posted on April 4, 2007 03:32:14 PM
lol....isn't this just too sweet?
The cowardly dems have decided that we won't be calling this GLOBAL war with the terrorists the "war on terror" anymore.
After all...this is the beginning of their POWER being used so we NEVER, ever offend our terrorist enemies.
Gawd...what cowards they are.
Like IF they pretend there is NO war against terrorism.....then that just makes it so.
Blind...totally blind. Already to not offend the terrorists.
===========
No more GWOT, House committee decrees
That would be the NEWLY elected DEMOCRATS....you know, those in denial that the terrorists mean us ANY harm.
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 committees 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.
posted on April 4, 2007 09:06:48 PM
Best of the Web Today - April 4, 2007
Best of the Web Today - April 4, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
Today's Videos on WSJ.com:
James Taranto on
'The War That Must Not Be Named'
A story in the Military Times gives a window into the strategic thinking--or lack thereof--of the Democrats who now control the House:
[here he's posted the same article I did from the military.com website.]
"If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named."
===
But underlying this semantic argument is a serious question--one that shows why the Democratic Party cannot be trusted with national security.
There are valid reasons to quibble with the phrase "global war on terror"--primarily the last word, which focuses on the enemy's tactical approach rather than on its identity, ideology and strategic goals.
What the Democrats object to, however, is the idea that it is a "global war."
In particular, they are trying to sell the fantasy that Iraq is a discrete problem with no relation to any broader conflict--so that surrendering in Iraq would have no deleterious consequences for U.S. national security.
It would be nice for Americans (albeit brutal for Iraqis) if the U.S. could simply cut its losses and abandon Iraq. But it seems to us there is far more wisdom in the holistic approach of the "global war."
America has failed to engage its enemies, or tactically retreated when the going got tough, repeatedly since Vietnam:
Iran in 1979,
Lebanon in 1983,
Iraq in 1991,
Somalia in 1993.
There is ample reason to think that these shows of weakness--or, more precisely, of irresoluteness--emboldened America's enemies.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provided strong--at the time, seemingly irrefutable--evidence that taking the easy way out did not enhance American national security.
America seems dangerously close to a tipping point: a return to the 9/10 mindset that led to 9/11.
It may be that President Bush's steadfastness is the only thing standing in the way, and that his departure from the scene in January 2009 will leave a more timid America.
Or, more optimistically, it may be that the current opposition to the "global war" is less about the war itself than about partisanship and Bush-hatred--and that its apparent gain in strength is really only a reflection of the president's political weakness late in his term.
If this is the case, then President Bush's successor, be he Democrat or Republican, will be likely to take a more realistic view of the world than the House Democrats are now doing.
Bush's policies, once untethered to Bush himself, may prove more resilient than many of his detractors now expect.
==========
Well....what do you know. There are other Americans who agree with my positions. LOL LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 09:26:53 AM
The dems just refuse to recognize that THEY don't get to 'play' the CIC role.
The CIC makes the calls....NOT them.
And sheenan's little plan....sounds to me like she's going to end up in jail again.....for disturbing the peace. Bet the neighbors won't have a problem calling the police. lol lol
==================
Bush chides Democrats over war bill
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago
CRAWFORD, Texas -
President Bush criticized Democrats on Saturday for going on vacation without first giving him what he wants: a war spending bill free of orders to pull troops home.
"I recognize that Democrats are trying to show their current opposition to the war in
Iraq," Bush said in his weekly radio address from Crawford, where he is on a break of his own.
"They see the emergency war spending bill as a chance to make that statement," Bush said. "[b]Yet for our men and women in uniform, this emergency war spending bill is not a political statement, it is a source of critical funding that has a direct impact on their daily lives[b]."
In response,
Democratic National Committee Chairman
Howard Dean said Bush was sticking to a "my way or the highway" approach to governing. "It is time for the president and Republicans in Congress to stop trying to bully their way through this and work with Democrats to end the war," Dean said in his party's weekly radio address. "It's time for the president to show respect to the American people, who voted overwhelmingly to leave Iraq."
Bush has asked Congress for more than $100 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. The House and Senate have approved the money, but their bills aim to wind down the war by including timelines for troops to come home — something Bush won't accept.
The Senate bill would require a U.S. troop exit in Iraq to begin within 120 days, with a completion goal of March 31, 2008.
The House bill orders all combat troops out by Sept. 1, 2008.
Democratic leaders have yet to negotiate a final version to send the president, and Bush has already made clear he will veto it anyway, which will start the process all over.
The Senate has been on a weeklong break;
the House is out for two weeks.
"That means the soonest the House and Senate could get a bill to my desk will be sometime late this month, after the adverse consequences for our troops and their families have already begun," Bush said. "For our troops, the clock is ticking."
Democrats contend Bush has grossly mismanaged the war. They aim to use their power over spending — and ride the tide of public anti-war sentiment — to force a policy change.
Bush, citing the opinions of his top military leaders, said the delay undermines the troops.
Unless he can sign a bill by mid-April, he said, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on training and equipment repair. The problem will grow even more dire if Congress does not send him a bill he supports by mid-May, Bush said.
Democratic leaders, while eager to show backing for the troops, say Bush is overstating the consequences of missing those deadlines. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July.
Bush is spending the Easter weekend in tranquility at his ranch, but the reminders of public opposition are never far away. Peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004, was back to lead another protest.
Sheehan drew international attention for staging a vigil outside Bush's ranch in August 2005. On Friday, she led roughly 100 people on a march to the security checkpoint at Bush's property. She said the group would use a bullhorn to call out the names of each dead soldier.
=============
Odd too that when the President first said the funds would be needed for our troops by April....the CRS said they'd last until May. Now that he says May...they say July.
Gosh...if he keeps agreeing with them...the troops will NEVER need the funding. LOL
But American's aren't going to take well to our troops doing without...and the dems WILL pay for that in '08.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 7, 2007 09:36 AM ]
posted on April 7, 2007 09:48:48 AM
Oh I seriously doubt that.
The voters were VERY upset with all the money this administration spent.
Think they're all of a sudden going to not be bothered by the democrats CONTINUING that pattern?
lol I don't.
And the whole of America supports our troops....not just in the lipservice way you give them.
They'll be PLENTY upset at the dems if our troops don't get the needed funding in a decent period of time.
Don't fool yourself on EITHER account.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 09:55:14 AM
linduh, is it hard to post in circles without getting dizzy ??
Did you read what you wrote ?LOLOL!!!!
"""Oh I seriously doubt that.
The voters were VERY upset with all the money this administration spent.
Think they're all of a sudden going to not be bothered by the democrats CONTINUING that pattern?
lol I don't.
And the whole of America supports our troops....not just in the lipservice way you give them.
They'll be PLENTY upset at the dems if our troops don't get the needed funding in a decent period of time.
Don't fool yourself on EITHER account."""
So, according to you, the voters will be upset if the Democrats don't get the troops funding but won't be upset if bush doesn't ???????
America supports the troops but doesn't want money spent ??????
AND the voters were upset with all the money this administration has wasted!!!!BLOWN away in Iraq....LOST in Iraq...UNACCOUNTED FOR in IRAQ by THIS administration.
