Dennis Miller raised that question last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and it’s a damn good one.
Obama banned the term “war on terror”:
Obama administration says goodbye to ‘war on terror’
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase ‘overseas contingency operations’
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 13.40 EDT
The war on terror, George Bush once declared, “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. But Barack Obama‘s administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly – via email.
A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) … please pass this on to your speechwriters”. Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live “overseas contingency operations”.
Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning “overseas contingency operations” for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.
Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.
“Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare,” said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.
“Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. ‘War’ is very much overused here in the United States – on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity.”
Let’s be clear: the primary motivation of abandoning the term “war on terror” was appalling political correctness. Obama doesn’t want to alienate; he wants to be “inclusive.”
Obama is so inclusive to terrorists, in fact, that he refused to label the murderous rampage by Major Nidal Hassan a “terrorist attack.” It doesn’t matter if he was heard screaming “Allahu Aqbar!” as he opened fire or that he had business cards that described himself as a “soldier of Allah” or that he had had numerous email chats with a known al Qaeda terrorist recruiter. It was just an act of “workplace violence,” that’s all folks. Nothing to see here.
Except when it comes to Republicans, of course. Obama doesn’t want to insult terrorists, but he is fine with demonizing basically half of the American people. So whether “war” is “overused” or not, Obama is quite happy to use the term to pour liquid hate on Republicans and then try to set that hate on fire.
“The war on women” is a lie from the devil and from the Democrat Party – unless they’re using it to talk about themselves. See also here. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here.
Interestingly, Obama defines “women” as SINGLE women. Married women – who are voting for Mitt Romney by a margin of 55-40% – clearly do not count as “women” in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s universe. It’s kind of like the black Republicans who have somehow forfeited their “blackness” and therefore merit the hateful label “Uncle Toms” or “Aunt Jemimas.”
Nor are women who actually don’t hate their babies and want to keep them, given that most of the demon-possessed lies from the left revolve around abortion.
Just why is it called PLANNED PARENTHOOD given that its central “service” involves a profound LACK of PLANNING and an abject AVOIDANCE of PARENTHOOD?
In order to count as a “woman,” you’ve got to be single, you’ve got to hate babies, you’ve got to be a needy, whiny, clingy, bitter girl who hates men but loves Obama and his big government as surrogate husband (as long as you don’t actually have a “husband,” mind you). You’ve got to think birth control costs $3,000. You’ve got to think that society owes you that $3,000 birth control for free. Especially if you choose to go to a Catholic university. Because you’ve got to think literally that EVERYBODY OWES YOU that free $3,000 birth control. You’ve got to demand “the right to choose” an abortion right up to when your baby is literally being born so you can use your “right to choose” partial birth abortion. Also for free, of course. And that You’ve got to think that all Republicans – NONE of whom have ever had mothers, wives or daughters, btw - want to put women in chains right next to black people. Basically you’ve got to be a complete idiot to count as a “woman” as far as Democrats are concerned. Otherwise, kindly refrain from considering yourself a “woman.”
Just remember the rule: it’s hateful to use the term “war on terror.” But it’s just as hateful not to use the term “war on women.” Because that’s just how evil and idiotic and hypocritical Democrats (of either gender) truly are.