WH press secretary revives phrase 'war on terror'

[mhgaffney]

The Phrase 'War on Terror' Returns to White House Lexicon

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs may have returned the United States to the "War on Terror" -- or at least returned the term "War on Terror" to the White House glossary -- when he used the abandoned phrase Monday during a press briefing.

For the full story go to

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...house-lexicon/

[El Guapo]

Obama is going to smite him. How dare he!!!

[mhgaffney]

Let's put it this way.

Unless Obama orders an immediate and forceful retraction -- he risks losing all remaining credibility.

As I indicated on the other thread -- Obama is now almost a lame duck -- and he has not even finished his first year.

His only chance to save his presidency is to turn away from the Wall Street puppet masters and go to the American people

declare the second American revolution in the name of Jefferson

revoke the federal reserve charter

restore the gold standard

withdraw US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq

and from the 700 other US military bases world wide

slash the obscene Pentagon budget

and order an immediate review of the 1947 national security act which created the CIA

and

prepare this nation to live in peace -- not war...

[W*GS]

gaff-o, in your laundry list, you forgot

kill all the Jews

make everyone buy a copy of my book

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

revoke the federal reserve charter

restore the gold standard

withdraw US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq

and from the 700 other US military bases world wide

slash the obscene Pentagon budget

and order an immediate review of the 1947 national security act which created the CIA

and

prepare this nation to live in peace -- not war...

He can't revoke the Fed charter. Congress can
He can't restore us to th Gold Standard. Congress can


He can do all the other things you've mentioned. And he'd promptly be replaced.

[alkemical]

http://www.dangerousminds.net/index....When:21:43:06Z



In what reads like something out of High Castle-era Philip K. Dick, David Swanson describes what the American landscape might have looked like under a third Bush administration. More warrantless spying, escalating military budgets, formalizing policies of preventive detention, Swanson’s list is long—and grim. That’s just the set-up, though, to a far scarier punchline:

This dark fantasy of a third Bush term is also an accurate portrait of Obama’s first term to date. In following Bush, Obama was given the opportunity either to restore the rule of law and the balance of powers or to firmly establish in place what were otherwise aberrant abuses of power. Thus far, President Obama has, in all the areas mentioned above, chosen the latter course. Everything described, from the continuation of crimes to the efforts to hide them away, from the corruption of corporate power to the assertion of the executive power to legislate, is Obama’s presidency in its first seven months.

[Rohirrim]

Unfortunately, so far Obama is turning out to be a major disappointment.

[SPfloppy]

^To his credit we on the right have not made it easy for him. This is both a victory for the right and a loss for we the people. I didn't vote for this guy. I don't support his health care push and I hated the bailouts and stimulous...but the lesson we get from this is that with what we on the right accomplished by blocking his every effort, we may lose later when he actually has a good idea and then lacks the credability to get it done. Or we block him again just because he is a dem

[TexanBob]

If there's no "war on terror", then WTF are our troops doing in Afghanistan? Meals on Wheels? Terror's the only reason that troops should be over there so when the White House insists the "war on terror" doesn't exist, it makes our presence there completely indefensible.

I'm sure it's difficult for Obama to aggressively pursue bin Laden when most of bin Laden's communiques read like DNC talking points. Osama was a big backer of Obama in the last election and, for all we know, sent him campaign money too.

[mhgaffney]

Obama's Afghanistan policy was incoherent from the get go.

His Secretary of State Hillary stated that the war in terrorism was over. Yet meanwhile Obama said we were in Afghanistan 1. to catch bin Laden and 2. to stop Al Qaeda.

However, it's abundantly clear today that bin Laden is dead and has been -- probably -- since December 2001. All of the videos supposedly released by Al Qaeda since December 2001 were fakes.

Also, there is no Al Qaeda presence today in Afghanistan. So why are we in an expanding war?

The reason, as I've stated on this board, is because the US power elite is playing another round of the "Great Game," i.e., the jockeying for power and resources. Z. Brzezinski referred to it as the global chessboard. Buckminster Fuller used to say that whoever controls Afghanistan controls the world. I don't believe it - but it appears that some powerful people here in the US do believe it.

The great game of the 19th century led to WW I and WW II. If we allow the latest round to continue it will almost certainly lead to another global cataclysm -- probably nuclear -- WW III.

We will never fix our economy while waging two wars overseas. Not in a million years. In fact, we made this same mistake during the Viet Nam era. LBJ pushed through the great society social programs while expanding the Viet Nam War. This led to huge debt -- which forced Nixon to go off the gold standard.

That was the start of the US decline -- that continued over the next 40 years and greatly accelerated under GW Bush.

Obama has merely continued Bush's foreign policy. Obama = Bush lite.

This is why I believe the US economy will get worse before it improves. You can't wage foreign wars and take care of your own social issues at the same time. It can't be done.

MHG

[watermock]

Break the Big Banks!

Break the fed!

Thery're going to continue consolidating while making record profit and bonus'

Soon they will come after credit unions.

[W*GS]

As usual, gaff-o wants the US to collapse, just so we'll turn on the Jews, who actually run things.

He's got "Heil Hitler" shoulder.

[Cool Breeze]

[Rohirrim]

Gaff is quoting Fox News. I've stumbled into an alternate universe.

[mhgaffney]

Notice, none of the local yahoos comment on the issues raised. They take the low road -- typical of their ilk.

My my we are a strange species -- ranging from Einstein at one end of the spectrum to low life slugs that over populate boards like this at the other.

Ain't life somethin'...

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Notice, none of the local yahoos comment on the issues raised. They take the low road -- typical of their ilk.

My my we are a strange species -- ranging from Einstein at one end of the spectrum to low life slugs that over populate boards like this at the other.

Ain't life somethin'...

What's this thing you have about "ilks?" I guarantee you, I don't have an ilk. If I did, I'd do something about it. I guess I'd have to wait until ilk season started. I would not be part of any ilk that would have me as a member.

Anyway, I'm also guessing you would put yourself at the Einstein end of the spectrum. I do agree, there are some in here who are swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool, so to speak, but it seems a bit snobbish to bring it up, don't you think? If you're trying to come down the mountain and convince everybody that only you possess the true stone tablets, it's counter-productive to call everybody idiots. Just trying to help you out on your crusade. I'm afraid the best course may be to shade a little of your brilliance in order to serve your greater purpose, if I may be so bold.