Why Our Leaders Won’t Name the Enemy

After the Orlando attack, Obama ranted that it did not matter what we called Islamic terrorism. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The “Islamic terrorists by any other name would smell as sweet” argument is the last resort of the losing side. It dismisses the whole issue as a matter of semantics with no bearing on the real world.

And that’s a neat rhetorical trick for the political side that relentlessly refuses to acknowledge reality.

  • ontario john

    Its a good thing he wasn’t president during world war 2, or we would never have known we were fighting the Nazis. The elites are very good at controlling the message to the peasants. And example is the Toronto Star only using the word Daesh to describe muslim terrorists. And the well trained sheep that work for that paper follow the regulation willingly.

    • I’m sure Obama would have found a way to blame the NRA.

      • Clausewitz

        It’s all the Crusades fault.

        • Danielle Owens


  • Clausewitz

    This woman has the situation well in hand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N_S5dKrMVY

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      She’s my sugar spun sister.

  • Because Obama is the enemy (SEE: Iran, 2008, no pre-conditions).

    • Alain


      • When Iran does decide to rattle its sabre, I wonder if the Obama-bots will remember 2008.

    • Will Quest


  • Raymond Hietapakka

    …seems to me like someone is getting a pile of money from Saudi Arabia to look the other way, to carry water, to lie, to bullshit, to deflect…