Article

2007-04-04 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2007-04-04 08:21|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 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.

Except, of course, for catch phrases like "George Bush's War", "No Blood For Oil", "Bush Lied, People Died", "Responsible Redeployment", "The Rush to War", and such.

There really is no hypocrisy too vile for a liberal, is there?

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-04-04 08:53|| 2007-04-04 08:53|| Front Page Top

#2 I agree, we should re-divert those funds for the newly coined "GWOD" (Global War On Dhimmitude).

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-04-04 08:55|| 2007-04-04 08:55|| Front Page Top

#3 oookay... How about GWONNT (Global war on not nice things) or GFANP (Global Fellowship against Nasty People) or GMFMU (Global Movement For Multicultural Unity)?

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-04-04 09:01|| 2007-04-04 09:01|| Front Page Top

#4 Alright then, Global War on Islam works for me.:P

Posted by djohn66 2007-04-04 09:02|| 2007-04-04 09:02|| Front Page Top

#5 I think the're pushing for 'Illegal war'....

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-04-04 09:04|| 2007-04-04 09:04|| Front Page Top

#6 I really don't understand how nobody in Congress ever takes it outside. If I was in Congress, I would have definitely gotten in a scurmish over all this noodle spinery.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-04-04 09:26|| 2007-04-04 09:26|| Front Page Top

#7 I am holding out for "Crusade". Call me old-fashioned.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-04-04 09:30|| 2007-04-04 09:30|| Front Page Top

#8 If anyone wants to shout out for the troops and against dhimmitude come to the Rolling Thunder/Gathering of Eagles rally in DC on May 27th. We will be on the Mall by the Lincoln and Vietnam Memorials. Just follow the flags!

Posted by DanNY 2007-04-04 09:34|| 2007-04-04 09:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Doesn't matter what you call it. We are not going to win the war against militant Islam until we win the war within.

Posted by SR-71 2007-04-04 09:43|| 2007-04-04 09:43|| Front Page Top

#10 Manifest Destiny works for me.

Posted by ed 2007-04-04 09:44|| 2007-04-04 09:44|| Front Page Top

#11 There are no enemies, only friends we haven't met yet.

Group hug!

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-04-04 10:10|| 2007-04-04 10:10|| Front Page Top

#12 Though they did it for petty partisan reasons, they have inadvertently done the White House a really big favor in doing this.

First of all, the War on Terror was never very appropriate because of its Orwellian connotations.
Second of all, it was bound to "burn out" over time, like the 38-year-old War on Drugs.

It has irritated the public that the administration has continued to label it "the 'war' in Iraq", though the war ended in 2003, and thus hurt itself by turning a "police occupation" into something that is *beyond* military solution--that must be solved politically, eventually. How can the military "win" something like that? When can we declare victory? When the crime rate drops? Another election?

The WoT is has been hurt by association, even though it is technically more correct as a continuing war. As a slogan it has achieved its goal of convincing everyone that actions against Islamic terrorism are worldwide, crosses national boundaries easily, and must be met with the full force of both military and civil actions.

So the purpose of the label has been accomplished. Now we need a new label, to describe ongoing operations around the world. Since WoT is associated with George W. Bush, we have to move beyond it, if we have any hope of the democrats doing *anything* against terrorists if they ever get a President elected.

Oh, great. Now we just need to teach the democrats what "foreign policy" is--certainly not just agreeing with whatever the French feel like doing.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-04-04 10:18|| 2007-04-04 10:18|| Front Page Top

#13 Lol. The BlogAd at the bottom of the page is for custom magnet ribbons: "Your Truth Here"

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-04-04 10:23|| 2007-04-04 10:23|| Front Page Top

#14 Excerpt from
"The Principles of Newspeak"
An appendix to 1984
Written by : George Orwell in 1948

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles of the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist, It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile, it gained ground steadily, all party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The version in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of Newspeak dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the dictionary, that we are concerned here.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.

Posted by SwissTex 2007-04-04 10:28|| 2007-04-04 10:28|| Front Page Top

#15 although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.

Heres a suggestion on how to avoid using colloquialisms. People who intentionally slaughter innocent people as a means for political, economic, or social extortion are called Terrorists. Not Insurgents, "Freedom Fighters" or Resistance groups theyre called Terrorists. It's really not that difficult.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-04-04 10:34|| 2007-04-04 10:34|| Front Page Top

#16 Their intent here is to split all of the operations into bits, rather than parts of a connected whole. It's as if the Congress in 1943 had started allocating funds specifically for areas of operations -- $X for North Africa, $Y for the Mediterranean, $Z for the Aleutians, etc.

