View Full Version : Dims ban "global war on terror"...
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2007, 09:25 AM
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 committee’s 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.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_gwot_democrats_070403w/
I guess it fits in many ways, since they plan on cutting the funding for our troops forcing us to retreat, and the speaker is running around in Syria talking to terrorist with a rag on her head.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070403/capt.xhm10204031738.mideast_syria_us_pelosi_xhm102 .jpg
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/4/2007, 11:20 AM
Oh, that brilliant '06 election! Viva la Media!
Petro-Sooner
4/4/2007, 11:26 AM
nm
You know, I'm torn. On the one hand, it gets old and annoying to watch you guys twist every little crap of minutae you get your hands on out of proportion and freak out and have kittens over nothing. But on the other hand, kittens are adorable and awesome.
http://www.tritonguild.net/images/news/2005.October.10/kittenpile.JPG
OUstudent4life
4/4/2007, 11:35 AM
I guess it fits in many ways, since they plan on cutting the funding for our troops forcing us to retreat, and the speaker and three Republican Congressmen (Reps. Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt) are running around in Syria talking to terrorist...
Fixed in the interest of complete disclosure :D.
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 11:45 AM
while i do find it odd, how is it any different than when the republican admin renames/retools phrases used as their talking points...you remember all the variations before we got to gwot right?
just cute now that the other side is doing it, it now becomes an issue.
TheBobbyTrain
4/4/2007, 11:49 AM
just cute now that the other side is doing it, it now becomes an issue.
kinda like when alberto gonzales fires 8 US attorneys when the clinton administration fired 93 for being too conservative. wasn't much of an issue then but it is now.
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/8510/kittenscannotsavenr9.jpg
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 11:54 AM
kinda like when alberto gonzales fires 8 US attorneys when the clinton administration fired 93 for being too conservative. wasn't much of an issue then but it is now.
not entirely the same.
the issue with alberto is his lack of honesty in his involvement in the descisions.
the issue with the firing is different due to the timing and the allegations surrounding why they were canned. (whereas Clinton just canned them all right off the bat)
and as far as the rebranding of the GWOT
from an article in july of 2005
What's in a name? Would the "war on terrorism" with a new brand be just as effective?
The Daily Telegraph reported Wednesday that the phrase "war on terror," which coalition officials have used over the past four years, will be "phased out in favor of more nuanced language." US officials are instead starting to use the "less than snappy phrase ' struggle against violent extremism.' "
The rebranding is part of what America's critics will say is a long overdue acknowledgement by the Pentagon of the complexity of the challenge of combating Al Qaeda. "As the struggle evolves some of the language will evolve as well," a senior administration official said. ...
The phrase "war on terror" was "very simple, easy, concise", the official said. "The definition lends itself to images of those in uniform combating extremism and terrorists but the struggle is broader than that."
The New York Times, which first reported the name change, said that the new language is the result of a series of meetings of President Bush's national security advisers and is part of an attempt by the Bush administration to push "the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission ..." The Times notes that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was the first to start using the new phrase in several recent speeches.
General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."
He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0728/dailyUpdate.html
StuIsTheMan
4/4/2007, 12:06 PM
while i do find it odd, how is it any different than when the republican admin renames/retools phrases used as their talking points...you remember all the variations before we got to gwot right?
just cute now that the other side is doing it, it now becomes an issue.
This is not a School, Road or Government Raise Topic, but a Global and National defense one. I feel that this is only a Political pi$$ing contest between the Reps and Demo's with our Finest men and women caught in the middle...MHO is that if they want to fight over something in the comforts of their offices or on the floors of the house and senate to make one another look bad then it should be on topics I mentioned at the beginning, not with lives. Let them do what they were sent over there for, without all the arguing by politicians that have no clue on what it takes to pick up a weapon and put your life on the line to defend this country. But they will be the first in line to take money away when their "Interests" are threatened on the home front. I feel this is not a War on Terror Issue at all but the Democrats trying to make Bush (and republicans as a whole) look as bad as they can with the election coming up. And I personally feel that there are other issue they can slander each other on but on this one, we need to be Focused as an entire country. And if we were, I believe, that this war would be going a lot better than it is...And all the arguing on capitol hill can take credit for probably over half the lives lost over there, that’s on the Republicans and Democrats...just say'n...neg away I know it's comming
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 12:08 PM
did you feel equally outraged at the political posturing when bush and his admin changed the name in 2005?
and for the record i find it odd when either side tries to "rebrand" the issue
How can we neg you when we have no idea what the hell you said?
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 12:09 PM
How can we neg you when we have no idea what the hell you said?
excellent point.
