Wednesday, April 04, 2007

House dems refuse to acknowledge war on terror

Story: "The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.
The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.” "

Once again, we have a stunning example of a liberals priorities. Politics before country, and bowing to evil before supporting good.

The claim is that they wish to avoid 'vauge phrases', but 'ongoing military operations throughout the world' strikes me as even more vauge then 'The Global War on Terrorism'. I mean, how much more descriptive can you get in one phrase? We are dedicated to fighting terrorism abroad, around the world.

Its shocking how long this nation has survived with a party that hates its country comprising nearly half the voting base.


Amelia said...

Oh boy.

DAWEED said...

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

Well that says it all right there.

under_the_mercy said...

And yet we must realize how much worse off our country would be if all the Democrats turned Republican.

To put in my usual side note, may I suggest John Locke's 2nd treatise on government as a wonderful book to read to understand how and why our government was designed as it was.

Palm boy said...

Daweed, that cracked me up.

Under, Please explain why we would be worse off with Republicans running the show.

under_the_mercy said...

Because it would leave our government with one consolidated political party without any real rivals. Even now the republican and democratic hierarchy's decide who runs and thus who is elected. A consolidated, effecient, unified government always ends up oppressive.