Posted on 02/03/2010 4:19:11 PM PST by Diogenez
Last night Kieth-O and Jonathan A of Newsweek played up the supposed cooperation of would-be terrorist Umar and family as being a direct result of Pres-O's perceptive soft line on terrorism - that because Pres-O wisely refused and refrained from referring to US opposition to Islamic insurrectionism as a "war on terror", he thus engendered this very productive outpouring. So the Pres's refusal to use "war on terror" rhetoric is productive and correct, politically.
But hey! This is in direct opposition to the "facts" as he claims them to be (via the patented emotional Olber-azim) on several occasions (one within the last couple of weeks ) - that the GOP lied shamelessly when it portrayed Pres-O as taking a weak-provocative line re the "war". Kieth-O here cites a few occasions when the Pres-O seems to have indeed used the term "war on terror". (Though these seem to be mostly references to existing document titles or are further cites of Bush quotes.) So the Pres is tough and those who claim he avoids use of the phrase "war on terror" are liars.
This oddly persistent remnant of what is loosely defined as journalism is relevant. The only relevancy I can cite at this present time is an odd recollection that he bears a haunting resemblance to an old SciFi series of a computer generated image called ‘Max’ or something (I’m getting old -sue me)....the resemblance is eery.....either way, both are irrelevant to anything meaningful today....
Actually his rants flow from an entirely different orifice.
Observant.
That would be Max Headroom. Good call, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.