April 25, 2008, - 10:35 am

Bush PC Language Police to All Feds: No “Islamo-Fascism,” “Islamic Terrorism,” “Jihad,” “Mujahedeen”

By Debbie Schlussel
It’s a damned good thing George W. Bush wasn’t President during World War II. Were that the case, all administration officials would have been muzzled from uttering these words: Gestapo, Third Reich, Concentration Camp, Auschwitz, Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Thereisenstadt, Luftwaffen, Waffen, SS, Einsatzgrupen, etc.
After all, it might offend the German-American Bund. And it might enhance the popularity of Hitler and the Third Reich in Germany and lend them credibility.
That’s the new official Bush policy, laid out on a classified memo sent out to federal officials at the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counter Terrorism Center. Oh, and by the way, the Bush administration is still pretending Bin Laden isn’t the most popular personality in the Islamic world and that jihad doesn’t mean “holy war.” I heard “concentration camp” means “exclusive resort”:

seenoevil.jpg

The View From the Bush Administration Mirror

Don’t call them jihadists any more.
And don’t call al-Qaida a movement.
The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language.
Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as “jihadists” or “mujahedeen,” according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like “Islamo-fascism” is out, too.
The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.

Um, hello . . . . Bin Laden is the most popular Muslim–to other Muslims–on the planet. “Veneer”? He wears the thick cloak of Islamic credibility, and it ain’t comin’ off anytime soon. Moderates? What moderates? In which cave are they hiding? They’re harder to find than Bin Laden, himself.

For example, while Americans may understand “jihad” to mean “holy war,” it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public. Similarly, “mujahedeen,” which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.

BS, BS, BS, BS . . . . No-one believes these fairy-tales any more. No-one, apparently, except the Bushies, and those underaged tots reading Brothers Grimm.

U.S. officials may be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims,” says a Homeland Security report. It’s entitled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.”

A far better title: “The Official Bush Admin PC BS Memo.”

“Regarding ‘jihad,’ even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world,” the report says.

They have plenty of religious authority. If the Bushies don’t know that by now (and they know, they just don’t want to admit it), they’ve been in a more remote cave than Bin Laden.

Language is critical in the war on terror, says another document, an internal “official use only” memorandum circulating through Washington entitled “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication.”
The memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counter Terrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the State Department, which plans to distribute a version to all U.S. embassies, officials said.
“It’s not what you say but what they hear,” the memo says in bold italic lettering, listing 14 points about how to better present the war on terrorism.
“Don’t take the bait,” it says, urging officials not to react when Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida affiliates speak. “We should offer only minimal, if any, response to their messages. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige in the Muslim world.”

How do you raise Bin Laden’s and Al-Qaeda’s prestige from the top spot they now occupy? Maybe bring Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat back from their vacay with the 72 dark-eyed re-virginized.

“Don’t compromise our credibility” by using words and phrases that may ascribe benign motives to terrorists.
Some other specifics:
* “Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahedeen’ in conversation to describe the terrorists. … Calling our enemies ‘jihadis’ and their movement a global ‘jihad’ unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”
* “Use the terms ‘violent extremist’ or ‘terrorist.’ Both are widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”
* On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: “We are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don’t insult or confuse them with pejorative terms such as ‘Islamo-fascism,’ which are considered offensive by many Muslims.”
The memo says the advice is not binding and does not apply to official policy papers but should be used as a guide for conversations with Muslims and media.
At least at the top level, it appears to have made an impact. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who once frequently referred to “jihad” in her public remarks, does not appear to have used the word, except when talking about the name of a specific terrorist group, since last September.
The memo mirrors advice distributed to British and European Union diplomats last year to better explain the war on terrorism to Muslim communities there.

Yup, we should copy British and European policies towards Muslims . . . because they’ve worked sooooooo well.

It also draws heavily on the Homeland Security report that examined the way American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message.

Who gives a whit how they respond? When will we start caring about how we’ll survive?

Because of religious connotations, that report, released in January and obtained by AP this week, counseled “caution in using terms such as, ‘jihadist,’ ‘Islamic terrorist,’ ‘Islamist,’ and ‘holy warrior’ as grandiose descriptions.”
“We should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam,” the report said, adding that bin Laden and his adherents fear “irrelevance” more than anything else.

We should not concede that eating 20 pizzas means you’re consuming a lot of calories. It might give relevance to Weight Watchers and dieticians, who badly crave it.

“We must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders the legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some,” it said. [DS: See above comment.]

Bush Memo, Debbie’s/Cliff’s Notes Edition: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Start digging America’s grave.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




13 Responses

Like the Clintons’ before him, I wonder how much Arab oil money is going to be donated to Bush’s presidential library.
This guy seems to go out of his way to not do the right thing and call a spade a spade as it relates to the muzlum fifth column in this country.
I also noticed that he hasn’t been putting any real pressure on the saudis to increase oil production, which would lead to lower gas prices in this country. Besides that, we should be TAKING the oil from Iraq as payback…but I guess he doesn’t want to upset those muzlum barbarians, either.
The whole Bush dynasty has been a failure with the exception of a couple of accomplishments.
And, with the three idiots on the horizon to take over next (two America-hating Socialists and a Republican opporrtunist who thinks he should be coronated president), the outlook doesn’t look any brighter when Bush leaves office.
God help us!

