During my regular reading President Obama's agenda on the White House website, I could find absolutely no mention of, allusion to, or even faint recognition of the War on Terror. There is a lot that can be inferred from that fact. The most obvious reason (though, unfortunately, wrong) is that it's over! When a war is begun and fought and then suddenly vanishes from the Commander-in-Chief's agenda of the army waging the war, that implies it has ended--either by victory, defeat, or stipulation. Terrorism hasn't been defeated, we certainly haven't, and we haven't reached an amicable understanding. So what happened? Partisan politics. Obama's refusal to acknowledge the War on Terror, simply because President Bush actually uttered those words so often. Apparently, the War on Terror was somehow President Bush's own private little war, one that somehow fundamentally changed and ceased to be a war and has morphed into a simple foreign policy issue. Granted there are agenda points relating to al-qaeda, but how is it not still a War on Terror? Sounds like somebody's going to a pre-9/11 mentality. Apparently we're not at war with terror anymore...or Obama has played the role of hypocrite perfectly once again as he stands as the supreme example of the partisan politician blowing hot steam about being bipartisan.
P.S. Just in case you were wondering if simple semantics was a tool of Obama's partisanship in this case, here's the definition of war straight from Oxford: "1: a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or groups; 2: a state of hostility or intense competition between groups; 3: a campaign against something undesirable."
I guess none of those apply to al-Qaeda and religious extremists anymore. So what changed?
No comments:
Post a Comment