What if the Obama Administration Declared the Global War on Terror over…

…and only 11% of the voting public believed them?

Wonder no more.

The claim:

 

Can Obama Safely Embrace Islamists?

By Michael Hirsh | NationalJournal

It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists. “The war on terror is over,” one senior State Department official who works on Mideast issues told me. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

Which was promptly walked back:

(In a Tuesday night update to this post, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor clarified that while the “war on terror” concept has been dropped, “we absolutely have never said our war against al Qaida is over. We are prosecuting that war at an unprecedented pace.”

 

What prompted the walkback?

 

Only 11% Think War on Terror Is Over

Rasmussen

Voters overwhelmingly reject the idea that the war on terror is over one year after the death of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, although most feel his al Qaeda terrorist group is weaker today. But a majority also still thinks a terrorist attack is possible in the next year.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 11% of Likely U.S. Voters think the war on terror is over. Seventy-nine percent (79%) say that war, declared after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America, is not over. Another 11% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

 

When 79% of the electorate don’t believe you, you’re in trouble, and as trial baloons go, this one resembled the Hindenberg.

 

Hat Tip: HotAir

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 1, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Foreign Affairs, National Security, Osama bin Laden.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Ka-boom…

    Heard this, and immediately thought “Bullshit.  How are they going to walk this back?”

    And then thought – “Hey – that means we can dump the TSA!!  Hallelujah!”

    • jim_m

       Don’t count on any government agency to be shut down, least of all the ones that violate our civil rights.

  • ackwired

    The “War on Terrorism” as it was introduced to us meant invading and occupying countries with conventional forces.  That policy failed and should be fazed out.  Pursuing and engaging terrorists covertly with special forces is a much more effective strategy.  We seem to be moving in that direction.

    • GarandFan

       So ‘pursing and engaging in’ some  other country isn’t “invading”?

      I suppose defeat is also “victory” and weakness is “strength”?

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Newspeak is alive and well amongst the left…

      • ackwired

        No.  It is not an invasion.  An invasion is a mass movement of conventional forces whose purpose is to overthrow the country.  Special Forces ops have been going on around the world for some time(certainly since I was in the military during the 60′s).  Check out “Act of Valor” if you get a chance.  While concessions to movie making were certainly made, it used the Seals and gave us an idea as to what their ops involve.  Note how many country’s were involved.

        • jim_m

          OK. So if you insert troops into a country where they do not have permission to be you are committing an act of war.  Are you OK with that or would you prefer that we do nothing?  When does the country that harbors them become too dangerous to play that game with?  Say when they gain nuclear weapons like Iran?  Then what?

          • ackwired

            You can’t prejudge these things, JIm.  Each situation needs to be evaluated independently.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You continue to waste your time with a troll who fails to understand the “prejudging” such things is what is known as developing a Foreign Policy.

        • GarandFan

           Ask the Pakistani’s what they considered the Seal Team op to be.  Maybe you can make up a new term, like maybe “police stop” or something on that order.

          • ackwired

            Their reaction seems to be completely different than the Iraqi’s reaction when we invaded them.

            http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bin-laden-killed-pakistan-reacts-cautiously-us/story?id=13507918

          • GarandFan

             IIRC, Iraq’s first response was one of relief.  Or where those photos of Saddam’s statue being toppled Photoshopped?

          • ackwired

            The reaction of the Iraqi people was mixed, and many saw the American forces as liberators.  The reaction to which I was referring was the reaction of the government.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ernie.ball3 Ernie Ball

            My daughter was in Iraq in 2003, and she had a different veiw, most of the Iraq’s supported our troops, she said most of the people attacking our troops were not Iraq’s.

          • ackwired

            I appreciate your daughter’s service to our country.  I’m sure you had some troubled moments while she was in Iraq too.

            I think those arguing that a special forces op is equivalent to an armed invasion are talking about the reaction of the government rather than te reaction of the people (although they might use either if it served their purpose).  Perhaps your daughter could explain the difference to GarandFan, Mr. Graves, and JIm.

    • retired.military

      Actually the war on terror as it was introduced to us meant umm actually hitting back at the terrorists in meaningful ways instead of standing there and taking it.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Precisely.  Answering acts of war by NGO’s with war against those NGO’s and the nation states which support and shelter them.

        • ackwired

          Precisely.  And the most effective way to accomplish that is with special forces

      • ackwired

        Yes.  That was certainly the political element.  The country was angry and wanted something overt and visible. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OIE22UZSQ362ZK246R3NJZ3JD4 Brett

      Success depends on killing as many people with hostile intent as possible, as quickly as possible. No matter where they are. Recall that *they* are the ones that declared war on *us*. We are just obliging them. 

