I think it was Clint Eastwood who said, “If you go to the far, far left, you will meet people coming around from the far, far right”. With the future of Western civilization AND America AND Israel AND world Jewry at stake, intense emotion is understandable, even if some comments are not. Since Israel is the first line of defense… the canary in the coal mine… in the defense of Western civilization against global Jihad, and since the US government is the “world’s only superpower”, the choice of president in ‘08 is in everyone’s interest, not just US citizens’. And whether some argue that the litmus test ought to be what concessions the candidates would force on Israel, or that a candidate has a dangerous past association, or is a dot among other suspicious dots, or any other test, rational or not….it is all fair game. A worthy presidential candidate needs to be able to erase doubts, even if some voters will never change their views. Most people who vote have seen the damage done by the current government to the US economy, global prestige, and Constitutional guarantees. They will make up their minds on rational grounds. So let’s bring on all of the rumors, circumstantial evidence, conspiracy theories,and even false facts. Let’s make the candidates work hard to be elected, because if they can take it, they will be qualified to lead us all in defense of freedom. Freedom isn’t something you ever really have. You have to fight to get it… you have to fight to keep it… if you ever stop, it will be gone. On Memorial Day let’s remember with deepest gratitude all of those who fought and are fighting to defend freedom.

Article in Sun Sentinel newspaper, April 2008. As reported by Matthew Lee, reporter for the Associated Press, the Bush administration has issued a memo with the following language directive:

Don't use the term "jihadist", which has broader religious meaning beyond war, or "mujahadeen", which refers to holy warriors.

Do say "violent extremists".

Don't use the term "al-Qaida movement", because this makes al-Qaida seem like a legitimate political movement.

Don't use "Islamo-fascism" and other terms that could cause religious offense.

Do use the term "totalitarian".

Don't label groups simply as "Muslims".

Do use descriptive terms to define how a group fits into society. For example: South Asian youth and Arab opinion leaders.

Don't use "caliphate" when explaining al-Qaida's goals, as this has positive implications.

Don't use "salafi", "Wahabbist", "sufi", "ummah", and other words from Islamic theology unless you are able to discuss their varied meanings. Particularly avoid using "ummah"to mean the Muslim world, as it is a theological term.

It seems curious that this directive comes more than 6 years after the 911 attacks. Some of the rationale appears plausible on the surface, but the net effect is to launder descriptive terms from discourse. If the government drops these terms, then media coverage will too. Hmmmm! The article says that the report "draws heavily on the Homeland Security report that examined the way American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by US officials to describe terrorists." The government's real motives seem to be questionable.

The Palestinian/ Israeli conflict glossary is filled with terms designed to mislead people and media, in a world where so many people are looking for the opportunity to be mislead and justify their anti-Semitism. The terms are the weapons in the PR war. When I hear the truly militant, anti-Palestinian Jews warn about the next Holocaust, I now listen, go to google, and connect the dots. I don't like the picture.