More Proof Administration Doesn’t Have Will To Fight Terrorism

I thought Janet Napolitano, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Obama administration had reached the high-point of asinine liberal political correctness, when she said rather than refer to “terrorism” she preferred to call it “man-caused disasters.”

The poor pathetic soul, who by law is supposed to be leading the effort to keep the homeland safe from terrorism, explained to the German magazine, Der Spiegel (March 16, 2009), why the word terror is suddenly verboten: “I did not use the word ‘terrorism.’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Earlier, I didn’t bother to explain the full extent of the Napolitano-Obama idiocy, so here goes. What does the “politics of fear” have to do with calling terror by its right name? This is so elementary, it is embarrassing, for it seems to ignore the purpose of language and how to use it. You describe what you’re talking about with the specificity required for understanding.

If an elephant is running down Main Street, you don’t call it an animal, a mammal or a four-legged creature. You use the term that describes it. I am almost embarrassed to have to explain this, but by doing so the lunacy of the Napolitano-Obama use of language becomes clear. And this language lunacy betrays an Obama administration going soft on the war on terror.

And what does calling terrorism by its right name have to do with “being prepared for all risks that can occur?” Would calling a hurricane a “natural disaster” instead of a hurricane somehow make us better prepared for “all risks that can occur.” I’m afraid even a cursory analysis makes it clear that Ms. Napolitano and President Barack Obama just don’t make sense.

How can you explain this insane use of language? Should we stop fearing “terrorism” by calling it a man-made disaster? Maybe we should fear terrorism and rightly so, without trying to feel good about it. Or is this some attempt to appease various groups that object to calling a spade a spade by calling terrorism. Or is this just another maneuver to reject anything associated with President George W. Bush, whether right or wrong?

Incidentally, Secretary Napolitano created more language lunacy on March 26, 2009 when testifying about illegal immigration failed to use the term illegal immigrant. Maybe that term is too harsh for our ears, too. Andrew Breitbart, of breitbart.com, describes this as the death of language. He said it’s George Orwell’s Animal Farm or 1984, but it is here and now.

Well, I thought this was the limit of stupidity and idiocy coming from the Obama administration on the war on terror. But of course I was wrong. Now Fox News (March 25, 2009) reported that the Obama administration has ordered an end to the use of the phrase “global war on terror.” This was the label adopted by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attack.

Fox News reports, “In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department’s office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, ‘this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror (GWOT).’ Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”

That doesn’t make sense. How do you say, “the global war on terror is about to take a more dangerous turn?” Would you say, “the overseas contingency operation is about to take a more dangerous turn?” Like many decisions coming from President Obama, no one bothered to think about even the obvious implications of the decision.

Fox News also reports, “A Pentagon spokesman said there was no memo or specific directive instructing officials to stop using the ‘Global War on Terror’ phrase, but acknowledged that the department has officially adopted ‘Overseas Contingency Operation’ as the new term for the war.”

This new reversal of usage parallels that of the Obama administration, which has also used the phrase “overseas contingency operation” for about a month. The assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower also used the term last week. Here again, the new usage goes from the specific to the general and therefore loses descriptive power and introduces ambiguity needlessly. This new usage appears to be an attempt to somehow avoid the fear of terror by calling it by another name. However you dance around and explain the change of terminology, it is senseless, dangerous and a departure from reality.

There is something else that suggests how senseless this change of terminology is. We know what the “war on terror” means. This is the term used for over seven years. So why change it now and create confusion? The Obama administration was asked about this latest change of terminology and tried to say it was only that of a mid-level civil servant, and a spokesman said he had not been told not to use the term.

However, if the memo was just an out-of-control civil servant, why wasn’t the memo in question immediately revoked? And why does the Pentagon now believe they have to use the new nonsense phrase instead of the “global war on terror”?

In any event, with or without the Pentagon memo, the attitude and linguistic propensities of the Obama administration were made clear by the Napolitano pronouncement transforming terrorism into man-caused disaster. They’ve also stopped the use of the words “enemy combatant.” And this weakness and wimping out on terrorism terminology, fits into the stance of the Obama administration, which is decidedly weak on the war on terror and more prone to talk, retreat and appeasement.

