On Beck, Politico's Allen denounced Dems for "1984"-like objection to term "war on terror" -- what about Bush admin?

On the April 4 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen agreed with host Glenn Beck's claim that a recent decision by Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee to refrain from using the term "global war on terror" amounts to "political garbage." Allen called the move "silly" and asserted that "Democrats are trying to make Iraq the president's personal war." But Allen did not say why he views Congress' efforts to clarify what funds are being appropriated for what efforts as "silly." Nor did he explain why he did not describe as "silly" the Bush administration's continued use of a term that some in the administration have criticized, and that serves to conflate efforts on different fronts, some of which -- Iraq, in particular -- are strongly opposed by the public.

An April 4 Associated Press article reported that "Erin Conaton, the Democratic staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, urged aides in a March 27 memo to 'avoid using colloquialisms,' such as the 'war on terrorism' or the 'long war,' and not to use the term 'global war on terrorism.' In preparing the annual defense authorization bill, the staff is directed to be more specific, such as referring to operations in Iraq."

The AP article went on to note that Democrats "say they are tired of Bush's use of the blanket term 'global war on terror' to justify individual military operations and their hefty budgets." Furthermore, in an April 4 press release, House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) explained that the committee members' decision stems from Republicans' long-standing efforts "to tie together the misadventure in Iraq and the overall war against terrorists":

Each year, the members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee work to prepare the best possible defense authorization bill. When writing legislation, the words we choose are important, and we make every effort to be as precise and specific as possible so that Congressional intent may be understood.

GOP objections to our efforts to clarify legislative language represent the typical Republican leadership attempt to tie together the misadventure in Iraq and the overall war against terrorists. The Iraq War is separate and distinct from the war against terrorists, who have their genesis in Afghanistan and who attacked us on 9/11, and the American people understand this.

On the April 4 edition of Glenn Beck, Allen claimed that the Democrats' decision "does have sort of a 1984 quality to it" and described the move as "silly." Beck asked him, "Is there any reason that you can see other than politics to do this?" Allen appeared to agree that politics was the sole reason for the decision, stating: "[T]he clear reason for this is that the global war on terror is something that the president is associated with." When Beck called the decision "political garbage," Allen responded, "Democrats are trying to make Iraq the president's personal war." Allen further stated that "you can't cherry-pick" individual terms for the war because "it's one big pot."

Moreover, Allen and Beck omitted any mention of senior Bush administration officials who have also argued that the label is problematic. Indeed, in a December 2006 interview, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told syndicated columnist Cal Thomas:

I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. I don't mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word 'war' conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn't going to happen that way. Furthermore, 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.

According to a May 2005 New York Times article, Gen. Richard B. Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "told the National Press Club on Monday that he had 'objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.'"

From the April 4 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: And now closer to home, the House Armed Services Committee is banishing the words "global war on terror" from the 2008 defense budget in an effort to, quote, "avoid using colloquialisms." I don't even know what that means.

Mike Allen, chief political correspondent from Politico.com.

Mike, help me. What, what, what?

ALLEN: Well, Glenn, there's no help for you, but I can tell you what the House Armed Services Committee meant by that.

BECK: Yeah.

ALLEN: This does have sort of a 1984 quality to it. And a House Republican aide in the Army Times, which broke this story, said that it reminded him of Harry Potter, the war that must not be named.

Glenn, this is silly. As you know, the global war on terror is something that has many components that fit together. When you move from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa, you're not going to take it out of a different account in the defense budget.

BECK: And that's what they're talking about, right? They're talking about making it, you know, war in Horn of Africa, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, instead of just one giant -- is there any reason other than, I don't know, they're not busy enough? Is there any reason that you can see other than politics to do this?

ALLEN: Right. Well, there's two reasons. The stated reason is that, as you said, they want to be more specific. And today, the chairman of that committee, Ike Skelton, said that Republicans were creating a distraction about this but did not step away from the policy.

Glenn, the clear reason for this is that the global war on terror is something that the president is associated with. Sometimes that's good for him. Sometimes that's not good for him. And Democrats want to sort of water it down a little bit.

And, to be fair, I'll point out the president uses it for his purposes, too. As you know, for him to talk about the global war on terror sounds more noble than simply invading Iraq.

And as the president talks about his legacy, the No. 1 thing he says that he wants to do is leave the tools in place for his successor to fight a war on terrorism that he says will go on for generations.

So both sides use this vocabulary. Certainly, the House Armed Services Committee presumably has bigger problems to deal with.

BECK: Mike, I have to tell you, I am not a guy who, you know -- I disagree with the Democrats, don't get me wrong. I disagree with them, but I'm not a guy who thinks that they hate America. I'm not a guy who thinks they want to lose the war.

But I'm -- Democrats, I'm holding onto a thread here. I mean, everything that they're doing right now is proving me wrong. What are you doing? Why don't you do some real work instead of all of this political garbage?

They have turned this into nothing but just trying to win the next election. Am I wrong? Help me out. I want to be wrong.

ALLEN: Well, I'm not going to buy quite that formulation, but I will say that Democrats are trying to make Iraq the president's personal war. And broader efforts against terrorism, which most Americans agree on and which the next president is certainly going to deal with, they want to make it everyone's.

But you can't cherry-pick. It's one big pot, and even if Harry Potter cannot name it, we're going to.

BECK: Right. Yeah, good. Thanks. Mike, appreciate your time.