Don’t Let the War on Obama Kill the War on Terror

national-security-agency-seal_transcript_pulloutIn 2004, Senator John Kerry famously inaugurated his motto of, “I was for it, before I was against it.” These days, the former Senator and current Secretary of State is applying that motto to Syria where he was for Assad, before he was against Assad.

Kerry’s cynical turn was emblematic of a whole gang of Democrats who had been for the war when it was popular and rushed to come out against it when it wasn’t. Kerry joined the likes of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton in initially backing the Bush Administration’s policy because it was their policy to begin with.

Invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein had been a policy explored by the same Democrats who went on to become the loudest voices against it; sometimes after voting for it. And that hypocrisy made them unelectable.

Everyone remembers the loathsome spectacle of mainstream Democrats suddenly embracing creatures like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan for no other reason than that they made useful weapons against George W. Bush. That alone should keep us from embracing the equally repulsive Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald.

At least the Democrats went deeper to their side of the spectrum, further to the left, once they realized that they could score political points over Iraq, but some Republicans are going not deeper into their own side of the spectrum, but also to the left.

It’s an ugly spectacle in which a man who escapes to a territory held by an enemy nation and reveals information about intelligence gathering that goes far beyond any domestic surveillance and that alerts enemy states to our capabilities becomes a patriot because his revelations are temporarily damaging to Barack Obama.

Americans should be watchful of what their government does. But that watchfulness should be based on actual actions, not on potential actions.

The IRS scandal is so compelling because there is clear evidence that political targeting had occurred. The NSA scandal is apolitical. It’s about how extensive the information gathering capabilities of the government have become. It’s a valid topic, but it’s also an apolitical topic.

The IRS was used to suppress dissent. The NSA was not. Turning the IRS into a weapon of political destruction is all on Obama, but the NSA has been making people apolitically uncomfortable for a while now.

It’s sensible to distrust what Obama is capable of doing with the NSA, but preemptively shutting down defense and intelligence capabilities out of fear of what Obama might decide to do with them would cripple our national defense.

Kerry and his fellow Democrats did not stop and think before turning the War in Iraq into collateral damage in their war on George W. Bush. We might want to pause before turning the War on Terror into collateral damage in a war on Obama.

Recent attempts to depict drone strikes or extensive information gathering as some gimmick that Obama cooked up on the golf course are as dishonest as the revisionist history that was peddled by Gore and Kerry. If those things are to be opposed, then they should be opposed honestly.

Obama did not invent the War on Terror. He inherited it and mismanaged it. It’s one thing to take issue with that mismanagement and another to take issue with the war. And that is what we’re really talking about.

The War on Terror has mostly been pared down to clumsy intelligence gathering and drone strikes. Take those two off the table and the war is over. It’s not over in the sense that a victory has been achieved or peace has been obtained. It’s over in the sense that we revert back to a pre-9/11 reality in which Islamic terrorism is treated like organized crime.

That outcome is not one that Obama opposes. Instead it’s one that he has fervently worked toward over the years.

We can attack Obama from the right for bungling the War on Terror or we can attack him from the left for continuing the War on Terror and that will just push him in the direction that he already wants to go.

Obama left the remnants of the War on Terror in place because it was the politically safe thing to do. Federal law enforcement has been blinded and neutered when it comes to dealing with Islamic groups, but “smart” intelligence gathering programs and drone strikes have been used to fill the gap to avoid domestic terrorist attacks and accomplish foreign policy objectives.

Both of those tactics have failed. The Boston Marathon bombings and the defeat in Afghanistan are proof of that. The only way to hold Obama accountable for the loss of all those lives is to explain how he tied the hands of the FBI and American soldiers in fighting the real enemy, instead of hooking up with enemy propagandists like Glenn Greenwald who claim that we are the real enemy.

It’s only sensible to have a national conversation about the tactics that we are using to fight terrorism, but giving the anti-war movement the microphone turns the conversation into a choice between doing something and doing nothing. And not even Obama is self-destructive enough to choose doing nothing because once a bomb goes off in a crowded place, there are political consequences to having done absolutely nothing.

