semantic distinction So the campaign was then and this is now, huh?
Either the report is false, although it has been confirmed by another report with anonymous sources, or there is in fact an incoherence in our policy which by the president's own continuous assertions during the campaign concerns a matter essential to winning the war and keeping the country safe.
Candidate Trump was clear, if you cannot properly name and identify the enemy you cannot defeat him. That is not something that can be dodged by calling it semantics, it is important because semantics dictate policy.
What is going on?
70 posted on 2/25/2017, 2:37:38 AM by Pelham
Watch this excerpt from Mattis’ Heritage Foundation speech last December and you’ll learn why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W-R4xMbF68
Suggest you watch the video above. Clearly Mattis is operating from a much more sophisticated platform, one where he appreciates the need for precise terms, the realities of the enemy and also the potential friends who will be needed to successfully combat that enemy. Watch with an open mind and do not be so quick to condemn dogmatically.
If you cannot properly name and identify the enemy you cannot defeat him. That is utterly cliche.
Suppose we called the Nazis "scrimbabbles". Does that mean we suddenly couldn't defeat them? Ridiculous.
I see you chose to ignore the observation that President Trump clearly said that he would have people on his team who had differing views. This instance may one of those cases, although only with respect to terminology; it makes not a whit of difference with respect to policy.
So, as is your wont, you're nit pick over irrelevancies.
So the campaign was then and this is now, huh?
The President still uses the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism", and I assume he will continue to do so. Thus your statement is invalid.
For you to assert that a difference in terminology with one of his advisors somehow represents an "incoherence in our policy" presumes facts not in evidence. And it's also nothing that's being "dodged", as you have mis-characterized.
So lighten up, Francis.
As Sarek of Vulcan once said: "Tellarites do not argue for reasons. They simply argue".
Don't be a Tellarite.
When this earth-shattering distinction in the use of terms between President Trump and H.R. McMaster manifests itself in a tangible policy conflict, then you can return to your "incoherence in our policy" canard...