It has been interesting and confusing reading all the comments. Why are we
afraid to call a spade a spade? The language of political correctness has
clouded our ability to identify and say what is obvious. We seem to want to
hold others to a higher standard than we ourselves hold. If we see an adult
hitting or screaming at a child what would we say or do? It depends on our
level of desire to get involved. If we don't want to get involved-we would
say,"parental rights". If we feel strongly that a child is being abused
we step in and protect the child -not the adult. We use sweeping
generalizations to pigeon hole very complex problems. We seem to have lost our
ability to know right from wrong. Everything is situational and can be
justified in the name of.....whatever-fill in the blanks. If we want to
understand the Middle East, then we must study Islam and not rely on media
garbage. It is not a religion of peace. If you are not Muslim then you are an
Bush made many memorable contributions in the area of rhetorical overkill. I
thought the most absurd was the term 'axis of evil' suggesting an
alliance of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
How about the war on terror against Iraq? Bush got a bit carried away there.
Remember the rose garden statement after Benghazi that Romney pounced on in the
debate for Obama not calling it terrorism when in fact he had?Understanding Obama’s initial reluctance to use the word terrorism
isn’t exactly rocket science given the eagerness of both the press and
partisans to pounce on and parse every word the President speaks. Obama’s
precise use of words is what first impressed me about him when he ran in 2008.
It stood out from the over-the-top language we’re used to from politicians
trying to steal a headline with inflammatory words. It seems that the power of
effective understatement is becoming a lost art. What a pity.
This guy claimed the President was ineffective in this area while he was
directing the death on the number one terrorist after refocusing away from the
@HutteriteJust so everyone knows what you're talking about,
could you please quote George W. Bush calling someone a terrorist who
wasn't a terrorist?
If it was not for Fox News, would this man even have an audience for his
As usual, Charles Krauthammer if focused on the wrong things and leading
"the base" off into the woods. Tell us again how you were certain that
Romney would win the election.
Oh Krafty, terrorism is not speech. Unless you would like terrorism to be
protected under the constitution like bribing senators with cash and attack ads
is now protected.I find it amazing how much conservatives can
swallow from their pundits without even a spoonful of sugar. The nation's
downfall will be from the right.
one old manOgden, UT"Will we soon start hearing blithering
idiocy from an organization called the National Terrorist Association?"We already hear from several, like Hollywood, violent video game
producers and players, and perhaps a certain political party. Perhaps that is
why their highest office holder is so uncomfortable saying the word.
So terrorism is a form of speech?Interesting concept.So
does that mean that making terrorism illegal is a violation of the First
Amendment?Hmmmm.Kinda like putting reasonable safeguards
on guns is a violation of the Second?So I guess we have no choice
but to open the door to even more mass killings because the Bill of Rights tells
us we can't put any limits on anything.Geez. Will we soon
start hearing blithering idiocy from an organization called the National
I don't like Obama and I am not comfortable with the term terrorist. Is
there a legal definition of terrorism? It sounds a lot like the term "hate
crime" where someone gets an extra penalty because of what he was thinking
and not what he was doing. It becames a thought crime because the person doing
the crime was thinking in a way that society does not condone.The
term is overused in terms that are politically popular. Israel is
America's friends so when an F-16 pilot wearing a uniform drops a 500 lb
bomb on an apartment building they made a mistake. When a Palestinian in Gaza
shoots a rocket into an Israeli field he is a terrorist because he was not
wearing a uniform.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it. The intonations and
enfranchises have a meaning. I wonder what he really would say if aloud to and
wasn't reading what was written in fount of him.
Maybe Obama is reluctant to use the word because it validates the actions of the
perpetrators. Just the suspicion of the existence of terrorists gives them more
power. If these were two brothers who felt alienated and were
offended the US was in two different muslim countries acted on their own to make
a statement, to create strike back at the nation they're now citizens in,
does this mean we should invade North Korea? (Haven't we seen that movie
before?)It's striking that the same folks who are opposed to
background checks for purchasing firearms (because it could lead to a gun
registry) are the ones calling for the feds to monitor muslims, even US
citizens.Oh Rand Paul, where are you now?
I'm glad President Obama is reluctant to use the word. His predecessor in
the office was happy to call everyone a 'Terr'rist' and it always
felt like fear mongering.
Another insightful, revealing, accurate and educational article by Dr.
So Charles is saying thatIf he calls it Terrorism, he is jumping the
gun because "Until you know the purpose, you can't know if it is
terrorism."If he doesn't call it terrorism, he gets blasted
for his "non-use of the word "terrorism" in his first statement to
the nation after the bombing."Takeaway? Criticize Obama
regardless of what he says or does.