What Has The Right-Wing's Panties In A Twist Now?

With the Iraq war now just wearing Americans out, with the Iran/Britain crisis peacefully resolved, with the hypocrisy of the White House criticism of Speaker Pelosi's Syria visit exposed (see- here, here and here), the Bush cultists-- who get angrier the more isolated they become-- need something to bang their war drums about and give themselves a collective warrior stiffy.

Enter today's faux-scandal... The Democrats 'quitting' the 'war on terror'. This is based on a Military Times report that "The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget [because the chairman] doesn’t like the phrase." It further adds that they want to "be specific about military operations and 'avoid using colloquialisms.'" Said one congressional aide, 'We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.' OMGZZ!!11! Scandalous!

In a typically breathless editorial, the NY Post states-

[The Iranian announcement] eclipsed a significant revelation about what the Democratic takeover of Capitol Hill really means.

The Military Times newspapers disclosed yesterday that Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee have instructed staffers to stop using the phrase "global war on terror."...

...No big deal?

Quite the contrary.

As House GOP leader John Boehner noted: "How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?"

After all, while the Democrats may not be interested in global terror, the global terrorists are interested in America.

Remember 9/11?...

Of course I do. You guy used it to justify 90% of the things you've done in the last 5 years.

I will also note that the version of this in the physical paper has a picture of Speaker Pelosi wearing a head scarf wearing while visiting a mosque on her trip... just in case you need further convincing of how childish and silly these people are (*).

[*I admit I'm not a fan of the scarf (or most religions' customs), but a custom is a custom.]

Maybe the NY Post editorial board-- most notably John Podhoretz, longtime White House friend-- missed the memo this past December when Donald Rumsfeld said "I don't think I would have called it the war on terror... it is not a 'war on terror.' Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So 'war on terror' is a problem for me." President Bush has also mentioned-- but not often-- that the phrase is inaccurate.

Finally, I am curious what kind of war on terror are we fighting? The kind where we funnel money to terrorist-linked groups when it serves our interests? The kind where we spy on hippies? Or use color-coded fear charts, but abandon them coincidentally after reelection? The kind where we allow large groups to regroup while we launch a war of choice elsewhere? Or the kind where our Homeland Security chief fears we are unprepared to deal with 'clean skin' terrorists?

Perhaps the NY Post will explore those questions tomorrow. I'll begin holding my breath.