The Obama Administration has changed the terms. From the March 26, 2009 Investor's Business Daily:
In a memo e-mailed to Pentagon staff members this week, the Defense Department's office of security review said that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror.' Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' " As Gen. Sherman once said, overseas contingency operations are hell.Whatever hopes that I had in January that Obama wasn't going to be a raving leftist are now gone.
Recently the Justice Department announced in a court filing that it was dropping the term "enemy combatant." No particular substitute was provided, only the explanation that in the future only those who provided "substantial support" to terrorist groups would be detained, not those who "provide unwitting or insignificant support" to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
How can any support of terrorism ever be "insignificant"? Was 9/11 al-Qaida's version of an "overseas contingency operation"?
It was not terrorism, at least in the eyes of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. It was a "man-caused disaster" — you know, just like Pearl Harbor.
In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Napolitano said this word game was "perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear."
When a nuclear, biological or chemical device is detonated in or over an American city, will that be a matter of "nuance"?
No comments:
Post a Comment