      • ackwired

        El Quaeda declared war on us.  Clearly neither Afghanistan nor Iraz did, nor did we declare war on them.  But I was not addressing the moral aspec of it, nor whether we were justified in our actions.  I am simply making the point that our success has resulted from special forces ops and that they are much more effective in fighting terrorists than invading and occupying with conventional forces.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    Spin failure on top of narrative failure.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Fail upon fail.  Do they know how to stack it, or what?

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        They never learned the first rule of holes…

        • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

          They never did stop talking about how Obama’s “digging America out of a hole.”

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            And fail to understand that the hole is just getting deeper.

  • GarandFan

    “… and as trial balloons go, this one resembled the Hindenburg.”

    It was late at night, they didn’t have time to run it by their focus group.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.melson Dan Melson

    When he disbands the TSA and dismantles most of Homeland Security, I *might* believe Obama really thinks the War on Terror is over.

    As of right now, I mostly believe he’s trying to quit winning before the enemy is completely out of troops

    • GarandFan

       Hell, I’d just settle for some “adult” leadership at TSA at the moment.  Something other that mindless prattle.

  • jim_m

    Of course only 11% of the [public think that the war on terror is over.  Apart from the fact that there are still islamic lunatics demanding that western democracy, freedom and ideals be destroyed (along with the people who practice those things) there is the simple fact that the US government is showing no sign of eliminating the measures erected to reduce terrorism.

    Gitmo is still running. The TSA is still molesting women and children. We still have a Homeland Security Agency tasked with…well it’s hard to figure what they are tasked with other than making sure the TSA keeps violating people’s rights.

    When the government starts acting like the war is over then the people might be willing to believe some of it.  It’s kind of like global warming:  When Al Gore has a carbon footprint larger than 70% of UN member nations, it’s a little hard to believe that global warming is a problem regardless of what he says.. 

    When the government starts dismantling the TSA, the Patriot act etc, I will believe that they really believe that the War on Terror is over.  Of course that does not mean that I will think so.  It takes two to declare peace.  If the muslims still want to fight the war won’t be over.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


      Apart from the fact that there are still islamic lunatics demanding that western democracy, freedom and ideals be destroyed (along with the people who practice those things) there is the simple fact that the US government is showing no sign of eliminating the measures erected to reduce terrorism.

      No, we’re doing just fine in destroying our freedoms with bills like CISPA and persecution of whistleblowers while people like former CIA head of counterterrorism Jose Gonzales goes around the world talking about how he committed war crimes.  Great set of priorities, eh?

       If the muslims still want to fight the war won’t be over.

      Might want to look into the CIA drone strikes.  We’re going to cause another round of jihad where we don’t even know what the heck we’re bombing.  We’re just killing people for looking suspicious.

      • retired.military

        .. persecution of whistleblowers. 

        Oh you mean like the AG inspector general that isnt one anymore after he started investigating Moochelle.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          John Kiriakou, Bradley Manning, and the recent persecution of the Lt. Col whose name escapes me for his discussion about our Afghan policies.

          • retired.military

            Manning isnt a whistleblower.  he is a traitor.  A whistleblower goes to authorized sources with issues to try to resolve them.  manning gave secrets to an outside source.  There is a difference Jay.   As for the LTCOL who discussed Afghan policies, if he was on active duty he deserves what he gets.  He violated the rules.  Same as the marine who criticized Obama and the iditot who refused to deploy becauase of Obama’s birth certificate.

          • jim_m

             Manning is a traitor and lucky that he won’t be hanged.  It doesn’t matter what you think of the information he gave up.  It was secret and illegal for him to do so.  His excuse is that he is gay and didn’t like the military policy toward gays?  Too f’ing bad.

            If a right wing Christian had done the same thing the left would be calling for his head.  Of course the left never thinks of how hypocritical they are on these issues.  If they did they would have little time to think of anything else.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


              It was secret and illegal for him to do so.

            Any reference to how they harmed US intel?  Go ahead.  They’ve been out for months now.  Low level cables that weren’t even supposed to be secret.

            His excuse is that he is gay and didn’t like the military policy toward gays?

            Wrong.  That’s what the government is using as an excuse.  Might want to read about the case.

            If a right wing Christian had done the same thing the left would be calling for his head.

            Romney just exposed that lie.  Try again?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


             he is a traitor.

