Glenn Beck made a series of false claims regarding language the Obama administration uses to describe terrorism, painting it as weak in fighting terrorists by suggesting that the administration avoids using terms like "terrorism" and "war on terror."
Beck reels off long list of
falsehoods about administration's language on terrorism
Beck distorts
terms Obama administration uses to describe terrorism. Beck
rehashed numerous distortions of the Obama administration's approach to
describing terrorism, falsely claiming that the administration insists that
terrorism be called "man-caused disasters"; that the administration removed the
label "enemy combatant" so that such people could not be held in jail; that the
war on terror must be referred to as the "overseas contingency operation." Beck
also distorted Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's remarks on jihad.
From the July 19 edition of Fox News
Glenn Beck:
BECK: Let's refresh our memories on
what this administration said it
believed.
And
I'm --
I
have
to
tell
you
something.
I'm
looking
for
people
who
actually
believed
this
president.
January
15,
2009:
"There
is
no
terrorism.
It's
man-caused
disasters."
Really?
March
13,
2009,
the
administration
said
there's
no
such
thing
as
an
enemy
combatant.
Why?
Because
enemy
combatants --
well,
we'd
be
able
to
put
them
in
jail,
now
wouldn't
we?
March
13:
"The
war
on
terror
doesn't
exist.
It's
the
overseas
contingency
operation."
Yeah.
Yeah.
Then
May
26,
Brennan
proclaims:
"Jihadists
are
not
the
enemy."
Obama frequently uses the words "terrorist" and "terrorism"
Obama has used the words "terrorist"
and "terrorism" throughout his
presidency. Contrary to
Beck's
suggestion
that
the
administration
has
declared
that
"there
is
no
terrorism," President Obama has used the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" numerous
times
in
speeches,
press
conferences,
and
other
statements
throughout
his
presidency.
For
example:
- When announcing trade sanctions on Iran, Obama stated: "[T]he
Iranian government has violated its commitments, defied United Nations Security
Council resolutions, and forged ahead with its nuclear program -- all while
supporting terrorist groups and suppressing the aspirations of the Iranian
people." Obama later said that sanctions would make "it harder for the
Revolutionary Guards and banks that support Iran's nuclear programs and
terrorism to engage in international finance."
- In January 2
radio remarks addressing
the attempted
Christmas Day bombing, Obama said: "It has now been more than a week since the
attempted act of terrorism aboard that flight to Detroit on Christmas
Day."
- When answering questions regarding terrorism at a
G-20
press
conference, Obama stated: "[A]ll of us have an interest not in
occupying Afghanistan, but an interest in making sure Afghanistan is
stable,
can
stand
on
its
own
two
feet
when
it
comes
to
security
issues,
and
is
not
a
base
for
terrorist
activities
launched
against
the
United
States
of
America."
- When addressing military personnel, Obama said: "We
will disrupt and dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda and its terrorist
affiliates."
In dropping "enemy combatant" term, Obama admin did not relinquish right to
detain
Wash.
Post: Dropping "enemy combatant" "may not change much about the nation's detention policy." Contrary to
Beck's
suggestion
that
the
administration
dropped
the
term
"enemy
combatant"
because
in
retaining
it,
"we'd
be
able
to
put
them
in
jail," The Washington
Post
reported
that
legal
scholars
have
said
that
it
"may
not
change
much
about
the
nation's
detention
policy."
From a
March
14,
2009, Post article:
The Obama administration yesterday jettisoned the Bush-era term "enemy combatant" but maintained a
broad
right
to
detain
those
who
provide
"substantial"
assistance
to
al-Qaeda
and
its
associates
around
the
globe.
The disclosure came in
a
court
filing
by
the
Justice
Department
in
response
to
orders
by
federal
judges,
who
sought
clarity
on
the
government's
legal
justification
for
holding
about
241
detainees
at
the
military
prison
at
Guantanamo
Bay,
Cuba.
Though dropping the term "enemy combatant" was a
symbolic
break
from
the
Bush
administration,
the
practical
effects
of
yesterday's
action
will
not
be
known
for
months.
[...]
The filing also revealed that the Obama administration sees the president's detention power as
global
and
not
limited
to a battlefield in Afghanistan, as
some
human
rights
groups
have
advocated.
"Individuals who provide substantial support to
al-Qaida
forces
in
other
parts
of
the
world
may
properly
be
deemed
part
of
al-Qaida
itself,"
the
court
papers
said.
"Such
activities
may
also
constitute
the
type
of
substantial
support
that
...
is
sufficient
to
justify
detention."
In a
statement,
Attorney
General
Eric
H.
