Thursday, August 6, 2009

"Don't crush that Jihadi, hand me the pliers," or, Boy am I glad that's over. Are they like going to have a victory parade or something?

We're bringing the war back home
Where it ought to have been before!
We'll kill all the bees
And spiders and flies
And we wont play in iceboxes lying on their sides
We'll wash our hands after wee-wee.
And if we're a girl, before!
And we'll march,march,march, et cetera!
'Til we never do march no more!
(All together, now, boys!)

We're bringing the war back home
Where it ought to have been before!
The pretty donut girl on the corner
Will be smilin' with a wringer in her hair!
We'll wash our hands after wee-wee,
And if we're a girl before!
And we'll march, march, march, et cetera!
'Till we don't have to march no more
(Hum along now...)
We won't have to March!
We won't have to March!
We won't have to March no more!

Firesign Theatre, "We're Bringing The War Back Home" on Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers, 1970.


The Obamanoids have declared the "war on terror" is over.

I think what that probably means is that the war on the rest of us unreconstructed Constitutionalists at home is about to begin. Once again, Firesign Theatre has proven prophetic.

Does this mean they WON'T be water boarding ME in Guantanamo? Not bloody likely.


White House: 'War on terrorism' is over

'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms

By Jon Ward and Eli Lake

Originally published 12:34 p.m., August 6, 2009, updated 01:11 p.m., August 6, 2009

It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

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

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

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but has not used it since.

Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred.

The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will do that.

He was specific about ways in which Mr. Obama believes words influence the way America prosecutes the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve."

"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said.

As for the "war on terrorism," Mr. Brennan said the administration is not going to say that "because 'terrorism' is but a tactic — a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate."

"You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said.

He also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups — which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving threat" — should not be called "a global war."

While Mr. Brennan acknowledged that al Qaeda and its affiliates are active in countries throughout the Middle East and Africa, he also said that "portraying this as a 'global' war risks reinforcing the very image that al Qaeda seeks to project of itself — that it is a highly organized, global entity capable of replacing sovereign nations with a global caliphate."

The president's adviser said that in discussing counter terror operations, Mr. Obama "has encouraged us to be even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative" than they have been proposing.

But Mr. Brennan lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."


drjim said...

Looks like the doublespeak in "1984" got here about 25 years late.

Joel said...

"You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said. I can't believe I'm about to sorta defend someone in the Obama administration, but "War on Terror" always was a stupid term. Terrorism is a tactic, and you really can't fight a war against a tactic - especially when it happens to be your favorite tactic.

WV=lancess: What's with that? A new tactic?

Tangalor said...

But Mr. Brennan lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."

Nuanced = A cleverly disguised war including, but not limited to, all who oppose statism

Practical = Now including any American who owns a gun, thinks for themselves, or otherwise has any opinion other than the 'collective'

This is what I've been telling people since fisking HIGH SCHOOL. Language is a war all itself, and they who control the language (political correctness being a core foundation) will win the war, at least for the minds of those who (LOL!) have no minds of their own.

Those of us who are clever enough to see past the ruse of this nonsense should be well aware of what they're doing, and act accordingly...

It is the 'collective' who should watch out, lest they end up on the proverbial fecal end of the stick, with no recourse, to boot.

...Also.. LOL! Can't wait for that "Mission Accomplished" Flier to come rolling out. ;)

The mission is far from accomplished for these clowns, to be sure.

Anonymous said...

Change in terminology = a distraction away from the main event, or, pay no attention while we pass that HealthKare in the corner.

B Woodman

chris horton said...

Bring it.
(Wish I could record it! Yuk!)


Moe Death said...

Uh... right... Most of the terrorists I know have GS ratings...

Dr.D said...

I have to say Mike that the term "war on terror" (a Bush administration invention) was always B.S. not only was it inaccurate because terror is a tactic not a group or philosophy, but because it make the dirty business of war more palatable to the media and public.
War should never be "prettied up", it's a dirty business (as you so accurately showed in previous posts), best avoided when possible. But if war must be fought make sure that all know just how horrible it really is so that when leaders rattle the saber in the future we can remind them of the consequences.


markofafreeman said...

Exactly what I was going to say, Joel. Mr. Brennan is absolutely correct, in that. I've long believed that the phrase "War on Terror" was a stupid one. Robert Spencer of enlightened me in that area.

But it is quite clear from this article that our Dear Leader is as naive as a five year old regarding Islam and it's history right up to the current day.

Yes, Christians have also misbehaved in history, but the difference is that it really is only fringe groups that want to impose Christianity by the sword today. It sorta contradicts the entire faith to force it on anyone.

It's also not codified in our scriptures -- as it is in Islam that -- that we must either convert, dominate, or kill unbelievers.

According to one reporter who stands by her story, even Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR said that he didn't want to give the impression that he would be opposed to the constitution being replaced by sharia law. Though he denies ever saying it, of course.

Many more examples of could be given on how the Islamic faith and traditions (though certainly not all Muslims) are diametrically opposed to our constitutional -- if not ailing -- republic.

I get the impression that this administration (as well as the last) is more concerned about offending a segment of the population than it is about facing a real threat. Now what we should do about that threat is arguable. But dancing around it is going to get a lot more people killed, one way or another.

straightarrow said...

Yeah, everybody is all caught up in calling the term "War on Terror" a stupid or inappropriate term.

However, calling it more accurately "Killing Muslims who will not stop killing others", would have probably caused even more butt-hurt feelings among those who have not been at risk of those particular muslims, or not bright enough to know that they are.

Old NFO said...

I guess they "believe" if they write and say it enough, it will come true... sigh... And doublespeak is not the half of it!