            Wrong.  He could have sold those secrets.  He wanted to shine light on war crimes.  That defines a whistleblower.

             As for the LTCOL who discussed Afghan policies, if he was on active duty he deserves what he gets.

            He wrote two different reports.  One classified and one open.  They didn’t think what they were doing was wrong.  Further, Manning and the Lt. Col. were trying to do what was right.  How sad that Obama has persecuted more whistleblowers than any other president before him combined.

          • jim_m

             Dude, it does not matter why he released secret documents.  He could do it for financial gain or for ideological reasons or for no real reason at all.  The crime is in the release of the documents.  Motive is irrelevant. Manning is a traitor because he released secrets.

            Furthermore, any damage that he did to US intel or to US assets is also irrelevant. The documents were classified and therefore their release under any circumstances was an act of treason. What happened because of the release is not material to the crime.

            The fact is that you don’t want to think of him as a traitor because you hate America.  You want to see America lose its wars.  You want to see the US government collapse and be replaced with a communist dictatorship.  To that end if Manning harms the US government he is a hero to you.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Just Jay demonstrating his ignorance in yet another field, having obviously never heard the acronym SMICE when it comes to intelligence and counter-intelligence.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Nope.  Never heard of it.  Might want to learn how to explain instead of acting as if you’re better than others.

          • jim_m

             Reasons for committing treason dumbass.

            Sex, Money, Ideology, Coercion, Ego.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You should have left the ignorant ass to do his own research.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            He could do it for financial gain or for ideological reasons or for no real reason at all.  The crime is in the release of the documents.

            So Daniel Ellsberg’s higher profile releases during the Watergate scandal are lost on you.  Excellent.

             Manning is a traitor because he released secrets.

            Try again.  He wasn’t.  His motives make a very important point in how he is a traitor.  If he had done it for financial gain, then yes, he’s a traitor.  If not, and he just wanted to put dissinfectant on war crimes, then he’s a whistleblower.  But here’s something you should understand.  Stratfor, has given US secrets to Turkey and plans to sell secrets to China.  Nothing is going to happen to them while they sell secrets.  That’s a true traitor.

            Furthermore, any damage that he did to US intel or to US assets is also irrelevant. 

            Wrong again, Bob.  If there had been some kind of actual damage, then we could have that discussion.

            The documents were classified and therefore their release under any circumstances was an act of treason

            Nope, they were low level cables that never should have been secrets in the first place.  Further, there were war crimes and this sends a message that others can’t blow the whistle through legal channels.

             You want to see America lose its wars.

            This coming from someone that supports two illegal wars that have cost the US more in the 10 years than even Vietnam?  Show me where America is going to lose a war.  Quit the rhetoric.  It’s bad for your mental health.

            You want to see the US government collapse and be replaced with a communist dictatorship.  

            BWAAAHAHAHAHA!

      • jim_m

         You can’t cause another round of jihad.  You can only eliminate the jihadis.  IT isn’t the actions of others who create jihadis it is their F’d up religion.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          Right… Tell me how signature strikes aren’t going to cause more people to be pissed off with US foreign policy.

          • jim_m

             I didn’t say that it wouldn’t.  But terrorists are not born out of disagreement with US policy, they are borne out of radical islamic fundamentalism and little else.  These people do not merely disagree with US policy, they disagree with US culture and the very existence of a nation that isn’t under the heel of some islamic fascist ruler.

      • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

        Jose Gonzales? Is that the same Jose Gonzales who personally told Nancy Pelosi that the CIA was using waterboarding . . .  before Pelosi claimed in public that she didn’t know about the waterboarding? If you are going to believe what Gonzales says about his own actions, then why not believe that Pelosi knew abouth those actions before they became public knowledge?

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          What in the blue bloody hell does Nancy Pelosi have to do with Jose Gonzales being put into the head of CIA counterterrorism, being incredibly ignorant to admitting all of this on TV 60 minutes, and showing how he’ll use the CIA to do the same tactics once Obama is out of office?

          Nancy Pelosi doesn’t even enter into this damn equation.  This is about Gonzales’ actions.  Stop trying the Newtonian approach to the argument in trying to win political points and rile up your base.

  • Guest

    Semantics aside, the President of the United States is over in Afghanistan this  very moment, mopping up and taking care of the business which Bush failed to do.

    Obama is looking very strong on the International front. This is going to force Romney to name a VP who has foreign policy creds, since Romney hasn’t a clue when it comes to the International scene.

    Romney is the weakest candidate that the GOP has put up in decades. He’s the guy who lost to McCain! This year the GOP not only couldn’t come up with a qualified candidate, they had to take a has-been loser as the best they could muster.

