Spoiled Children....House Dems 'Dont Like That Name Anymore'

TED-THE-DRUNK · #1 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 03:55 AM

No more GWOT, House committee decrees

Quote:

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Apr 3, 2007 20:12:47 EDT

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.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

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.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

Josh Holly, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the committee’s former chairman and now its senior Republican, said Republicans “were not consulted” about the change.

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world, while Republicans have said that Iraq is part of the front line in the war on terror. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman, has been among those who have complained that having the military tied up with Iraq operations has reduced its capacity to respond to more pressing problems, like tracking down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

“This is a philosophical and political question,” said a Republican aide. “Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.”

However, U.S. intelligence officials have been telling Congress that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian strife and not directly linked to terrorists, although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.

“You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

“If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named,” said another Republican aide. That is a reference to the fact that the villain in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, is often referred to as “he who must not be named” because of fears of his dark wizardry.

justabubba · #2 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 04:29 AM

so, i understand why it disappoints you, ted

war on drugs ...
war on terror ...

catch phrases which are meaningless

come back to us when you have something meaningful, boy

BoogiePeople · #3 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 06:21 AM

I'm from Missouri, and I can tell you...we've got a bunch of clueless Commucrat rubes running this state. Their "good ole boy" mentality is clouding their minds, and keeping them from making the proper decisions that affect their constituents. I'm not surprised this hick introduced this garbage.

I'm sure he'll be introducing legislation that bans the word "redneck" from society too. It would affect way too many people in my state. Luckily, I live in one of the three major urban cities. Us city-fied fellers dunt got no rayd-necks.

JP5 · #4 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 11:33 AM

What did I tell you just days ago? I'm so ahead of this article. I said several times now that the problem with the Dem leadership is that they think we can SEPARATE the conflicts into nice, neat little events and pretend that one doesn't have anything to do with the other. “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa”........proves me right!!

Oh, I just love it when my analysis is right on!!

Joker · #5 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 12:24 PM

"The War on Terror"

With a name like that, you'd think we were gonna ban horror movies and sneaking up behind people and saying, "BOO!"

JavaBlack · #6 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 12:36 PM

The problem with the term is that it is too vague and emotion-packed. There is no definite way to tell when it is done or even how we are progressing on it. It can be redefined by every administration that sees it... and many will, because we don't know when the (*)(*)(*)(*) thing is over!
When speaking of budgets, I personally don't care for open-ended, vague notions that can go on without end and be used for pretty much anything... It's like if I set up part of my household budget as "The War on Boredom".
The idea is to write a budget in definite terms (though as for the pork part, they might as well have placed "The War on Budgetary Sanity"

).

DuH2 · #7 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

No more GWOT, House committee decrees

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 4, 2007 16:11:56 EDT

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.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

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.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

Josh Holly, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the committee’s former chairman and now its senior Republican, said Republicans “were not consulted” about the change.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...crats_070403w/

No tpolitically motivated ..yet Republicans where not consulted on it AND they firmly state they want to avoid using phrases Bush and just about eveyrone else uses to describe the war globally.

Word games
..they won't admit what is so that they will not have admit what they want to lose.

f100supersabr · #8 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 06:08 PM

I'm sorry Duh, I must be tired so , huh????

SenaxFlatulus · #9 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 06:41 PM

Sending out a list of words "not to utter" is indicative of the party that heaves the freedom of speech overboard at the first chance they can. Meanwhile, the rest of the world just grins at the sheer state of denial they exhibit. What's next on the banned words list... terrorist?

DuH2 · #10 (**permalink**) 04-04-2007, 06:47 PM

They are now "revising" what they meant.

Quote:

Late Wednesday afternoon, a source told FOX News that the panel had sent out a revised version making it clear that there was “no political intent behind” the wording.

The section was rewritten and there is a new version of the style guide, a copy of which has not yet been released.
...

Democratic staffers revised the memo to ensure that there "was no misunderstanding or confusion ... it was never intended to be anything other than (to get) the highest degree of specificity and accuracy" for the legislation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264008,00.html

"It's no wonder Democrats don't like the phrases 'global War on Terror,' they have completely failed to take the threat of global terrorism seriously," Boehner said.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode