Question: Why Is ‘War On Terror’ Talk Banned By Obama Even As He Keeps Demagoguing The Bogus ‘War On Women’???

Dennis Miller raised that question last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and it’s a damn good one.

Obama banned the term “war on terror”:

Obama administration says goodbye to ‘war on terror’
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase ‘overseas contingency operations’
Oliver Burkeman in Washington, Wednesday 25 March 2009 13.40 EDT

The war on terror, George Bush once declared, “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. But Barack Obama‘s administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly – via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) … please pass this on to your speechwriters”. Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live “overseas contingency operations”.

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning “overseas contingency operations” for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.


Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

“Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare,” said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.

“Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. ‘War’ is very much overused here in the United States – on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity.”

Let’s be clear: the primary motivation of abandoning the term “war on terror” was appalling political correctness.  Obama doesn’t want to alienate; he wants to be “inclusive.”

Obama is so inclusive to terrorists, in fact, that he refused to label the murderous rampage by Major Nidal Hassan a “terrorist attack.”  It doesn’t matter if he was heard screaming “Allahu Aqbar!” as he opened fire or that he had business cards that described himself as a “soldier of Allah” or that he had had numerous email chats with a known al Qaeda terrorist recruiter.  It was just an act of “workplace violence,” that’s all folks.  Nothing to see here.

Except when it comes to Republicans, of course.  Obama doesn’t want to insult terrorists, but he is fine with demonizing basically half of the American people.  So whether “war” is “overused” or not, Obama is quite happy to use the term to pour liquid hate on Republicans and then try to set that hate on fire.

“The war on women” is a lie from the devil and from the Democrat Party – unless they’re using it to talk about themselves.  See also here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.

Interestingly, Obama defines “women” as SINGLE women.  Married women – who are voting for Mitt Romney by a margin of 55-40% – clearly do not count as “women” in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s universe.  It’s kind of like the black Republicans who have somehow forfeited their “blackness” and therefore merit the hateful label “Uncle Toms” or “Aunt Jemimas.”

Nor are women who actually don’t hate their babies and want to keep them, given that most of the demon-possessed lies from the left revolve around abortion.

Just why is it called PLANNED PARENTHOOD given that its central “service” involves a profound LACK of PLANNING and an abject AVOIDANCE of PARENTHOOD?

In order to count as a “woman,” you’ve got to be single, you’ve got to hate babies, you’ve got to be a needy, whiny, clingy, bitter girl who hates men but loves Obama and his big government as surrogate husband (as long as you don’t actually have a “husband,” mind you).  You’ve got to think birth control costs $3,000.  You’ve got to think that society owes you that $3,000 birth control for free.  Especially if you choose to go to a Catholic university.  Because you’ve got to think literally that EVERYBODY OWES YOU that free $3,000 birth control.  You’ve got to demand “the right to choose” an abortion right up to when your baby is literally being born so you can use your “right to choose” partial birth abortion.  Also for free, of course.  And that You’ve got to think that all Republicans – NONE of whom have ever had mothers, wives or daughters, btw – want to put women in chains right next to black people.  Basically you’ve got to be a complete idiot to count as a “woman” as far as Democrats are concerned.  Otherwise, kindly refrain from considering yourself a “woman.”

Just remember the rule: it’s hateful to use the term “war on terror.”  But it’s just as hateful not to use the term “war on women.”  Because that’s just how evil and idiotic and hypocritical Democrats (of either gender) truly are.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Question: Why Is ‘War On Terror’ Talk Banned By Obama Even As He Keeps Demagoguing The Bogus ‘War On Women’???”

  1. FMC Says:

    To Obama the terrorists really aren’t terrorists, but merely agents to help transform America into his image, which is polar opposite from the founding fathers’ This is a very sick, evil ,demonized man, this Obama. Those that vote for him should be deported immediately and never, ever allowed to return. They be damned without mercy!

    Today, the stupid Fed announced it will do another round of QE (QEIII).

    The Fed said it would buy mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month. In addition to bond purchases, the Fed said it intends to keep the benchmark short-term interest rate – the federal funds rate, at nearly zero until mid-2015. The prior guidance on the first rate hike had been late-2014.

    Actually, the Fed will be buying nearly 85 billion per month when you consider operation twist and MBS which is on top of the mortgage-backed securities buying they just announced. Already, as expected, the stock and commodity markets are going nuts. The Fed said that QEIII will not be inflationary because they are not buying treasuries. This is not true, because the Fed has to use its primary dealers to make these purchases. When this amount of money is flowing through the primary dealers on a daily, weekly basis, they use these funds through leverage to buy stocks and commodities. As we all know, commodity prices show up in increased food and energy prices. Isn’t it odd that the BLS down plays food and energy in its inflation numbers! What a scam.

    Anyway, look for inflation to pick up. Gas prices will probably stay elevated. On the other hand, this could be a blessing for Romney and Republicans if inflation does picks up.

  2. Michael Eden Says:


    What you’re saying about Obama re: terrorists is spot on. And that is precisely how he has tried to use them.

    Note for the factual record that OBAMA got rid of Mubarak. I have documented that Obama was literally helping to destabilize the Mubarak regime to topple him. And then note that Obama took CREDIT for toppling Mubarak (an ally of the US whose regime was an ally of the US). And THEN note that Obama said the Muslim Brotherhood would not do the very things that it has done.

