My opinion of politicians in general and Democrats in particular is so low as to suspect Orwellian manipulation and concealed motivation and to doubt truthfulness almost as a knee-jerk instinct--an instinct that experience makes me reluctant to abandon.
Certainly in the case of European political leaders, and other outspoken Europeans, there is a strong current of denial and dangerous aversion to truth that makes comparison to Orwellian nightmare impossible to avoid.
The obviousness that the American Left, by which the Democrat Party is controlled, represents the same, strong current of decadence that appears to have damned Europe to a nightmarish future makes its comparison to an Orwellian nightmare also unavoidable.
Would that it were not true.
We definitely need ruthless truthfulness in this dangerous world, and the more precise and truthful the language used the better. Therefore it is important, but often difficult and sometimes impossible, to know whether political--and other--leaders are struggling for precision and honesty or whether it is an Orwellian manipulation.
I agree, and that's why I actually think this is a good move, although certainly done for the wrong reasons.
Euphamisms have been used to hide all manner of governmental shenanigans. Better to call things what they really are instead of this vague pretense.
"Terror" is an abstract concept. We can not win a war on "terror" any more than we can win a War on Poverty - both are part of life and will be with us until the end of time.
What do you think a Democrat President will define as a proper target in a War on Terror? That's why it's important that we choose our terms correctly. Words mean things.
I'm angry that the Dims are playing language games to score political points, but I think the end goal is a postive one - let's talk about what we're really fighting, instead of a politically correct euphamism like "terror."