thedrifter
04-05-07, 07:50 AM
War of words heats up over ‘GWOT’
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 4, 2007 22:03:51 EDT
A decision by the House Armed Services Committee to stop using the term “global war on terror” has led to a war of words between the committee chairman and some senior Republicans.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the chairman, said the decision to limit use of the “global war on terror” and the “long war” was done as part of an effort to the standardize grammar and terms to be used in writing the 2008 defense authorization bill. “Each year, the members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee work to prepare the best possible defense authorization bill,” Skelton said in a statement. “When writing legislation, the words we choose are important, and we make every effort to be as precise and specific as possible so that congressional intent may be understood.”
U.S. military operations in Iraq are “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, adding that Republican 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.”
“Providing our service members with the tools they need to protect the American people is a very serious responsibility,” Skelton said. “I’m saddened that some of our GOP colleagues have chosen to create this distraction, which is a tempest in a teapot as far as I’m concerned.”
One of those not happy with the omission of references to the global war on terror is Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas., a career Air Force officer who spent seven years as a prisoner of war after being shot down in Vietnam.
“Talk about absurd,” Johnson said. “Who do the Democrats think flew airplanes into the World Trade Center Towers? What do they call those who behead innocent people and then broadcast the horrendous act on the internet for the world to see? What do they call those who plowed into the USS Cole? What would they call [Iraqi Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada] al-Sadr?”
“Blatantly ignoring the role of terror is just as bad as tolerating it,” Johnson said.
Also complaining was House Republican leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio. “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. How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?” he said.
“Democrats have only had the majority in Congress for a short time, but they’ve already racked up a remarkably dismal record on matters affecting our national security,” Boehner said, citing actions to add a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and deployment restrictions to the wartime supplemental spending bill and leaving on a two-week vacation without pushing for final passage of the bill. The House is taking a two-week break. The Senate has one week off.
“It’s no wonder Democrats don’t like the phrase ‘global war on terror’. They have completely failed to take the threat of global terrorism seriously,” Boehner said.
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chairman of the House armed services subcommittee on terrorism, unconventional threats and capabilities, said the committee did not ban the use of the phrase global war on terror, but rather asked the staff to use “precise language.”
“I can tell you without hesitation that Democrats take the threat posed by terrorists very seriously,” Smith said. “I would hope the minority leader would understand that terrorism is a deadly serious issue, and that these kinds of cheap rhetorical games are inappropriate.”
That did not stop Republicans from taking shots at the Democrat leaders.
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said the Democratic guidance appears to him to be an effort to change history. “This latest change in policy does more than just undermine the war on terrorism, it completely erases the existence of it,” he said.
“If this policy were in place in the 1940’s, we’d be forced to call World War II the War in Japan, the War in Germany, the War in France and so on,” he said.
He is referring to the fact that the House committee guidance asks the staff to refer to the “War in Iraq,” the “War in Afghanistan” and similar specific references instead of using the phrase “global war on terror” that President Bush started using shortly after the 2001 attacks.
“We cannot pretend that terrorism doesn’t exist or that terrorists are no longer plotting to kill innocent Americans,” Fosella said. “We also cannot rewrite history and deny that devastating attacks occurred in New York, Bali, Tanzania and on the USS Cole. Just because America has not been attacked since September 11th is not an excuse to become complacent about our security. I hope the decision to sanitize this bill is not a prelude to weakening our policies to defeat terrorism.”
Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., an Army Reserve officer and a veteran of the 1991 Gulf War, said it seems to him like the Democratic leadership was engaging in “airbrushing.”
“The Democratic leadership intends to de-fund the war on terror and disable the U.S. military,” said Buyer, senior Republican on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “If the war has no name, they must figure, it will be that much easier to pretend it doesn’t exist.”
“We know that liberal Democrats clearly intend to cripple our ability to defeat terrorism; we didn’t know they’d resort to the old trick of un-making reality to carry out their scheme,” he said.