    Total crap. But don’t worry. The media is in such a frenzy trying to blame everything on Romney because unlike Obama HE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT GODAWFUL OFFICAL STATEMENT OF AMERICAN COWARDICE THAT CAME OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION rather than focusing on the fact that the entire Obama foreign policy is melting down before our very eyes just two months before the election.

    As to QE3 and inflation, again I agree. Certain commodoties like food prices and gasoline price and the price of gold will continue to go up and up and up as we devalue our currency. But the true horror of these quantatative easings won’t be felt for awhile; they are like time bombs planted in the bowels of our future economy.

    The reason we’re not experiencing godawful inflation yet – in spite of QE1 and QE2 – is because the economy is basically in recession and people aren’t buying. When the economy heats up, very quickly, all that extra money in the monetary supply will suddenly come flooding in as people begin really using their devalued dollars. The law of supply and demand is clear what will happen: there are way too many dollars now, and when you have too much of something, that something becomes worth less (to the point of being worthless). When all those hundreds of billions of dollars starts chasing finite goods and services, it will take more devalued dollars to purchase those finite goods and services. THAT’S when we’ll see the monster of inflation, on my view.

    Btw, when this inflation happens, you can rest assured that liberals will cover themselves with bogus narratives about even whether we’ve even got a problem and blaming Bush (or if he’s elected Romney) for whatever problem we’ll have.

  3. FMC Says:

  4. Michael Eden Says:


    Thanks for the link. I’ll go ahead and post it as an image here:

    QE 1 2 and 3

    If I was a crack cocaine addict and you charted me, would I look any different between “fixes”?

  5. FMC Says:

    Yes, the chart is synonymous with heavy crack cocaine addiction.
    The problem is that the doctor, in this case the Fed and politicians, will not let the patient go through withdrawals and break the addiction – this is too painful. Every time the patient goes off the crack, quickly another dose is given, and the high continues. Just like any addiction, however, larger doses are needed just to get the same effect. At some point, the Fed will become lethal in its role as drug dealer and the patient, needing an even larger dose just to avoid withdrawals, will overdose and die. As they say on the street, “The Fed is running out of bullets.”

    “The reason we’re not experiencing godawful inflation yet – in spite of QE1 and QE2 – is because the economy is basically in recession and people aren’t buying. When the economy heats up, very quickly, all that extra money in the monetary supply will suddenly come flooding in as people begin really using their devalued dollars.”

    Yes, indeed we are in recession – I don’t think we ever really ended the one that started in 08′ – and the consumer has been restrained. As a result, the amount of goods and services available has not been bid up in price, the symptom of inflation.
    However, one thing that has so far saved the Fed is that the new money doesn’t have a conduit yet into the real economy. Banks are content with borrowing from the Fed for almost nothing and then buying treasuries profiting from the spread. These banks, having a guaranteed profit – have been reluctant to lend money. So far, lending has been relatively tight, especially in terms of the policies before the crash of 08′.

    When/if the economy does pick up, I, like you, expect this money to somehow find its way into the real economy. At this point, I don’t know how this will happen with any certainty, because to effectively expand the money supply in the real economy would take lending by banks through the fractional reserve system. This can be regular loans, credit cards, home refi’s etc. and for the increase in new money to start exceeding the supply of goods and services. Also, it is feasible that money can seep in from the stock market, which appears to be forming another bubble, or, possibly through wage inflation. Regardless, it will be interesting as to how this will actually happen, as so far the inflation has mostly been the result of rising commodity prices.

    Now, for inflation to get really nasty will require the velocity of money to increase. In the later stages of inflation (hyperinflation), consumers start buying goods and services simply because tomorrow they will be too expensive and the velocity of money starts to gain momentum and go out-of-control in a vicious cycle, like in the Wiemar Inflation when consumers were paid at noon so they could buy food and other stuff simply because by the next morning the money would be worthless. I think, ultimately, this is where we are headed.

    I can’t think of the verse(s) right off hand, but doesn’t the Bible say that in end times that it will take a day’s wage just to buy a loaf of damn bread! That is scary stuff…..

  6. Michael Eden Says:


    The verse in Revelation is chapter 6 and verse 6.

    You’re quite right about saying, “At this point, I don’t know how this will happen with any certainty, because to effectively expand the money supply in the real economy would take lending by banks through the fractional reserve system…” We have so completely screwed up and complicated our economy with elite bureaucratic mucking around and we are in such blue skies with our Federal Reserve policy that there is in fact no possible way to predict what will happen. Primarily because there are so many cards teetering in our House of Cards economy that it is impossible to be able to tell which card or cards will fall first before the rest come crashing down.

    The thing is, of course, that virtually every scenario you consider has a truly bad end.

    I’ve got an article coming out tomorrow on the QE3 and it’s a giant “I TOLD you so!” combined with a description of how godawful this is and how godawful it will turn out.

    One of the things that some conservatives unfortunately did was to state that Obama and the Fed would immediately cause massive inflation. And that has allowed the left to cite one or two conservatives and say we were wrong, because “what inflation?” I quote myself two full years ago explaining that we wouldn’t see the kind of massive inflation that we will ultimately see because of these foolish policies…YET.

    But as we both know, the necessary end to the enormous borrowing/spending and particularly the monetizing of the debt by the Fed is massive inflation, if not hyperinflation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: