L.A.Times Still Calling it the ‘So-Called War on Terror’

In the L.A. Times on July 22, writer Catherine Lyons again revealed a bit of her Bush Derangement Syndrome by calling the war on terror a “so-called war on terror.” What is with these people that simply cannot accept terms of reality? It’s like this every time they use the word terrorism, or “terrorism” as the Old Media so often terms it, and the war on terror. The Old Media simply refuses to understand that terrorism exists, that it is a problem, and that we are at war with terrorists.

This usage of the “so-called” remark was doubly amusing because Lyons threw in her “so-called war on terror” comment into a story about U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s visit to a closed meeting of Muslims held in Los Angeles on July 18. Her scoffing at the war on terror seemed geared to let Muslim readers in on the fact that she didn’t believe there was terrorism or that Bush was really fighting a war on terror… wink, wink.

(My bold)

The closed meeting was part of the attorney general's jam-packed trip to Los Angeles, where he also met with local leaders in South Los Angeles to talk about gang prevention and intervention. At his mosque "summit," Holder addressed immigration, racial profiling and demands to hold the Bush administration accountable for alleged abuses in its so-called war on terror, as well as employment opportunities with the Department of Justice.

What is so hard for the Old Media to understand? We are in a war against Islamist terror. We did have a surge in Iraq, not a “surge” or a so-called surge… nor was it a “as the administration calls it, a surge.” It was a surge.

Furthermore, it is terror or terrorism. Not “terrorism,” not militants, not religious conservatives, and not so-called terrorism. It exists and not in a pseudo, or supposed, or assumed form.

One has to wonder if the Old Media ever called the Pearl Harbor attack the so-called sneak attack, or the militant strike, or the “attack” on Peal Harbor?

Somehow I doubt it.