Kerry became a walking cartoon because of his dishonesty. Like so many Democrats, he wanted to change his views without admitting that they had changed. If we are going to have a conversation, then it should be an honest one.

We face an extensive conspiracy of Muslim terrorists operating in global organizations on a large scale, and as individuals and cells locally. These groups and individuals communicate through everything from burner phones to coded posts on abandoned forums to Xbox Live game console chats making tracking them a challenge.

Yes, a lot of this would be less of an issue under President Allen West, but under Barack Obama the options are limited. We can’t have the War on Terror that should exist. We can advocate for it, but for now we are stuck with the shambling skeleton of the War on Terror that is. That War on Terror is a mixed bag, but we should be wary of tossing it completely overboard for a temporary political advantage.

The mismanaged War on Terror in its current state may not stop the next bomber. But then again it might.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Democracy1st


    There is a very good reason, which is here:

  • DogmaelJones1

    When we engaged Japan and Nazi Germany in a life or death conflict, we did not call it our War on Kamikaze and the War on Blitzkrieg. The phrase “War on Terror” makes little sense and will make little headway if we do not remove régimes that fund and endorse attacks on this country. We defeated the Shinto régime that sent the Kamikazes against us and we defeated the Nazis who perfected Blitzkrieg.

    And then the Kamikazes stopped coming and so did the V2 rockets and Tiger tanks and the SS. If we hadn’t destroyed our enemies’ capacity to make war, we’d still be fighting Japan and Germany. I grew tired of the “War on Terror” years ago because adopting that phrase and the policy behind it can only guarantee its indefinite continuation, with no end in sight. That policy allows our current enemy, Islam in all its manifestations, to conduct unlimited war against us, whether it’s in the form of suicide bombers or kitchen pressure cookers and other forms of “terror,” or the stealthy introduction of Sharia law in the U.S. or
    the OIC’s attempts to gut the First Amendment.

    Obama isn’t “mismanaging” the “War on Terror,” either. His policies are consciously designed to cause us to lose it. He is a nihilist and I cut him no slack. His foreign policies complement his domestic policies, which are designed to destroy the country under the rubric of “transformation.”

    I know that others in the past have made the very same points I make here, but that doesn’t ameliorate my disgust with the phrase “War on Terror” because that phrase means absolutely nothing. Furthermore, I’m further disappointed with anyone who uses it who ought to know otherwise.

  • catherineinpvb

    This ugly duck, aka Obama, Inc.; ‘walks like a duck and quacks like one; and has; since Day One. The ‘agendas’ of this Administration are not rooted in – or embedded with – any patriotism/ altruism. They cannot ‘do’ Authentic Leadership. Obama’s ‘war on terror” is not our War on Terror’.

    Obama has made clear from the beginning; who are his enemies: and the Country, he and his like-minded want to take down. Hard to fathom the “willing believers’ who imagine that this “potential for tyranny” – in the wrong hands – is not, just that,

  • OfficialPro

    The term “war on Terror” was coined mainly because it’s not a specific country that we’re at war with, it’s an ideology. While I agree the term “War on Terror” is a clumsy moniker, I understand why they decided to call it that. They didn’t want to make it sound like they were at war with anything but an ideology.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      We’re not at war with terror, as terror, which is always violent, is not holy fighting in the cause of Allah to establish Islam via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, as that is jihad instead, and jihad, which is not only waged by Muslims only, is both violent and non-violent in stark contrast to terrorism. Indeed, an example of violent jihad would be the infamous 9/11 jihad attacks, and a very ubiquitous form of non-violent jihad is mass Muslim immigration to the West, as Muslims never ever migrate to assimilate and integrate. Instead, they form Muslim enclaves that eventually morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia that are in effect tiny Islamic statelets within their larger host infidel states.

      Thus, Bush/Cheney were morons for calling their idiotic war the so-called “War on Terror”, as terror isn’t even an Islamic manifestation, and it was inevitable that both of their stupid wars, which were based off of false and idiotic premises about Islam, would turn into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history exactly like they did.

