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan," and stated that the "goal" is "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."

Obama: "The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat al Qaeda." Obama stated on May 6, 2009, of U.S. involvement in Pakistan and Afghanistan: "The road ahead will be difficult. There will be more violence, and there will be setbacks. But let me be clear: The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat al Qaeda, but also to support the democratically elected sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. That commitment will not waiver. And that support will be sustained."

Obama: We will "relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security." During his June 4, 2009, speech at Cairo University, Obama stated that "America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam," adding that "[w]e will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children." He further said, "We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case."

Obama: America is "compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan" by 9-11 attacks, continued threat. During his December 1, 2009, speech on the war in Afghanistan, Obama stated, "[I]t's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station." Obama also stated that Al Qaeda's violent extremism "is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat":

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by pete592 (January 08, 2010 12:39 pm ET)
      5 1
      NOTHING Obama does in regard to the underwear bomber will make the right-wing professional liars happy. Even if Obama ordered a carpet bombing and armed invasion of Yemen, they'll simply hit him with the Pakistan talking point.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (January 08, 2010 12:55 pm ET)
          3
        You're absolutely right, no argument from me on your point. Just more label hysteria. But don't you also admit it comes from the left as well? Many aren't too fond of the label "war" but insist it's a "crime" and these are not acts of war but criminal acts.

        So just as these idiots are bagging on Obama now, I wonder how many on the left are just as peevish at his "choice" of words or labels.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by blueline99 (January 08, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
          2  
          Personally, I hate the term "War on Terror" or "War on Terroism"

          It's too much like the War on Drugs and War on Poverty...

          It's meaningless and dilutes the real problem.

          You can't have a war on Terrorism... that's like saying a War on Predator Drones!... Terroism is a tactic not an enemy.

          Now, a war against Al Qaeda is more legitimate, but how do you win that? There's no real organization, leadership, or infrastructure. I guess it's like England's war with the IRA... it ends with a whimper when they disarm... 100 years later.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 09, 2010 12:27 am ET)
            2  
            Oh, but when you say that you can't "win" a war on Al Qaeda, you freak out those people who are scared by the fearmongering that the rightwing has been practicing for the past 9 years!

            I know, it's 100% accurate to say that we can't "win", and any message to the contrary is bull, but we can't win that war.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by skatscan5624 (January 08, 2010 5:16 pm ET)
          3  
          The left at their rhetorical worst pales in comparison to the weird tea bagging righties of this year.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by sepirothpk (January 09, 2010 10:37 pm ET)
             
          You can have war in crimes. That's why they call them "war crimes". Hence it is a criminal act.

          And here you are throwing a argument without proof. Saying "I wonder how many" is not a valid arguement. And it detracts from the point that Fox is lying. Two wrongs don't make a right
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 08, 2010 1:14 pm ET)
        4 1
        The topic isn't how unhappy the right is at Obama. The topic is how they have falsely claimed that Obama hasn't seen the ongoing effort as a war on Al Qaeda.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (January 08, 2010 1:16 pm ET)
          1 2
          But isn't that a source of unhappiness? :-D
          Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 08, 2010 1:16 pm ET)
          1 5
          "The topic isn't how unhappy the right is at Obama"

          So the topic is how happy they are with Obama? Pete592's comment was perfectly on topic.

          Get some help Sue, you've lost it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 09, 2010 12:32 am ET)
              1
            Nope, the topic isn't about the level of unhappiness with Obama. Nor is it about the level of happiness either!

            It's about how they are dishonestly portraying Obama's behavior. Neither Pete's comment nor your reply were on topic. Pete got that. You couldn't resist the urge to prove your personal animus towards me one more time, and so you baselessly accuse me of not understanding the topic. I did.

            You're the one who's lost it. I doubt you ever 'had it', but some older posters apparently used to think that you did 'have it' at one point in time.

            But you don't 'have it' anymore! Keep on proving me right! I love it!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by gg (January 10, 2010 11:15 am ET)
           
        The rightwing and their talking heads can only get their minds wrapped around a concept if it has a slogan, the war on terror; cut and run; drill baby drill; wanted dead or alive; stay the course; death panels just to name a few.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by clearstate (January 08, 2010 12:43 pm ET)
         
      You're right. Obama could capture Bin Laden and the right would say that he was hiding at the WH since last January as Obama's personal guest.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (January 08, 2010 1:39 pm ET)
      3  
      Conservatives do realize that governing is actually more than just marketing and TV sound bites, right? RIGHT???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RobertSeattle (January 08, 2010 1:57 pm ET)
      2 1
      I'll never quite understand the wingnut desire to call this a war - which means these Al Queda nutballs are warriors. They aren't warriors. They are lunatic fundamentalist crimimals and should be treated as such.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (January 08, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
        1 5
        So Obama is a wingnut now? Talk of "war" really gets under the skin of the far fringe in his party.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by skatscan5624 (January 08, 2010 5:14 pm ET)
      1 1
      I guess they're afraid to be called anti-Semantic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ajzito (January 08, 2010 7:22 pm ET)
      1  
      I don't think 'word fixation' should be taken so lightly. I was immediately alarmed when the Bush administration came out with the war label following 9/11, for two reasons: a president talking about war is almost always up to no good, and secondly, what we have here is neither exactly a war nor exactly a crime - it is something new, and if we are hypnotized by well-worn labels we are less able to think about what this new thing is. The power of words is part of what led us to war in Iraq, and part of what is keeping us from understanding and dealing with this...well, we don't have a word for it. Time to THINK.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by sepirothpk (January 09, 2010 10:39 pm ET)
           
        It's not really new, just the ways they can perpetrate are. Terrorism has been around for a while, look at the IRA.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by egb (January 09, 2010 3:16 am ET)
        4
      Only problem is he hasn't yet figured out who we are at war with. Al Qaeda is a vague term. He cannot bring himself to say Islamic Extremist. Once he gets over that hurdle and can differentiate between a 23 year old Middle Eastern Islamic male and a 74 year old Philadelphia black woman, he might start prosecuting the war successfully. So far, he has made the country less safe with civil trials, no harsh interrogation, mirandizing battle field combatants, the plan to close Gitmo and bombing indiscriminately in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Yemen. If anyone thinks the Islamic world is raising its respect for us while he does all this, I would like to hear from them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by scanlontodd9871 (January 09, 2010 10:30 am ET)
        1  
        So you actually think that? What A MORON. What does your fourth sentence have anything to do with fightiing this war. the president knows who we are up against. Do you really think that when he took office Jan 20 last year that all of a sudden this all stopped. He still has commanders in the field that are prosecuting their mission with the same vigor has when Bush was president 1 day or even one year does not change that. What do you mean by indiscrimanately bombing? Civil trials did not Bush have civil trials? Reed (shoe bomber)In fact being held in Florence, never to see the light of day. Massousaai same thing. Where do you people get off saying this president is incompetant. and what other terms you decide to use. Hell even bush wanted to close Gitmo. Do you not remember that. Bush started to mirandize the combatants get your facts straight.
        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.