Mush From the Wimp: Obama, Orwell and National-Security Psychobabble

» Mush From the Wimp: Obama, Orwell and National-Security Psychobabble – Big Journalism

Posted by Candace de Russy/Breitbart

Update from:

Obambi Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document

Comment on this picture below the fold*

With its unprecedented decision to sanitize the basic document defining U.S. national security strategy – cleanse from it terms that connect Islam to terror, jihad, extremism and the like – President Hussein Obama is once again propagating Orwellian babble.

And there’s little doubt but that the MSM are primed to parrot far and wide, as opposed to critically assess, the president’s now squeaky clean, official vocabulary of defense. Even after the carnage of 9/11, for example, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews could only bring himself vaguely to identify the attacks as “criminal acts of terror” – selecting out the unpalatable fact that all the terrorists were Islamic radicals.

The administration’s latest rhetorical sleight of hand is just the latest evidence of its zeal for obfuscating the true nature of the terrorist threat. Recall the bizarre memo, originating from Obama’s Office of Management and Budget that instructed Defense Department staffers to use the term “Overseas Contingency Operation” in place of “Long War” or “Global War on Terror.”

Steven Emerson, a leading expert on terrorism, has called Obama’s avoidance of associating radical Islam with terror “absurd” and “dangerous.” Islamic extremism in its many manifestations (Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.) is in fact, he shows, responsible for three decades of “murder or attempted murder of tens of thousands of civilians in nearly every corner of the globe.” Banning the word Islamic from the designation “Islamic terrorists”

… does not diminish the willingness to use violence or the religious hatred that radical Muslims hold for Jews and the United States. What the self-sanitization does is to exonerate Muslim leaders from having to confront the monster in their own communities, monsters that in many cases they helped create. Because it is radical Islamist groups—feigning recognition as civil-rights organizations, often with the connivance of news organizations and even government agencies—that have deliberately tried to erase the distinction between moderate Islam and radical Islam. Why? So these groups can tar anyone who criticizes militant Islam as a racist or Islamophobe or as someone trying to portray the U.S. at war with the religion itself.

We are at war with these monsters, and for our own president to shrink from naming them – denying before the world the religious fanaticism that motivates them to perpetrate violence against us and our allies – is to help to doom us by losing this war.

The purging of the language – meaning, intent and guidance – of our leading national security blueprint must not be allowed to stand. Call the enemy by its rightful name, Mr. President Muslim POTUS…..


This type of linguistic acrobatics is everywhere. At the workplace for example, a problem is no longer a problem, but an “issue.” Criminals no longer rape, steal or murder, they make, “bad decisions.” But unfortunately, the young and dumb who voted for the One did not recognize “community organizer” as a code word for “Commie.”

* gilmore sez:

I find the picture of Obama and Clinton (with a head scarf) both interesting and disturbing. The two men, Obama and the one standing behind him have no head covers yet Clinton does. I assume where they’re standing is some kind of so-called holy place and Clinton is required to cover up, which is to my understanding, a symbol of subservience. The men are not required to do so as they are superior to women in that setting. I’d wager that Clinton was seething in her requirement to cover up and I wonder if she would have done so had she become POTUS.

It’s an interesting take on the two most powerful Democrats in the world where one (Clinton) was the presumed next POTUS stands both subservient to the man she lost to and to a culture and religion that believes women are property and can be used or abused however men deem. Obama bows to kings and Clinton bows to men at every step she takes. These two apparently think that their actions are satisfying the world but fail to understand that they are only embarrassing and quiet frankly, disgusting Am