      Hence, today because Bush/Cheney successfully duped the American people into always conflating what is really jihad as being terrorism, non-violent jihad, which is stealthy and deceptive, but never violent, manifests today totally without any resistance whatsoever. Indeed, because if it isn’t violent, then by definition it isn’t terrorism and so it is ignored, but to our own detriment.

  • DogmaelJones1

    I turned my comments here into a column. Go here to read it.

    • William James Ward

      Exellent read and thorough explaination of our situation and
      the predicament we are in with no possability of resolution
      under the false government leaders we have. It can be said
      that the war by Islam and the Left against America is being
      fought from within and when we are weak enough the death
      blow will come from without. The enemy controls our media
      and almost every government agency with Tszars in every
      position to push for the overthrow of government by the
      people and for the people of America. The question comes
      to what can patriotic Americans do to save the Nation from
      the Communist, Islamist perversion of our lives and decent
      into squalid impertinence. In short where are the American
      Patriots with the stones to save the future of America.

      • DogmaelJones1

        I hope readers here go to the Rule of Reason link mentioned above for a more thorough discussion of the bogus phrase “War on Terror.”

        • William James Ward

          The “War on Terror” is a fraud as you point out
          so well, I very much hope to read Rule of Reason again.
          and would urge others to do so…………..William

          • DogmaelJones1

            Thank you.

  • CJ Lawrence

    Your right The War on Terror is for the PC crowd, a deflection. We are really at war with the armies and agents of Allah.

  • Feisty Hayseed

    I prefer the War on Islamic Jihadists. Which may be qualified with “Radical” if you prefer, and of course separated out into Sunni and Shiite. I think it is important that the real, true enemy be named (I liked your opening – we were not at War with Kamikaze or Blitzkrieg, that’s a very valid and thought provoking point). Whenever I comment, post, blog, tweet. etc. anywhere, I always use the term Islamic Jihadist, adding the qualifiers “Terrorist” or “Radical” or “Sunni” or “Shiite” or “Militia” as appropriate.

    • EarlyBird

      I prefer “War on Islamist Jihadists with the Aims and Ability to Strike Americans at Home.” Quite a mouthful, but being precise requires it.
      Even “War on Islamist Jihadists” alone requires us to wage war directly on such groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, various groups in the Horn of Africa and that one in Indonesia, which would keep us very, very busy, and in a constant state of war.

      I don’t care about every guy with a Koran and an AK-47 shouting “death to infidels!” I care about the ones who actually can and wish to carry out attacks on America and our allies and interests.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        You guys are all wrong. It should be “War on Islam” because the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is to subjugate all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islam’s totalitarian law. Indeed, jihad is not only the highest pillar of Islam; it is also a fundamental holy obligation incumbent on all Muslims in one form or another.

        As a matter of fact, Islam is not a faith based religion like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., as the first and foremost requirement of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will of Allah under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Indeed, what other religions compel faith under the pain of death? The answer is none of them. Thus, Islam in reality is not a religion; at least not in the same way we in the West define religion. Instead, it’s a very aggressive and dangerous totalitarian cult that masquerades as being a religion to dupe its intended victims.

        Furthermore, what is the will of Allah that all Muslims without exception must unconditionally submit to? In essence it is Sharia, otherwise known as Islamic totalitarian law.

        Therefore, although Muslims believe Islam to be a religion under the pain of death, the reality is Islam is not really a religion and therefore since it isn’t a religion, it isn’t protected by the first amendment of the constitution. Thus, Islam in America should be outlawed and mass Muslim immigration along with all of its excess baggage should be banned and reversed ASAP.

        • EarlyBird

          “…as the first and foremost requirement of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will of Allah under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Indeed, what other religions compel faith under the pain of death?”
          That could have described Christianity in many forms throughout much of its history.
          The problem with War on Islam is that we literally have to kill off every single of the world’s 1.5 or so billion Muslims. Or we built a moat around the West for a few centuries hoping that it evolves into something more benign, as Christianity has.