    Good luck with that, Republicans.

    • retired.military

      “Semantics aside, the President of the United States is over in Afghanistan this very moment, mopping up and taking care of the business which Bush failed to do.”

      Is that a pile of chickenshit I hear cackling again?

      BHAHAHAH oh that is rich.  When Bush was “failing to do it” the left, including Obama,  was calling for complete  withdrawl, that all is lost, that we couldnt win.   Obama would never be where he was without standing on the shoulders of giants like the men and women of the Armed Forces who got us there and Bush who had the actual guts to do something about the terrorists.  
      You are an idiot.


      Romney is the weakest candidate that the GOP has put up in decades

      Gee you actually said soemthing right.  However, You have still refused to accept my bet.,

      $100 to winners charity.
      I win if Romney takes the WH, republicans take the Senate and hold the House.

      You win otherwise.

      Put your money where your balls are.  In your mouth.  Man up and take the bet.  You probably wont have to pay up as I see Olaf in your future.

      “This year the GOP not only couldn’t come up with a qualified candidate, they had to take a has-been loser as the best they could muster.”

      And yet he leads Obama in the latest poll and will win in Nov. Says a lot about Obama doesnt it.

      • Guest

        Put your money where your balls are.  In your mouth.

        lol. what a moron.

        • retired.military

          a.  You didnt respond to the bet ( I mean what do you have to lose other than to provide a miniscule bit of proof that what you think about Obama is true (not that it is)).
          b.  You didnt refute any statement I made regarding Obama nor did you deny that no matter how bad Romney is Obama is much worse.
          c.  You didnt deny that Obama and his ilk were crying surrender while Bush (against all the democratic opposition to include Obama)  and the armed forces were doing the heavy lifting.
          d.   You are still a douchebag
          e.  You are still a chickenshit.
          f. Noone is talking about the dog story anymore (except for maybe you).

        • retired.military

          I was wrong about one thing Grumpy.  That being what’s in your mouth.  Your balls cant be in your mouth when you dont have any.

    • GarandFan

      ” Semantics aside, the President of the United States is over in
      Afghanistan this  very moment, mopping up and taking care of the
      business which Bush failed to do.”

      Ya, ya senile old fool, he looked great with BDU’s and a Kevlar helmet on, carrying a M4.  I must have missed the part of “mopping up”.

      Too bad Tom Hanks wasn’t around to write the script.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    Spin aside, the SCoaMF is over in Afghanistan claiming credit for the efforts of better men than he.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      Because Bush didn’t get Bin Laden for eight years and Rumsfeld turning down the offer to get him wasn’t a good idea at the time.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Spin aside, the SCoaMF is over in Afghanistan claiming credit for the efforts of better men than he.

  • herddog505

    89% don’t agree, isn’t it?

    Anyway, I agree with Dan Melson:

    When he disbands the TSA and dismantles most of Homeland Security, I *might* believe Obama really thinks the War on Terror is over.

    O’ course, Barry won’t do that (and, honestly, I don’t think Mitt would, either) because he doesn’t want to take the political risk of some nutbag getting on a plane with a bomb and having to trot JaNo out to say, “We got rid of the system.”

    Plus, what to do with all the laid-off TSA agents?  I suppose sending them to school to be OBGYN’s and proctologists MIGHT work, though it would be expensive.

    • retired.military

      Actually he doesnt want to have to find all those govt employees different jobs to keep the union happy.

      • jim_m

         He could just have them clean up after OWS and other left wing demonstrations.

        • retired.military

          They dont clean up messes.  They make them.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

       10% had no opinion…

      • herddog505

        Oh, OK.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CVRZE7H2ENKKMCYYOMIUIVWRW4 rhody

    The war on terror won’t be over until Obama leaves office.

  • Wild_Willie

    No matter what the lefty loons like ackwired say, GW Bush made a point to say the war against terrorism will be a long one. It will take time and national treasure.

    Rumsfeld said he wanted to ‘smarten’ the army for the new warfare but the left brought out the retired generals to say conventional warfare set ups should still be in place.

    You lefties are so deluded. You believe every talking point that comes across your screen. ww

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Not to mention factual geese who wake up in a new universe every morning waiting for the MSM/Sinistrosphere infusion of cliches.

  • LiberalNitemare

    Mission accomplished!

  • Pingback: Until We Decide to Fight Muslim Terrorism, We Won’t Defeat Muslim Terrorism and Win the War Against It | Daily Pundit