Dems try to ban 'Global War on Terror' phrase

[B4UTRUST]

link

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democrats and Republicans are at odds on whether to use President Bush's catchall phrase "global war on terrorism" when talking about the billions of dollars spent each year in Iraq and elsewhere.

A new internal memo by a senior Democratic staff member urged aides to drop the term from their legislative dictionaries because it was too broad. The directive quickly led to a linguistic dispute between the parties.

"The attempt by Democrats to erase the words 'global' and 'terror' from our current war is an absurd effort to deny the fact that America is battling terrorism on a global scale," said House Republican leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?"

At the heart of the debate is whether efforts in Iraq should be linked to the U.S. fight against al-Qaida.

Bush used al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 attacks as leading justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, although intelligence officials later disputed the connection.

U.S. officials say some members of al-Qaida have since joined the fight in Iraq against American forces, and Bush has said success in Iraq is critical to winning the fight against terrorism.

"I don't think the enemy makes the distinction" between the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan, said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. "I don't think we should."

Democrats, however, say they are tired of Bush's use of the blanket term "global war on terror" to justify individual military operations and their hefty budgets.

Erin Conaton, the Democratic staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, urged aides in a March 27 memo to "avoid using colloquialisms," such as the "war on terrorism" or the "long war," and not to use the term "global war on terrorism." In preparing the annual defense authorization bill, the staff is directed to be more specific, such as referring to operations in Iraq.

Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), the committee chairman and Conaton's boss, defended the memo.

"GOP objections to our efforts to clarify legislative language represent the typical Republican leadership attempt to tie together the misadventure in Iraq and the overall war against terrorists," Skelton, D-Mo., said in a statement Wednesday.

"The Iraq war is separate and distinct from the war against terrorists, who have their genesis in Afghanistan and who attacked us on 9/11, and the American people understand this," Skelton said.

The dispute also pointed out the tensions among lawmakers concerning the war debate. Congress adjourned last week for spring break after Democrats rammed through legislation that would fund the war in Iraq but order troops to begin coming home.

The House and Senate are expected by the end of the month to send Bush a compromise that will set some timetable on the war. Bush has promised to veto it; Republicans say they will support him.

In recent days, the two sides have struggled for the upper hand. Democrats contend they have public opinion on their side. Bush says majority Democrats are turning their backs on troops.

Stacey Farnen Bernards, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., said Republicans were playing "silly word games in an attempt to score political points" in the debate.

[SirNitram]

Heaven forbid you be specific when referring to wars. You might think they're, I dunno, serious affairs, not photo-ops for McCain and chances to pick up five rugs for five bucks in Bahgdad.

How many of the knuckleheads criticizing this were up in arms when the Administration tried to rename it the 'Globale Struggle Against Radical Extremism'?

[B4UTRUST]

I say we rename it to 'The War Against Terror'

[SirNitram]

I say we rename it to 'The War Against Terror'

'War Against <Noun>' is bloody stupid in my mind. If you must have a catchall for the efforts, just be honest and say 'War against Al-Qeada'. No one's hunting down the rIRA in the American military, as much as those fuckers deserve Gitmo.

[frigidmagi]

I'm of mixed minds of this. Is it Global war? Yes, there are battles being fought in Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, the Phillpines and so on. The fighters have ideological and ficanial links to each other on both sides (ask yourself where at least 1/3 of Ethopia's military budget comes from. Or who helps train Thai solders to fight in a jungle. Scroll down and check news of US troops in the Philllpines.) The US is not however directly involved in each battle and neither is Al Qeeda proper and Osama Bin Lauden. Althought to be frank I feel pretending that Osama is the only leader and face of the other side is a mistake. Each theather has it's own considerations and limitations, it's own leaders and reasons. World War II this is not.

Is it a war on Terror? No. The purpose of the war is not to ensure no one on the planet never ever feels terror again. Nor is it a war on the method we call terrorism.

To be honest I don't think calling it what it really is would be acceptable to either party of wonderkine up on the hill right now.

[Josh]

Just call it anything but 'War on Terror'. War on 'Al Quaeda and associated assholes' would work.

[B4UTRUST]

Damn, nobody does Acronyms =(

TWAT
The War Against Terror. It was meant as a joke. Ah well. Mark one up on the not funny list

[Josh]

Damn, nobody does Acronyms =(

TWAT
The War Against Terror. It was meant as a joke. Ah well. Mark one up on the not funny list

Don't get clever with us, mister. Especially not since Frigid got promoted.

[Mayabird]

Couldn't we just cut the bullshit and call it some version of "War against radical Islamists"? Because that's what it is. Somalia: Islamist courts. Philippines: Abu Sayyaf. Afghanistan: Taliban. Etc etc. Just call the spade a fucking shovel already.

[frigidmagi]

Don't get clever with us, mister. Especially not since Frigid got promoted.

Keep it up, I will murder you in your sleep.

Couldn't we just cut the bullshit and call it some version of "War against radical Islamists"?

We could, but then the PC cops would break out in hives and the we don't change anything battalion to the right would start calling in arty on us.

To be honest in my paranoid little mind tossing out this phrase isn't about being accurate or straightforward for them, but a bullshit move on semantics and in my worse moments the first step to abadoning the fight all togather. To be blunter then usual, I question the ability and deication of the current Democratic leader to continue the fight in Afghanistan and elsewhere regardless of what happens in Iraq.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Am I the only one here who honestly finds an inherent problem with fighting against a tactic or method?

[frigidmagi]

Am I the only one here who honestly finds an inherent problem with fighting against a tactic or method?

Expect we haven't been fighting a tactic or method. There are no US troops in Peru hunting down the Shining Path or in Colombia fighting FARC. Jr called it War on Terror because it makes better copy then Operation Killing Islamic Nutcases. [/quote]