Thursday, April 05, 2007

Global War on Terror Banned Out of Existence

The Global War on Terror never flowed trippingly off the tongue of anyone who used the term, but at least it was an inclusive name. And that was probably the reason the House Armed Services Committee has banned its use in 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.”
Of course there's a political motive involved. Since 9/12, the Democrats have tried to turn the clock back to 9/10, but they can't do it, the arrow of time only goes in one direction. So what they are doing now is redefining and rewriting the history of the the last several years. By eliminating the Global War on Terror, all the operations are disconnected, existing only as singular events which can be revoked piecemeal. Afghanistan and Iraq are not separate wars, they are battles in the same war, just as the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle for Guadalcanal were battles in the same war.

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House puts it thus:

Now apparently, the Democrats have simply abandoned the idea of a general war at all and will pigeonhole each operation as separate and unrelated to any other operation underway around the world.

This is the culmination of nearly 6 long years of work by Democrats to banish 9/11 as a seminal date in history; that America was a different place after the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans than it was before.

And the reason the Democrats have been so anxious to change the dynamic regarding the “War on Terror” is shockingly political; they see a huge advantage accrue to the Republicans as a result of the attacks on this country and have been seeking for 6 years to destroy that advantage. Despite a transparent attempt to change the narrative of 9/11 to reflect badly on the President, to this day the President’s performance on 9/11 and the days following is seen as the highlight of his presidency by the majority of Americans. Unable to undermine history by substituting their own cockeyed narrative of the events on that day and immediately after, the Democrats are doing the next best thing; they are trying to remove the impact of 9/11 on our military and foreign policy and the subsequent decisions made by the President to fight Islamic radicalism all over the world.
The enemy doesn't have a problem with a global terror war. USCentCom reports an April 4 posting to a jihadi website had this notice:

"After a long absence by the shaykh of mujahidin, whom we have missed as well as his speeches, some news is being leaked indicating that Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, God protect and preserve him and make him a thorn in the throat of the enemies, will make an appearance. The news indicates that Al-Sahab Media Establishment, which specializes in publishing Al-Qa'ida leaders' speeches, has recently finished producing a video featuring Bin Ladin's speech to the entire Islamic nation."
The US Central Command continues -

Furthermore, the poster of this note maintains that the speech includes several messages to the "mujahidin" in Iraq, the Palestinian People on " the capitulation choice which HAMAS gave in to," the Riyadh Arab summit, the "fears" of America and its allies of the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate state in Iraq, and the "good tidings of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The bad guys are comfortable talking about conducting a global terror war which includes Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, and ordering the assassination of the Dalai Lama. The terrorists even tell us about their intention to establish the "Islamic Caliphate state is Iraq", i.e., the center of the future Islamic world empire is Iraq. It is to block the establishment of a caliphate in Iraq is one of the reasons we are currently in Iraq.

The words can be changed till hell freezes over. But the terrorists will still know their goals and the appeasers around the world will never get.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

5 comments:

Gayle said...

It seems to me that the appeasers/enablers have become as much of an enemy to this country as the terrorists!

I don't understand the mindset. The Democrats are in as much danger of losing their life style as anyone else and yet they undermine our efforts at each and every turn. They even try to change the language so that nothing is called what it really is. I detest them!

Great post. Have a wonderful Easter Weekend! :)

Indigo Red said...

I don't understand it, either, Gayle. The reason may inevitably lie in an ironic twist - the triumph of the Golden Rule.

Mike's America said...

It's all part of the plan to foster the denial and delusion upon which Democrats depend for political power.

Indigo Red said...

Just wait, Mike, til they start air-brushing former leaders out of photographs. James Monroe has been erased from the school history books and replaced by Matilyn Monroe. The behavior is the same as the former Soviet Union when leaderships changed. Suddenly, somebody who was very important according to authorities never existed.

Also, listen to the words the Democrats use. The are "in power" and are seeking to "take control of both houses and the presidency." Previously in our history, the Constitution and laws were administered. The power remained with the Constitution and the people. No longer. The vocabulary of dictactors and tyrants has replaced the language of freedom and freedom itself has been redefined.

dcat said...

MY DEFIANT WAYS WILL STAND!