GottaHavePride
4/4/2007, 12:21 PM
Has anyone else paid attention to the fact that they are NOT cutting funding - they just demanded that a military budget be drawn up with language more specific than "war on terror". Specific language in a document authorizing the outlay of billions of dollars is a GOOD thing.
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 12:24 PM
Has anyone else paid attention to the fact that they are NOT cutting funding - they just demanded that a military budget be drawn up with language more specific than "war on terror". Specific language in a document authorizing the outlay of billions of dollars is a GOOD thing.
but but but.....tuba clearly says they have baned gwot....
soonerscuba
4/4/2007, 12:31 PM
kinda like when alberto gonzales fires 8 US attorneys when the clinton administration fired 93 for being too conservative. wasn't much of an issue then but it is now.
Or when Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and Ford did it. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 12:33 PM
i'm sure the libs would appreciate a slogan much much softer....something that doesnt include the word war.....or terrorism
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 12:35 PM
i'm sure the libs would appreciate a slogan much much softer....something that doesnt include the word war.....or terrorism
you mean like the repubs did in 05?
jk the sooner fan
4/4/2007, 12:36 PM
i've heard it called the global war on terrorism since the day after 9/11
BlondeSoonerGirl
4/4/2007, 12:37 PM
:les: SANDNADO FANDANGO!!!
Vaevictis
4/4/2007, 12:39 PM
i'm sure the libs would appreciate a slogan much much softer....something that doesnt include the word war.....or terrorism
General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."
He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."
Damn them liberal JCS guys. Damn them to hell.
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 12:40 PM
i've heard it called the global war on terrorism since the day after 9/11
yeah, well they tried to change it but it didn't stick because people that it stupid they were trying to change it.
TUSooner
4/4/2007, 12:50 PM
You know, I'm torn. On the one hand, it gets old and annoying to watch you guys twist every little crap of minutae you get your hands on out of proportion and freak out and have kittens over nothing. But on the other hand, kittens are adorable and awesome.
Nicely phrased. :)
But ever since I started avoiding the flaming political tar babies of Tuba and favor/limbaugh, et al. I just haven't felt the same fervor for posting on the SO. :twinkies:
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
4/4/2007, 12:56 PM
Nicely phrased. :)
But ever since I started avoiding the flaming political tar babies of Tuba and favor/limbaugh, et al. I just haven't felt the same fervor for posting on the SO. :twinkies:Our loss, for sure.
http://a514.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/59/l_e8dc078a902dad10bb2f24c61f50a599.jpg
Pope Happycat I declares this thread 'full of lose and suck'.
TUSooner
4/4/2007, 02:35 PM
Our loss, for sure.
Maybe. But it's my gain, for sure.
StuIsTheMan
4/4/2007, 02:52 PM
How can we neg you when we have no idea what the hell you said?
must be a Democrat...this you'll enjoy
one day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut.
After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber
replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you;
I'm doing community service this week." The florist is
pleased and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open his shop.
There is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting
for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes
to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry,
I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community
service this week." The cop is happy and leaves the
shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is
a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at
his door.
Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he
goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm
sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing
community service this week." The Republican is very
happy and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a
thank you card and a dozen different books such as
"How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More
Successful."
Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he
goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm
sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing
community service this week." The Democrat is very
happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up,
there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a
free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental
difference between Left and Right.
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 02:54 PM
must be a Democrat...this you'll enjoy
one day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut.
After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber
replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you;
I'm doing community service this week." The florist is
pleased and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open his shop.
There is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting
for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes
to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry,
I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community
service this week." The cop is happy and leaves the
shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is
a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at
his door.
Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he
goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm
sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing
community service this week." The Republican is very
happy and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a
thank you card and a dozen different books such as
"How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More
Successful."
Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he
goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm
sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing
community service this week." The Democrat is very
happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up,
there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a
free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental
difference between Left and Right.
holy balls is that dumb.
Congratulations, you've finally posted something even more pointless, rambling, and stupid than your inane sig.
Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 02:59 PM
What is this thread all about?
Semantics and free haircuts, I think.
Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 03:03 PM
Satanics get free haircuts?!?!
WHERE?!
Anton LaVey's Sport Clips.
You can get a haircut, watch a ballgame, AND defile the innocent all at the same time!
Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 03:12 PM
I don't know. Sounds like one of 'em "Gay Establishments" if you ask me.
But then again...free IS free.
crawfish
4/4/2007, 03:27 PM
It's always amazing to me how, when a political party gains a significant advantage in an election, they immediately go about finding ways to undo that advantage.