The goal is to allow them to choke off funds for areas of operation they don't like. Parallel to, say, cutting the funds for operations in the Aleutians to zero.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-04-04 10:41|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-04-04 10:41|| Front Page Top

#17 From a related posting by Michael Goldfarb

Indeed the disturbing thing about this fascination with rebranding the war on terror is that it, if we may say, came at a time when a resurgent Taliban is stepping up its activities in Afghanistan, al Qaeda bombers are running amok in London, and tourist hotels are being blown up in Egypt. This is self-evidently not a great time to shift from a "Global War on Terror" to a "Long Struggle to Portray Americans as Good People Who Don't Hate Muslims and Respect Religions All Over the World Even as We Try to Dismantle the Networks of Ideological Extremists Who at the Very Least Disagree With Us and May Want to Do Us Harm." Or whatever.

Works for me.

Posted by Bobby 2007-04-04 10:44|| 2007-04-04 10:44|| Front Page Top

#18 the semi-legitimate criticism of the phrase, GWOT, was that it implied we would go everywhere there was terror, including, say, Sri Lanka to fight the Tamil Tigers, and that is was like the war on drugs. As opposed to, say, the war on the Cali Cartel. It should have been called the war on Al Qaeeda, or the war on Al Qaeeda and its allies (to avoid quibbles about JI, etc, etc) The counter was that this excluded Hamas and Hebollah, which are terrorists, are our adversaries, and are arguably to some degree ideologically linked to the Salafist groups, though not completely. To the extent this became about Hamas, however, it became about Israel, and few mainstream Dems are interested in disagreeing with the position that Hamas is a terrorist group we should oppose.

The next objection was that it was used to justify the war in IRaq, cause of Saddams money for Pal terror bombers. But in reality that was a small part of the justification, and is pretty far in the past.

The real problem, is that the current operations in Iraq are part of the WOT. Now to the Dems this obscures the to them politically significant issue that Iraq had no demonstrable operational ties to AQ, and that going in was questionable as a strategy against AQ. The problem with THAT dem argument, as Krauthammer has stated to eloquently, is that however we got there, NOW Iraq is very much part of the WOT, and arguably the central front - certainly MORE so than Afghanistan.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-04-04 10:47|| 2007-04-04 10:47|| Front Page Top

#19 committees Democratic leadership doesnt like the phrase.

They probably wouldn't like the phrase "blow me" either, but that's all I'd tell 'em.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-04 11:08|| 2007-04-04 11:08|| Front Page Top

#20 Zen, I wouldn't go that far. They are Dems afterall.

Posted by RWV 2007-04-04 11:28|| 2007-04-04 11:28|| Front Page Top

#21 What we are witnessing is the feminization of the donk party. Is there a pair amongst them or even a single testicle?

Posted by JohnQC 2007-04-04 11:33|| 2007-04-04 11:33|| Front Page Top

#22 "the Democrats are even afraid of the word 'terror' so how can they be taken seriously to fight our enemies"

It practically writes itself. Can't wait for the election season.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-04-04 11:49|| 2007-04-04 11:49|| Front Page Top

#23 Zen, I wouldn't go that far. They are Dems afterall.

Fine, I'll wear some protection. How is it that these bastards can openly promote such blatant Newspeak? This is one step shy of thought crime.

Is there a pair amongst them or even a single testicle?

Probably Rosie.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-04 12:03|| 2007-04-04 12:03|| Front Page Top

#24 How about PorKanimals Disposal Project?

The whole thing reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live new age social club chant. Bill Murrry leading. "Come on folks join me in the club rouser. It's true if you believe it, it's true if you believe it."

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2007-04-04 12:21|| 2007-04-04 12:21|| Front Page Top

#25 Liberalhawk has hit upon it:"GWOT, was that it implied we would go everywhere there was terror, including, say, Sri Lanka to fight the Tamil Tigers, and that is was like the war on drugs."

The Dems want to restrict the language to Iraq to justify their demand for troop withdrawal and the liberal armchair generals on the Hill really want to undermine both President Bush's policies and military strategy. They're fishing again to see if what they suspect is true--if we really are taking it to terrorists wherever they may be found. They are actively working to make sure Bush fails, Iraq is served on a platter to the terrorists, and America is hit again.

Posted by Danielle 2007-04-04 17:29|| 2007-04-04 17:29|| Front Page Top

#26 GWOT > renamed/re-labeled as THE GREAT GLOBAL SOCIALIST WAR FOR ANTI-COMMUNIST FASCISM-FOR-COMMUNISM???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-04 20:05|| 2007-04-04 20:05|| Front Page Top