Thee_Bruno on April 25, 2008 at 12:00 pm

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil – the Bush’s Adminstration’s Islamist-pandering PC approach distill into a nutshell. If America is not allowed to identify her enemy, his ideology and the consequences of that ideology, there is no war to fight. On that score both the Bush Administration and the Democrats are in total agreement: there’s no Islamofascist threat to America that must be taken seriously if the country is to survive. Forcing people to shut up about the enemy is not going to make him disappear.

NormanF on April 25, 2008 at 12:16 pm

The worst president in our history continues to amaze. Has anyone ever been this bad? The destruction of the Conservative movement is complete. If anyone makes any conservative noises McCain will try to shut them up…as he has tried to do in North Carolina.

Howard on April 25, 2008 at 12:17 pm

“You wouldn’t know ‘crazy’ if Charles Manson was eatin’ ‘Fruit Loops’ on your front porch!”
“If I offended you, I’m sorry…but maybe you needed to be offended…here’s my apology… F**k you!”
Suicidal Tendencies, “You can’t bring me down”, circa 1989.
(Uh oh, is that too “extreme”?)
Hussein Obama…Rodham-Clinton…McCan’t…Bush…Rice…Albright…Pilosi…Chertof…illegal aliens…Muzzies…et al etc…We’re finished.
“Rage against the dying of the light.”

Nuggler on April 25, 2008 at 12:33 pm

*The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.*
I get so frustrated thinking about how much our nation could have accomplished if a conservative had been the White House for the last 7 years.
What are they thinking? If a “moderate” Muslim barbarian is offended by the word “jihad” or “Islamo-fascism,” they are NOT “moderate.” What is so hard to understand about this?
Also, I taught in Bangkok, Thailand for a year in 2002-2003. Thailand is only 3% Muslim, but all the “moderate” Muslims seemed to be wearing Osama Bin Laden t-shirts. . .and that was BEFORE the term “Islamo-fascism.” It is scary that the Bush administration has such little common sense or foreign experience.

Gabe on April 25, 2008 at 1:24 pm

I agree with Bush, for once. Islamo fascists, Jihadists, etc. No reason for such name calling. Just call them what they are…Muslims.
We know who the enemy is, so just call them by their given name.

savage supporter on April 25, 2008 at 1:31 pm

I think we are being to intolerant towards President Bush.
He is clearly establishing priorities in the use of invective and insults. After all, the worst enemies of civilization are those xenophobes and nativists who oppose illegal immigration. I know he won’t mince words in describing these dreadful bigots who oppose these newcomers taking our tax money, and killing our citizens on the roads.

c f on April 25, 2008 at 4:09 pm

“On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology”
Jihad and Jihadist are ill-defined? Orwellian.
War is Peace.

George Mc. on April 25, 2008 at 4:51 pm

President Bush should order the feds to stop using the words “terrorist” and ‘terrorists”. Radical Muslims or radical Islamists would be a much more accurate description for these enimies of the United States. The jihad was declared by the Radical Islamists. Tell it like it is, Mr. President. President Bush and both houses of the United States Congress are directly responsible for the current failure of the U.S. bureaucracy, including the Foreign Service. Jimmy Carter was a horrible United States President but history will find that George W. Bush was worse than Carter.

ParaLyzer on April 25, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Debbie, You deserve a medal for the moral (and physical) courage you demonstrate DAILY by posting (omg!) the TRUTH on your blog! I am certain that you have enemies in almost all camps: the CAIR types in Dearbornistan and other parts of the US; the White House; Congress; the jihadists overseas; the European elites; the rulers of Muslim states. Wow! You amaze me.
This post is particularly right on, because it catches out the Bush Administration in a particularly heinous move: In effect, trying to slink out the back door on the War on Terror near the end of its term WHILE US troops are STILL being sent to fight and die (in a good cause, mind you) and then being court martialed on absurd charges in Orwellian courts martial: viz., the Haditha Marines, to name just the best known example.
Don’t use the term “jihadist,” indeed! Does anyone remember that we called the enemy the Krauts and the Japs in WWII?
Just to clarify: I support the war efforts in BOTH Iraq AND Afghanistan (my soldier son has served combat tours in both locations) and earnestly desire us to win in both places.
In fact, I think we also need to hit Iran and Syria before we call it quits.

gunjam on April 26, 2008 at 12:38 am

gunjam said it right. Debbie really puts herself out there in exposing the truth about freedom hating Muslims. She’s the James Bond of bloggers (More like Connery..not the latest spandex wearer).
Nobody does it better!!-oops that was a Roger Moore version…but it still fits.

Southernops on April 26, 2008 at 8:40 am

Does anyone know where I can find more than just the two “Debbie Does Politics” videos I can find — that I’ve watched twice?
Thanks

TallT on April 29, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Miss Schlussel,

You are awesome! God Bless.

winnie the pooh on July 10, 2011 at 6:37 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field