Holder
Jr.
said,
"[I]t
is
essential
that
we
operate
in a manner that strengthens our national security, is
consistent
with
our
values
and
is
governed
by
law."
"The change we've made today meets each of
those
standards
and
will
make
our
nation
stronger,"
he
added.
Legal scholars and those representing detainees said that dropping the term "enemy combatant" was important but that the rest of
the
legal
arguments
may
not
change
much
about
the
nation's
detention
policy.
Obama has not replaced his use of
"war" with "overseas contingency operation"
Obama has repeatedly used the word
"war."
Obama used the word "war" at
least seven
times
during
his
January
27
State
of
the
Union
speech.
Moreover,
following his
January
7
remarks
on
the
attempted
Christmas
Day
bombing
--
remarks
during
which
Obama
stated,
"We
are
at
war.
We
are
at
war
with
al
Qaeda"
--
numerous
conservative
media
figures
falsely
suggested
that
prior
to
that
speech,
Obama
had
not
characterized
the
fight
against
terrorists
as a war. In
fact,
in
his
inaugural
address,
Obama
stated
that
"[o]ur
nation
is
at
war
against
a
far-reaching
network
of
violence
and
hatred,"
and
he
has
repeatedly
discussed
terrorism
as
the
rationale
for
U.S.
military
action
abroad.
Brennan's comments are
uncontroversial and in line with Bush-era policies
Brennan: U.S. doesn't "describe our enemy as
jihadists
or
Islamists
because
jihad
is
holy
struggle,
a
legitimate
tenet
of
Islam
meaning
to
purify
oneself
of
one's
community."
In a
May
26 speech
to
the
Center
for
Strategic
and
International
Studies,
Brennan said that the United States doesn't "describe our enemy as
jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of
Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community" and that "[i]t would play
into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause
when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of
thousands upon thousands of Muslims." Brennan also said that "[o]ur enemy is
al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates," adding that "it was al-Qaida who
attacked us so viciously on 9/11
and
whose
desire
to
attack
the
United
States,
our
allies
and
our
partners
remains
undiminished."
From Brennan's speech:
BRENNAN:
The president's strategy is
absolutely
clear
about
the
threat
we
face.
Our
enemy
is
not
terrorism
because
terrorism
is
but
a
tactic.
Our
enemy
is
not
terror
because
terror
is a state of
mind
and,
as
Americans,
we
refuse
to
live
in
fear.
Nor
do
we
describe
our
enemy
as
jihadists
or
Islamists
because
jihad
is
holy
struggle,
a
legitimate
tenet
of
Islam
meaning
to
purify
oneself
of
one's
community.
And there is
nothing
holy
or
legitimate
or
Islamic
about
murdering
innocent
men,
women
and
children.
Indeed,
characterizing
our
adversaries
this
way
would
actually
be
counterproductive.
It
would
play
into
the
false
perception
that
they
are
religious
leaders
defending
a
holy
cause
when
in
fact,
they
are
nothing
more
than
murderers,
including
the
murder
of
thousands
upon
thousands
of
Muslims.
This is
why
Muslim
leaders
around
the
world
have
spoken
out
forcefully
and
often
at
great
risk
to
their
own
lives
to
reject
al-Qaida
and
violent
extremism.
And
frankly,
their
condemnations
often
do
not
get
the
recognition
they
deserve,
including
from
the
media.
Moreover, describing our enemy in
religious
terms
would
lend
credence
to
the
lie
propagated
by
al-Qaida
and
its
affiliates
to
justify
terrorism,
that
the
United
States
is
somehow
at
war
against
Islam.
The
reality,
of
course,
is
that
we
have
never
been
and
will
never
be
at
war
with
Islam.
After
all,
Islam,
like
so
many
faiths,
is
part
of
America.
Instead, the president's strategy is
clear
and
precise.
Our
enemy
is
al-Qaida
and
its
terrorist
affiliates.
For
it
was
al-Qaida
who
attacked
us
so
viciously
on
9/11
and
whose
desire
to
attack
the
United
States,
our
allies
and
our
partners
remains
undiminished.
And
it
is
its
affiliates
who
have
take
up
al-Qaida's
call
to
arms
against
the
United
States
and
other
parts
of
the
world.
The president's strategy is
unequivocal
with
regard
to
our
posture.
The
United
States
of
America
is
at
war.
We
are
at
war
against
al-Qaida
and
its
terrorist
affiliates.