#27 The DemoLeft in general. like Moud-Mullahs, must have seen the Net maps showing US-Allied flgas popping up all over the place under Dubya's tenure. DIPLOMACY-NEGOTIATIONS, i.e. "Talking to America's enemies", sub-i.e. Radical Iran + Radical Islam: + "ENDING US-LED ACTIVE COMBAT/GROUND OPERATIONS IN IRAQ-ME", ala Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, and other pro-DemoLeft Perts on TV-Radio recently, IS NOT "TROOP WITHDRAWAL", "PULLOUT", "BRINGING THE BOYS
HOME", or even "REDEPLOYMENT" as the Dems-MSM want mainstream America to believe. Williams, Colmes, etal. comments have shown, SSSSHHHHHHHH AGAIN, THAT THE DEMS = DEMLEFT ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING THE USA OUT OF EITHER ORAQ OR THE ME PER SE. Undoubtedly, many of the DemoLeft are trying to PC win 2008 by reliving the Clinton 1990's, where the successes of Reagan, Bush 1, + GOP-Right will NOT be acknowledged within the US NPE until a Democrat-Lefty is in the White House, where credit and glory will go NOT to the GOP-Right AGAIN - YOU KNOW, SECULAR ETHICS, not Not NOT N-O-T NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOTTTTT, D *** You, PC + POLITIX OF POLISCHTICK. Unfortunately, since the WOT > WAR FOR THE WORLD + WAR FOR ANTI-US OWG-SWO/CWO = GLOBAL WAR AGAINST AMERICA + AMER-LED/CENTRIC OWG, etal. DUBYA-USA-GOP IS ALSO INTENDED TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR ANY NEW 9-11's = AMER HIROSHIMA(S) + ANY REGIONAL-GLOBAL WAR(s)/WW3 or 4. Anti-Amer agendists-globalists, including but not limited to anti-Amer Americans, WANT THE USA UNDER PC/DENIABLE
"JUSTIFIED" OWG + PC/DENIABLE "JUSTIFIED"
COMMUNIST-SOCIALIST WORLD ORDER, EVEN IFF IT MEANS CASUALTY-INTENSIVE AMER HIROSHIMA(S) AS POLITICAL CONTINGENCY - YOU KNOW, PATRIOTISM + ETHICS.

*O' REILLY this AM [PARAPHRASED] > "TEACHER-STUDENT SEX" incidents + "INTER-STUDENT OPEN SEX IN OPEN CLASSROOM" > NO ONE IN ADULT, LOCAL OR OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS STOPPING IT NOR WANTS TO STOP IT. THE RADICAL LEFT-PROGRESSIVES IN AMER HAS SUCCESSFULLY, WILFULLY DESTROYED OR ERODED MUCH OF THE USA's MORAL ORDER/CENTER, and CONTINUES TO DO SO, EVEN IN TIME OF WAR WHERE THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS AT STAKE, IN ORDER TO EMPOWER AND ENTRENCH THEIR SECULAR/SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE AGENDA, ESPEC UNIVERSAL/BIG GUBMINT.

All together, now, wid feeling > "THE WOT IS ABOUT THE THREAT FROM RADICAL ISLAM AND ONLY RADICAL ISLAM. THE COMMIES + LEFTIES ARE SUPPORTING RADICAL ISLAM-TERROR BECUZ THEY WANNA BE FRIENDS + PARTY DOWN".

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-04 20:56|| 2007-04-04 20:56|| Front Page Top

#28 You tell 'em Joe! Say, how's the weather in Guam?

Posted by Secret Master 2007-04-04 21:01|| 2007-04-04 21:01|| Front Page Top

#29 GWOI-WI

Global
War
On
Idiots
Wherever
They
May
Be

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-04-04 22:41|| 2007-04-04 22:41|| Front Page Top

#30 I'm obliged to ask if it sometimes isn't almost surreal how the Democrats can so thoroughly engage in Newspeak without realizing what they're doing. I know this beggars the question of them knowingly doing this as in Political Correctness but it just strikes me as exceptionally odd that the championing of such a common enemy to all people as Newspeak could go on without even the most rabid Democrat pausing to reconsider.

Worst of all: If it's unintentional, they're blind as cave fish and if it's intentional, they represent one of the most significant evils of this new century. I suppose there's even the most revolting answer of all: All of the above.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-04 23:31|| 2007-04-04 23:31|| Front Page Top

#31 Rowlings, whose books I have assiduously avoided, sometimes pisses me off.

"He Who Must Not Be Named" is an oblique, and unrecognized/uncited, reference to the character Hastur depicted in the Cthulhu Mythos. First referenced by Ambrose Bierce, Robert W Chambers later referenced the character and he/its residence in the star system of Aldebaran.

H.P. Lovecraft (may he inspire forever) only referenced Hastur once in "The Whisperer In Darkness".

Other authors have also referenced He Who Is Not To Be Named, and I've even used him in my online email game "Fire On The Suns" during a long and well-remembered campaign of hte forces of light versus the Unspeakable Ones and what they were attempting to liberate "He Who Is Not To Be Named" in the star system of Aldebaran.

The fact that Rowlings gets away with blatant rip offs of this sort without being called to task on it makes me angry (and disappoints me at the same time).

Not even Wikipedia recognizes the connection.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-04-04 23:58|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-04-04 23:58|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:58 FOTSGreg
23:53 Zenster
23:53 Alaska Paul
23:46 Frank G
23:46 Frank G
23:36 KBK
23:34 Zenster
23:31 Zenster
23:29 whatadeal
23:22 Zenster
23:19 crosspatch
23:18 Zenster
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:11 DanNY
23:05 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:56 DMFD
22:53 Frank G
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:44 Frank G
22:43 Frank G
22:41 Redneck Jim
22:40 Mike N.