For example, instead of getting tough with a rogue nation like Iran, that is now responsible for killing our troops in Iraq, the Obama administration sends them sweet talk and apologies for our past conduct. Instead of standing up to Russian aggression, Vice President Joe Biden talks of resetting our relationship. As John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador, points out in the Weekly Standard (April 6, 2009), “The [Obama] administration, in the glow of Obamamania, believes that simply bringing a changed attitude will help realign fundamental international realities.”

This is the part of Mr. Obama’s talking disease, the belief that sweet talk can change international realities and international interests.

As he explains further, “Believing that less-than-ideal relations between Washington and Moscow stemmed from Washington’s ‘confrontational’ approach shows an unprecedented bias toward the other side of the negotiating table in our own top negotiators. A weak knowledge of history, a lack of strategy and perspective, and a domestic political agenda of revanchism have so far characterized the Obama administration’s relations, not only with Russia, but with much of the broader world as well. Without a dramatic improvement, and soon, there is trouble ahead.”

I’m sorry to tell the president that his dulcet tones, with or without his teleprompter, will not make the lion lie down with the lamb. Someone please tell President Obama that the lion will eat the lamb. For more on the weakness of the Obama administration see my column of March 24, 2009, “Obama Wrecked the Economy, Now He’s Working On National Security.”

The attempts of the Obama administration to sweet-talk our enemies merely signals weakness. When he groveled before the Iranians, he got a harsh rebuff. When Hillary Clinton made nice with the Chinese, they continued to rearm and maintain the course they set.

When I first came across the latest Napolitano-Obama idiocy, I didn’t realize their full implications. First, they show how the mainstream media has totally betrayed the American people by censoring news they think might not support the positions of their Messiah, President Obama. The kind of idiocy on display in the Napolitano-Obama use of terminology should be a major story, because it suggests that the leaders of America in the war on terror don’t have a clue. How can they, when they think they’re trying to prevent “man-caused disasters” and “overseas contingency operation”?

Second, and even more frightening, you have to wonder if the Obama administration and Secretary Napolitano don’t have enough sense to even describe the war we’re in and the nature of our enemies, what does that say about their judgment on more important matters. They are entrusted with the responsibility to protect us from terrorists and all other enemies. If they can’t even get past the most elementary terminology, what happens when they go to more complicated issues?

Third, this shows again the importance of doing something about media bias, which is now way out of control. This is just one of many illustrations of how the biased, dishonest and fraudulent journalism is not merely making it difficult for the public to get the truth, but much worse than that it is so severely distorting the picture of reality that it keeps the American people from understanding what’s going on in the world, and the extent of the danger we’re in. The American people are in danger every minute from international terrorism, from suicide bombings, from 9/11-style slaughter, from the release of a weapon of mass destruction and possibly even the incineration of one of our major cities and loss of life running into the millions. On Tuesday, British officials issued a report finding terrorists attacking a major city with nuclear or biological weapons is “more realistic” than ever. Yet the Obama administration and the mainstream media feed us gobbledygook and double talk about man-caused disaster and overseas contingency operations. On the war on terror, we can’t trust the mainstream media and we can’t trust our government. What’s worse, the language lunacy probably signals further retreat, appeasement and softness on the war on terror — I mean overseas contingency operation.

So one of our top priorities has to be getting the truth out to the public, somehow working around the mainstream media and the propaganda of our own government. The media is the key, as if the public gets the truth — which the mainstream media isn’t giving it now — it will put pressure on government to start doing the right thing and we’ll also start bringing about change at the ballot box.

So I’m looking around for measures that can be taken to end media bias and to provide better alternatives to the mainstream media, which is so biased as to be worthless — and isn’t even quality fiction. So I was delighted to see an article be Edward W. Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who came out with some important practical suggestions in an article in the National Review (April 6, 2009) titled “Media Realism: How the GOP Should Handle Increasingly Biased Journalists.”