That
is
why
the
president
is
responsibly
ending
the
war
in
Iraq,
which
had
nothing
to
do
with
9/11
and
why
he
has
refocused
our
efforts
on
Afghanistan,
where
al-Qaida
continues
to
plot
from
the
tribal
regions
along
the
border
with
Pakistan
and
inside
of
Pakistan.
Brennan: "Violent extremism" is
"a
more
encompassing
term."
In a
question-and-answer
session
after
his
speech,
Brennan
said:
"We
have
tried
to
expand
the
framework
when
we
talk
about
terrorism
and
counterterrorism
efforts,
to
include
the
concern
we
have
about
violent
extremism,
which
is a more encompassing term, in
many
respects."
From
the
question-and-answer
session:
Q: Sima Imaud with the Open Society Institute. Mr. Brennan, I'm really heartened by
the
government's
change,
in
terms
of
the
language
usage
of
"jihadist"
and
"Islamist"
and
was
similarly
heartened
by
your
talk
at
NYU
in
February.
I
wonder
if
there's
been
any
thought
about
rethinking,
frankly,
the
usage
of
the
words
"terrorism"
and
"terrorist,"
which,
at
present,
seem
to
be
defined
by
the
government
and
the
media
as
acts
of
violence
exclusively
perpetuated
by
Muslims.
MR. BRENNAN: We
have
tried
to
expand
the
framework
when
we
talk
about
terrorism
and
counterterrorism
efforts,
to
include
the
concern
we
have
about
violent
extremism,
which
is a more encompassing term, in
many
respects.
Unfortunately,
a
number
of
these
terms
have
become
just
part
of
our
lexicon
in
the
United
States.
What
we
can't
do,
though,
is
just
to
leave
it
at
that
one,
single
term.
Bush: "[E]xtremists distort the idea
of jihad." In a November 11, 2005, speech,
then-President Bush said that "[t]hese extremists distort the idea of jihad into
a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and
against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision." From the speech:
BUSH: All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we
see
on
the
news
can
seem
like
random,
isolated
acts
of
madness
--
innocent
men
and
women
and
children
who
have
died
simply
because
they
boarded
the
wrong
train,
or
worked
in
the
wrong
building,
or
checked
into
the
wrong
hotel.
Yet,
while
the
killers
choose
their
victims
indiscriminately,
their
attacks
serve
a
clear
and
focused
ideology
-- a set of
beliefs
and
goals
that
are
evil,
but
not
insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is
very
different
from
the
religion
of
Islam.
This
form
of
radicalism
exploits
Islam
to
serve
a
violent,
political
vision:
the
establishment,
by
terrorism,
subversion
and
insurgency,
of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of
jihad
into
a
call
for
terrorist
murder
against
Christians
and
Hindus
and
Jews
--
and
against
Muslims,
themselves,
who
do
not
share
their
radical
vision.
Bush: "[E]xtremists distort the idea of
jihad
into
a
call
for
terrorist
murder
against
anyone
who
does
not
share
their
radical
vision."
In an
October 17, 2005, speech, Bush also said that "[t]hese extremists
distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against anyone who does not share their radical vision, including Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as
heretics."
From
the speech:
BUSH: As we work together to defeat
the terrorists, we must be very clear about the enemies we face. The killers who
take the lives of innocent men, women, and children are followers of a violent
ideology very different from the religion of Islam. These extremists distort the
idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against anyone who does not share
their radical vision, including Muslims from other traditions, who they regard
as heretics.
Their strategy will fail. Many
Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing chapter
5, verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is
like killing all of humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving
all of humanity. I appreciate those of you here who have joined these scholars
in rejecting violent extremists. And I believe the time has come for all
responsible Islamic leaders to denounce an ideology that exploits Islam for
political ends, and defiles your noble
faith.
2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism: "Terrorists distort the idea of
jihad
into
a
call
for
violence
and
murder
against
those
they
regard
as
apostates
or
unbelievers."
The September 2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism --
authored
by
the
Bush
administration's
National
Security
Council
-- stated
of
"Today's
Terrorist
Enemy":
"This
enemy
movement
seeks
to
create
and
exploit
a
division
between
the
Muslim
and
non-Muslim
world
and
within
the
Muslim
world
itself.
The
terrorists
distort
the
idea
of
jihad
into
a
call
for
violence
and
murder
against
those
they
regard
as
apostates
or
unbelievers,
including
all
those
who
disagree
with
them.
Most
of
the
terrorist
attacks
since
September
11
have
occurred
in
Muslim
countries
--
and
most
of
the
victims
have
been
Muslims."
![Share This icon](http://static1.firedoglake.com"/plugins/share-this/images/share-icon-16x16.gif"){kind=icon}