      • Feisty Hayseed

        Point well taken, however I would separate out the “active” from the “potential” and the “self-actualized” – i.e. certain Islamic Jihadist groups are actively engaged in planning and executing direct attacks on innocent civilians in the West, other Islamic Jihadist groups which you mentioned above (Hamas, Hezbollah, groups in Somalia, Yemen, Mali, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.) are too preoccupied AT THE PRESENT moment with oppressing and brutalizing the infidels in their own (or neighboring) country to have any time left to plan or execute attacks against innocent civilians in the West. These former groups I would put in the potential class of people to be on the lookout for (keep them on the radar). Then there is the third group, epitomized by the Tsarnaev Boston Marathon Bombing Brothers and Major Nidal and countless others who spontaneously, for whatever mix of psychological failures, decide to directly attack innocent citizens in the West.

        • EarlyBird

          Certainly, any group which is in the planning stage to hurt Americans should be obliterated, be they Islamist or anything else.
          I hate to sound like I’m defending Hezbollah or Hamas, but they exist for one mission and one mission only, which is to destroy Israel, and have only hurt Americans in as much as we have gotten in their way towards that mission, e.g., in Lebanon in the ’80s.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Which may be qualified with “Radical” if you prefer

      Actually, jihad is not only the highest pillar of Islam; it’s also a holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Hence, all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists, which you have been inculcated to believe are terrorists, or non-violent jihadists, which because it isn’t violent, it isn’t considered to be terrorism and therefore manifest today totally without resistance. Nonetheless, since all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, the use of the term radical or extremists to describe Muslims is totally idiotic.

      I think it is important that the real, true enemy be named

      Me too, and the real/true enemy is not terrorists, as terrorism is not holy fighting in the cause of Allah to establish Islam via the imposition of Sharia, which is Islam’s totalitarian law. That’s jihad instead and Muslims are not terrorists, they are jihadists instead. Moreover, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is not only waged by Muslims only, it is also both violent and non-violent unlike terrorism. Indeed, an example of violent jihad would be the infamous 9/11 jihad attacks, and a very ubiquitous form of non-violent jihad would be mass Muslim immigration to the West. Which unfortunately manifest today totally without opposition because it isn’t considered to be violent and therefore it isn’t considered terrorism. It is nonetheless very detrimental to our national security.

      I always use the term Islamic Jihadist, adding the qualifiers “Terrorist” or “Radical” or “Sunni” or “Shiite” or “Militia” as appropriate.

      With all due respect, your qualifiers are ludicrous and absurd as well and due to your mainstream political correct indoctrination. For instance, when you use the term “Radical” to describe a particular kind of Muslim, you also imply simultaneously that there are “Moderate” Muslims, which is absurd since all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, or otherwise they are blasphemous apostates that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed. In other words, a Muslim can’t be a Muslim and a moderate Muslim at the same time, as that would make he or she a blasphemous apostate that must be executed.

      • Feisty Hayseed

        @ObamaYoMoma: Boy, I sure got you all riled up. Your points are all a valid and well taken. I know enough about Islam to know that when the Muslim Brotherhood names its’ political wing the Freedom and Justice Party it means (in the real world) Submission (Freedom is submission to Allah) and Sharia. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens do not understand this so I use words that everyone can understand. That’s all.

      • Feisty Hayseed

        @ObamaYoMoma: Without splitting hairs (which I could easily do with your responses), the term “Islamic Jihadist” in my mind accurately identifies those who are willing and eager to spill infidel blood in their cause, and I would argue that the majority of Muslims are not interested in taking their jihad to that level of barbarity.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          @ObamaYoMoma: Without splitting hairs (which I could easily do with your responses), the term “Islamic Jihadist” in my mind accurately identifies those who are willing and eager to spill infidel blood in their cause, and I would argue that the majority of Muslims are not interested in taking their jihad to that level of barbarity.

          Again, jihad is not terrorism and jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, manifest both violently and non-violently, but astronomically far more jihad is waged non-violently relatively to violently. Indeed, an example of violent jihad would be the 9/11 jihad attacks and one of the most ubiquitous forms of non-violent jihad is mass Muslim immigration to the West, as Muslims never ever migrate to the West to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islam’s totalitarian law.

          Nevertheless, if you want to split hairs on my responses, be my guest.

