The Hollywood Liberal

WSJ falsely claims Brennan said “violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces”

From Rabinowitz’s June 9 Wall Street Journal article noted that during the Bush administration, Karen Hughes, President Bush’s “top diplomat to the Muslim world,” urged against the use of phrases such as “Islamic extremists” and “radical jihadists,” and that Hughes stated: “Whenever they hear ‘Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,’ they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That’s the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have.” The AP reported that “Hughes and Juan Zarate, Bush’s former deputy national security adviser, said Obama’s efforts build on groundwork from Bush’s second term, when some of the rhetoric softened.”

Bush administration document: “Never use the term ‘jihadist,’ ” which “unintentionally legitimizes their actions.” A May 2008 UPI article stated: “U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which ‘unintentionally legitimize’ terrorism.” The document discourages the use of “ill-defined and offensive terminology,” such as “‘Islamo-fascism,’ which are considered offensive by many Muslims.” The document from the National Counterterrorism Center goes on to state: “[N]ever use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahideen’ in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”

Bush administration Homeland Security document cautions against “using terms such as, ‘jihadist,’ ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ‘Islamist,’ and ‘holy warrior.’ “ A January 2008 Homeland Security document summarized recommendations made by Muslim leaders and scholars about proper and strategic terminology to use while discussing terrorism and stated that “the experts counseled caution in using terms such as ‘jihadist,’ ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ‘Islamist,’ and ‘holy warrior’ ” in order to “avoid unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers, or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims.” The document states:

The consensus is that we must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders the legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some. 

Bush National Strategy for Combating Terrorism: Terrorists “distort” the idea of jihad. 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.”

Bush: Extremists “distort” the idea of jihad “into a call for terrorist murder.” In a November 11, 2005, speech, 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. Bush made similar statements in an October 17, 2005, speech.

WSJ falsely suggests Holder doesn’t think “radical Islam might have played any role at all” in recent terror attempts

From Rabinowitz’s June 9 Wall Street Journal column: 

 Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president’s appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House–that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity–unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America’s attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.

Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan’s murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of “Allahu Akbar!”), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. “People have different reasons” he finally answered–a response he repeated three times. He didn’t want “to say anything negative about any religion.”

In fact, Holder said religious-based motivations are among the potential reasons for terrorism 

Holder: “[P]eople who espouse a radical version of Islam” may influence terrorists. During his May 13 testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Holder told Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) that “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.” Holder also commented: “There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based.”

Holder specifically cited Anwar al-Awlaki. Holder also stated: “I’m saying that a person like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it and who espouses a radical version” could have an influence on terrorists.