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2007, 04:08 PM
Has anyone else paid attention to the fact that they are NOT cutting funding
I guess you havn't been paying attention then...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
http://www.neatorama.com/images/2006-11/democrat-white-flag.jpg
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 04:14 PM
tuba,
what do you think about the repubs efforts to change the name of the gwot back in 2005? equal outrage?
and when ghp mentioned they aren't cutting funding I assume ghp meant as it relates to the article you posted where it doesn't say they are baneing the gwot but rather requiring more detailed explanations.
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2007, 04:29 PM
tuba,
what do you think about the repubs efforts to change the name of the gwot back in 2005? equal outrage?
No.
Why you ask?
Cause they were neither trying to:
A. Force us into retreat
B. Ban terminology
C. Confuse people into thinking Iraq isn't part of the GWOT, when we have killed thousands of AQ terrorists there, and AQ itself calls it the "central front".
Trying to re-name a war is for the MSM. The Governments job should only be to WIN the war so our soliders can come the **** home.
SoonerProphet
4/4/2007, 04:40 PM
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1952
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2007, 04:43 PM
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=66
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 04:45 PM
No.
Why you ask?
Cause they were neither trying to:
A. Force us into retreat
B. Ban terminology
C. Confuse people into thinking Iraq isn't part of the GWOT, when we have killed thousands of AQ terrorists there, and AQ itself calls it the "central front".
Trying to re-name a war is for the MSM. The Governments job should only be to WIN the war so our soliders can come the **** home.
except that is exactly what they (bush admin) were trying to do...call it what you want...ban it/phase it out...whatever it is the same exact thing.
and all they are doing here is wanting more detailed explanations of things so as it relates to the report a and c are clearly also not applicable.
just admit when your guys tried to do it in 05 you were cool with it because it wasn't a dem doing it.
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2007, 04:52 PM
In fact, while she was at it, Pelosi should have stopped by Tehran to see whether negotiation could have helped the troubled U.S–Iranian relationship as well.
Yeah, maybe if we "negotiate", they will stop building nukes, killing jews, blowing innocent people up, murdering Americans, kidnapping our allies, etc!
HOORAY FOR APPEASEMENT!!!!
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 04:53 PM
negotiation doesn't mean appeasement
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2007, 04:54 PM
except that is exactly what they (bush admin) were trying to do...call it what you want...ban it/phase it out...whatever it is the same exact thing.
Yeah, not really.
I don't recall a memo being sent out banning the use of a term, nor did I see any publican trying to force the country into retreat.
This whole naming thing is stupid.
OklahomaTuba
4/4/2007, 04:56 PM
negotiation doesn't mean appeasement
What will we be negotiating then???
Our support of Israel? I mean, we all know they want to mass murder the jews. We going to let them now?
Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 06:46 PM
The Governments job should only be to WIN the war so our soliders can come the **** home.
...and when were they planning on starting to do this, or even planning a strategy to accomplish this? 'Cause they ain't been doin' it so far.
Sam Spade
4/4/2007, 07:40 PM
*double post* sorry...
not entirely the same.
the issue with alberto is his lack of honesty in his involvement in the descisions.
the issue with the firing is different due to the timing and the allegations surrounding why they were canned. (whereas Clinton just canned them all right off the bat)
That's a load of bulls*** right there, Hat. The reason Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys is so he could get rid of the ONE in Little Rock that was after his arse. By firing all of them, it didn't look so suspicious. But at least you guys have the MSM parroting your communist agenda, so it seemed rather benign at the time.
soonerscuba
4/4/2007, 08:16 PM
That's a load of bulls*** right there, Hat. The reason Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys is so he could get rid of the ONE in Little Rock that was after his arse. By firing all of them, it didn't look so suspicious. But at least you guys have the MSM parroting your communist agenda, so it seemed rather benign at the time.
Oi. It's common practice to fire all of the U.S. attorneys after elections, even a re-election. To fire a selected group of attorneys with documented evidence that it was done for political reasons mid-term is quite another.
Speaking of the Clintons, MC Rove's homeboy replaced the attorney in Arkansas, hmm, that's very interesting indeed given your arguments. I, as a Democrat would love nothing more than more Whitewater, thanks again for handing us control in '98 doing the same ****, only this time you will get Hil-dog.
Hatfield
4/4/2007, 08:35 PM
That's a load of bulls*** right there, Hat. The reason Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys is so he could get rid of the ONE in Little Rock that was after his arse. By firing all of them, it didn't look so suspicious. But at least you guys have the MSM parroting your communist agenda, so it seemed rather benign at the time.
my communist agenda? might need to run back out to the store, as you seem to be running low on foil for your stylish hats.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.