  • Flowerknife_us

    I do not believe the Government has a categorical right to take outright possession of my intellectual property without cause nor warrant. To say the Government has that right is the same as letting the Government open every letter sent in the Mail and keep a permanent record of it to use at a time and place of it’s own choosing.

    America has already accepted the Government tracking information with due cause and warrant.

    Given the very activities sited in the article as well as others well discussed, is reason enough to never allow the Government such all encompassing rights.

    The War on Terror is over for all practical purposes…

    Homeland Security Administrators made it clear who were the threats to America. And that Enemy is America itself.

    Benghazi is the proof America changed sides in the “War on America”.

    All the other “Scandals” are Domestic abusers of our own Citizens.

    How can one possibly believe the Government truly wishes to protect its citizens when it’s priority is to disarm everyone they possibly can. While making sure the full force and fury of the Government is used to prosecute anyone who uses one to defend themselves???

    Lets face it. Bush went to war with the friends of the Democrats. The Democrats had no choice but to OK Military action or be thrown out of office.
    The Democrats turned on Bush so fast he became a lame duck before he knew what hit him.
    The Democrats with Obama managed to transform the Country on the Road to Slavery once again. While Obama made nice to the Demoncrats old friends.

    Toss in a few Rinos and here we are.

    Hypocrites of the caliber in power now are not the role models who’s advise we should follow.

  • William James Ward

    The pity of todays government actions is that it never serves the best
    interests of American citizens and the lying goes on out of the mouth
    of every politician bar none. You are fed what you want to hear and
    never see anything done about the grand theft and depletion of the
    Nations wealth, resources and moral values. The parameters of
    political action is to steal while making it appear the scam is for
    your benefit, and Americans are brain dead in thier bowl of cheerios
    or can of beer. What will it take to move citizens into a serious and
    concerned attitude where demands for justice are demands for
    honesty and truth from our elected public servants. Frustrating just
    thinking about the deplorable conduct of so many crooked individuals
    in a political mob action to steal the wealth of the Nation for votes
    and power over our lives, America may be done…………William

  • Giles Blyzzard

    There is no war on terror. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy. The war is with ISLAM. Islam is at war with the rest of the world and until we face that fact and deal with it we are doomed to lose the war.

  • knowshistory

    if there were a war on terror, we can only hope that it fails. the treasonous governments of western countries have chosen to have their countries invaded and overwhelmed by islam, and to allow their indigenous populations genocided by their favored people, those lovable peaceful muslims. the only thing that can possibly wake up the lazy, ignorant, greedy, banal masses of those countries and save them from the certain genocide of the not too distant future is to experience the reality of Islamic terror in the present–the only time that the ignorant fools of the west are able to recognize. if islam were as wise as it is evil, islam itself would stamp out terror, and make sure that their violent jihadis were not able to ruin their sure conquest of the west. since islam is neither wise nor peaceful, some muslims, our friends the violent jihadis, are willing to show us our future with islam. we would be wise to pay attention. unfortunately, we aren’t any wiser than islam. it is a race to destruction, and the stupidest will lose. if islam proves to be the stupidest, muslims will be confined to their Islamic hellholes, where they can wail and gnash their teeth, and howl about their lost empires, and the loss of all those infidel virgins they intended to rape. if western populations prove to be the stupidest, they will be hapless slaves, awaiting execution by their muslim masters when their usefulness ends, and will get to watch their wives and daughters raped and enslaved, and their sons converted into detestable janissaries who do the bidding of their muslim masters, which will be mostly the killing of remaining infidel slaves.

    • 0sure

      Perhaps there is another answer?
      Why not call people to join Christ who gives the grace
      of forgiveness, perserverence and prosperity?
      Standing for ourselves as Christ’s followers is not
      an act of aggression; wouldn’t our light
      shine out and expose all that you say muslims are?
      Isn’t our act of standing for prosperity and the United States
      an act against the progressives lust for riches?
      Don’t the muslims lust after our riches?
      Obama is not someone I stand against.
      I support the Light of Truth.
      Don’t you think the muslims already know all our secret
      Aren’t they already loved?
      So I am glad Snowden revealed what Muslims
      already know.