Democrats declare end to war on terror

Neal Boortz:

...

Well, here comes Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Skelton had a staffer draw up a little memo instructing staffers and members that the references to the war on terror should be eliminated from the 2008 defense budget. it seems that the Democratic house leadership doesn't like the phrase.

The rub here seems to be that the phrase "Global war on terror" was first used by none other than the hated and reviled (by Democrats) George Bush shortly after 9/11. The intent is to leave the word "terror" out of the lexicon of the Armed Services Committee. Who knows, perhaps if they stop using the "T" word so much, people will forget the threat we face and Democrats will have all that much more money to spend on vote buying, killing the rich and appeasing Moveon.org.

...

Not talking about it not going to make the enemy stop using the tactic. Just like ordering a retreat from Iraq is not going to end al Qaeda's war against the US. This is just another example of the Democrats' fantasy land approach to national security.

Don Surber has a "Name that War" contest to help the Dems. My entry is the "War against Islamic religious bigots." It is not short, but it is accurate in identifying the enemy.

Update: James Taranto notes:

...

There are valid reasons to quibble with the phrase "global war on terror"--primarily the last word, which focuses on the enemy's tactical approach rather than on its identity, ideology and strategic goals.

What the Democrats object to, however, is the idea that it is a "global war." In particular, they are trying to sell the fantasy that Iraq is a discrete problem with no relation to any broader conflict--so that surrendering in Iraq would have no deleterious consequences for U.S. national security.

It would be nice for Americans (albeit brutal for Iraqis) if the U.S. could simply cut its losses and abandon Iraq. But it seems to us there is far more wisdom in the holistic approach of the "global war." America has failed to engage its enemies, or tactically retreated when the going got tough, repeatedly since Vietnam: Iran in 1979, Lebanon in 1983, Iraq in 1991, Somalia in 1993.

There is ample reason to think that these shows of weakness--or, more precisely, of irresoluteness--emboldened America's enemies. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provided strong--at the time, seemingly irrefutable--evidence that taking the easy way out did not enhance American national security.

...

Bin Laden, himself, has said that the shows of weakness led him to undertake the 9-11 attacks. This was part of his strong horse, weak horse analogy. It is clear that the Democrats' lawfare approach in the '90's did not deter him.