« Bleeding Heart Diet Plan | Main | Dem Peter Welch: Impose Enviromoonbattery on the Military »

They, like the Brits, have dropped the phrase because it was rediculous to begin with.

I remember back in November all the candidates who promised to "win the War on Terror", as if it's even possible to defeat an abstract noun. It's a stupid term. There is no 'winning', unless you take the word out of the dictionary. It's just a phrase.

Anyway, I know it must be hard to wrap your mind around all this, so I'll include a link that might satirize the situation a bit:

War on Terror, the boardgame!

How do you wage war on a strategy, anyway?

The flaw with the "it was the wrong name for the war anyway" rationalization is that the donks aren't now calling it by its proper name, the War Against Islamo-Fascism, either. Rather, this is part of a "divide and conquer" strategy that allows the party of appeasement and surrender to break the war into smaller pieces they can kill off one by one.

The Democrat War on the Military contiues: Moonbat Vermont Congressman Wants Military to Buy Into Gore's Carbon-Offset Money Scam.

I can think of at least two things wrong with the use of the phrase “Global War on Terrorism” in a defense authorization bill:

1) Authorizing this Administration to fight a “Global War” is analogous to authorizing Michael Jackson to run a day care center (the Globe), let alone to babysit two children (Iraq and Afghanistan).

2) Authorizing this Administration to fight a “Global War” against a tactic, “Terrorism,” is analogous to authorizing Michael Jackson to run a day care center with carte blanche to do as he will with the children as long as he says he believes they have misbehaved.

But as pedantic as all this sounds, there’s more to what Representative Skelton and his Democrat compatriots are up to here. Authorizing, even if only by inference, a “Global War on Terrorism,” is de facto declaring war on the entire world. Even Hitler didn’t do that. “Terrorism,” and by default “terrorists,” is a ubiquitous presence throughout the “Globe.” I would confidently assume that every nation on Earth has “terrorists” committing “terrorism” every day. To the victim, “terrorism” is “terrifying,” regardless of how many victims there are. So, from small acts of “terror” to massive assaults, “terrorism” is a worldwide fact of life. For any one entity, or nation, to fight “terrorism” “globally” is both impossibly arduous and unacceptably presumptuous. It is for each nation, each peoples, each authority to deal with “terrorism.” Sure, we can work together, even “globally,” to prevent “terrorism” and prosecute “terrorists” - that’s called DIPLOMACY, not “war.”

And “terrorism,” is too broad a term to be declaring war upon it. For example, per American law, if you were to call someone on the telephone and tell them that you are going to punch them in the face, you have commited an act of terror. A warrant could be issued for your arrest for “terrorizing” the receiver of that call. And “terrorism” is in the eye, or at least the rhetoric, of the beholder. In 2002, Chinese authorities made an active effort to portray the practitioners of Falun Gong, a Buddhist sect that concentrates on “better health and inner peace,” as terrorists. Somehow I think the American people are not up for shipping Chinese housewives to Guantanamo for performing slow-motion exercizes in the park.

All this aside, words have meaning, and words in legislation have meaning in law. The Bush Administration has shown itself to be irresponsible, inept and callous in it’s application of the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. It has shown itself irresponsible, inept and callous in it’s handling of Afghanistan. It has made thinly veiled threats against Iran. The Constitutional authority to declare war and maintain the military rests squarely on the Legislature - not the Executive. This Executive, in particular, has shown a propensity to circumnavigate circumlocutous law, be it through piddling “signing statements” or catastrophic foreign policy. Ike Skelton and the Democrats on the House Armed Services Committe are not playing semantic games - they are legislating responsibly. It’s about time and it’s been a long time coming.

JMJ

Yawn. Yes, trolls, we get it, you hate Bush. I also hate Bush. The difference is, I'm not so deranged with hatred for Bush that I want to surrender to terrorists just for the sake of humiliating him.

i detect a war on semantics!

i detect a war on semantics!

That all depends on what the definition of "!" is.

I don't know, I think he does have a point about the language used, though obviously his subsequent painting of the Bush administration goes a little awry.

The dems seem to be very good at badly worded laws. I reckon this one might well come to bite them on the arse before long. It is very broad...

I prefer "The Fourth World War" myself. We ARE fighting a global war for civilization, after all.

And if the Surrender Party were choosing to call this war by a more accurate name, then I would agree with you. But that is not the ploy, here.