Ellie
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 4, 2007 22:03:51 EDT
A decision by the House Armed Services Committee to stop using the term “global war on terror” has led to a war of words between the committee chairman and some senior Republicans.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the chairman, said the decision to limit use of the “global war on terror” and the “long war” was done as part of an effort to the standardize grammar and terms to be used in writing the 2008 defense authorization bill. “Each year, the members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee work to prepare the best possible defense authorization bill,” Skelton said in a statement. “When writing legislation, the words we choose are important, and we make every effort to be as precise and specific as possible so that congressional intent may be understood.”
U.S. military operations in Iraq are “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, adding that Republican 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.”
“Providing our service members with the tools they need to protect the American people is a very serious responsibility,” Skelton said. “I’m saddened that some of our GOP colleagues have chosen to create this distraction, which is a tempest in a teapot as far as I’m concerned.”
One of those not happy with the omission of references to the global war on terror is Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas., a career Air Force officer who spent seven years as a prisoner of war after being shot down in Vietnam.
“Talk about absurd,” Johnson said. “Who do the Democrats think flew airplanes into the World Trade Center Towers? What do they call those who behead innocent people and then broadcast the horrendous act on the internet for the world to see? What do they call those who plowed into the USS Cole? What would they call [Iraqi Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada] al-Sadr?”
“Blatantly ignoring the role of terror is just as bad as tolerating it,” Johnson said.
Also complaining was House Republican leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio. “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. How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?” he said.
“Democrats have only had the majority in Congress for a short time, but they’ve already racked up a remarkably dismal record on matters affecting our national security,” Boehner said, citing actions to add a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and deployment restrictions to the wartime supplemental spending bill and leaving on a two-week vacation without pushing for final passage of the bill. The House is taking a two-week break. The Senate has one week off.
“It’s no wonder Democrats don’t like the phrase ‘global war on terror’. They have completely failed to take the threat of global terrorism seriously,” Boehner said.
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chairman of the House armed services subcommittee on terrorism, unconventional threats and capabilities, said the committee did not ban the use of the phrase global war on terror, but rather asked the staff to use “precise language.”
“I can tell you without hesitation that Democrats take the threat posed by terrorists very seriously,” Smith said. “I would hope the minority leader would understand that terrorism is a deadly serious issue, and that these kinds of cheap rhetorical games are inappropriate.”
That did not stop Republicans from taking shots at the Democrat leaders.
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said the Democratic guidance appears to him to be an effort to change history. “This latest change in policy does more than just undermine the war on terrorism, it completely erases the existence of it,” he said.
“If this policy were in place in the 1940’s, we’d be forced to call World War II the War in Japan, the War in Germany, the War in France and so on,” he said.
He is referring to the fact that the House committee guidance asks the staff to refer to the “War in Iraq,” the “War in Afghanistan” and similar specific references instead of using the phrase “global war on terror” that President Bush started using shortly after the 2001 attacks.
“We cannot pretend that terrorism doesn’t exist or that terrorists are no longer plotting to kill innocent Americans,” Fosella said. “We also cannot rewrite history and deny that devastating attacks occurred in New York, Bali, Tanzania and on the USS Cole. Just because America has not been attacked since September 11th is not an excuse to become complacent about our security. I hope the decision to sanitize this bill is not a prelude to weakening our policies to defeat terrorism.”
Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., an Army Reserve officer and a veteran of the 1991 Gulf War, said it seems to him like the Democratic leadership was engaging in “airbrushing.”
“The Democratic leadership intends to de-fund the war on terror and disable the U.S. military,” said Buyer, senior Republican on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “If the war has no name, they must figure, it will be that much easier to pretend it doesn’t exist.”
“We know that liberal Democrats clearly intend to cripple our ability to defeat terrorism; we didn’t know they’d resort to the old trick of un-making reality to carry out their scheme,” he said.
Ellie