The first important point Mr. Gillespie makes is that the media have gone from merely biased to active advocacy for President Obama and the Democrats. This is an important sea change that became most obvious with Obamania and a media that acted more like a campaign manager than a journalistic organization.

Here are some of the points Mr. Gillespie makes for handling the new breed of advocacy journalists. These points should also be understood by the public so they know what to expect from the media and how to be aware of the bias and advocacy that pollutes mainstream media journalism.

Mr. Gillespie also stresses that the mainstream media is not only awash with bias but also delivers journalism that has no clear line between news, news analysis and opinion. I’d add it also delivers journalism that has no line between truth and falsehood.

• In the old days, when a White House or other politician wanted an attack on an opponent, information and suggestions were supplied behind the scenes. Now the White House spokesman also acts as an assignment editor for the mainstream media. He can call out the dogs and the mainstream media follow that lead. He now does so in the open at White House press briefings.

• You have to understand that the media will play attack dogs for the Democrats, but not the Republicans. The media will only go on the attack for a Republican issue, if the Republicans raise it. And then later they will be portrayed as going negative.

Mr. Gillespie gives a classic example of how this works: “In 2006 the Left perfected the cycle. A blog posts an attack on a Republican candidate one day, the local local daily paper runs a story two days later based on the blog account, and two days after that, a national Democratic campaign committee launches a ‘ripped from the headlines’ attack ad citing the dailies. No Republican should be caught off-guard by the phenomenon again.”

• The Republicans should call out the media when it displays blatant bias. For example, Mr. Gillespie thinks it was smart for the McCain people to go after The New York Times for its blatantly biased coverage during the campaign. Reminding the public of the bias of the media can partially offset the damage of that bias.

• To get an alternative message out, Republicans have to go around the mainstream media. There are many ways to do that – the Internet, telephone, town-hall meetings, blogs, social-networking sites, campaign Web sites, and e-mailings. Of course, there are also the conservative talk radio hosts and a thin sliver of newspapers that aren’t part of the mainstream media such as The Bulletin.

• Accept the reality of today’s media. Don’t think it’s like it used to be or that it is unbiased. Facing reality is key to any solution.

• Mr. Gillespie also issues an important warning: “At present, Democrats use the media to their distinct advantage: The mainstream press favors them, and they are better than Republicans at using alternative outlets. It was Mr. Obama, after all, who proved that a candidate has the ability to disseminate facts and a message to millions of voters directly. Republicans need to turn this tide, and fast.

• I’d add to Mr. Gillespie’s list. I think it is important to boycott dishonest, fraudulent and biased mainstream media outlets, and certainly stop contributing to those that solicit pubic funds such as NPR and PBS. The perfect boycott model is sponsored by Accuracy in Media (AIM), a media watchdog. Go to its Web site, www.boycottnyt.com, sign its online petition and get acquainted with just how bad The Times has become, now a disgrace to honest journalism. I’ve also long advocated a boycott of the Philadelphia Inquirer, now bankrupted both financially and journalistically.

• Support and learn from media watchdogs such as AIM, the Media Research Center (media

research.org), camera.org and honestreporting.com. AIM is especially important now as it is leading a national effort to do something about media bias.

• Get involved yourself by writing letters to the editor and by setting up your own Web site or blog. You can also try to influence coverage by talking to editors and reporters. Better yet, organize a group or a boycott to get the advantage of numbers.

• Support alternative sources of information that give both sides. There is conservative talk radio with such powerful voices as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett. There are many excellent conservative publications such as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, Human Events, Town Hall, NewsMax and many others. Then there are endless sources of valuable and unbiased information on the Web.

• Remember, if Americans don’t turn around the present drift to big government, big taxation, big regulation, we’re headed for tyranny and disaster. As one sage suggested, act as if the solution depends on you alone. If enough people think like that we will get the change we need. And if you need more evidence of how weak Mr. Obama is on the war on terror, remember something Mr. Breitbart pointed out: Mr. Obama coddles our enemies, but issues organized attacks on patriotic Americans who happen to dissent from the Obama party line.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.