Now this is just flat out funny. The Global War on Terror is over. Did the terrorists surrender? No, just a name change like Prince. Apparently unicorns flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.
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.” 1
and this is even funnier....
“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.” 1
Now mind you, this from the same Dem party whose ideology is nothing but catchphrases. Don't get me wrong, Ive long said that Bush's cowboy hyperbole is harmful, accurate and appropriate, but harmful none the less, as it gives the dems home field advantage -- for that is their forte and the way they play the game.
I'm going to have a field day with this one going forward. No more catch phrases or colloquialisms. Ill remember that.
1 militarytimes.com
6 comments:
the 'original' "Long War" was the war between the Habsburgs and the Ottoman Empire from 1593 to 1606.
donkey, you have missed the point.
the term "war on terror" is vague and ambiguous at best, and incorporating it into budgets or policy documents sets the stage for an extraordinary amount of discretion for how that money is spent.
i, for one, would rather specify operations by missions and geography than abstract catchphrases.
that way, for example, money can't be diverted from afghanistan to a less crucial mission.
or, at least, one would hope.
Vague and ambiguous? Wake the fuck up. This is nothing more than political poppycock. Might I remind you that we are in the midst of a global war on terror. Arguments about policy aside, once again might I remind you that we are in the midst of a global war on terror.
Our enemy are not as concerned with such geographical limitations and definitions as the dems seem to be.
I think I get the point fine.
Miss C's co-worker says, the Democrat's brains are like black holes, they suck!
well, you don't get my point.
the president should not have unlimited discretion in where he spends money allocated to military missions. that's one reason we have a congress: they can make sure the president isn't misappropriating military resources.
this won't constrain bush in any real way, as congress can make emergency appropriations and the political consequences of not spending the extra dough are too high for even the whitest dove.
while it may be political poppycock, the net result is a limit on executive power, which can only be good.
Uh-oh, this means no more "Bush lied, People Died", "No War for Oil" or "Bush is a terrorist". That means the left will have to go back to actually debating issues. But I won't hold my breath.
Post a Comment