In an interview with Der Spiegel, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano revealed one of the not too subtle changes of the Obama era.
Janet Napolitano, 51, is President Obama's new Homeland Security Secretary. She spoke with SPIEGEL about immigration, the continued threat of terrorism and the changing tone in Washington.
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.SPIEGEL: This sounds quite different from what we heard from the Bush administration. How will the new anti-terror policy differ from the previous one?Napolitano: Our policies will be guided by authoritative information. We also have assets at our disposal now that we did not have prior to 9/11. For example, we are much better able to keep track of travellers coming into the US than we were before. The third thing is to work with our international partners and allies to make sure that we are getting information and sharing information in an appropriate and real-time fashion.This is an outrage. This is BS. Napolitano's "nuance" sucks. Dick Cheney was right to criticize the Obama administration's new policy.The politics of fear?Calling terrorist acts "terrorism" has nothing to do with the politics of fear. It has everything to do with REALITY. Sometimes, being fearful is being realistic. The threat from Islamic radicals is real. This "man-caused disasters" crap is ridiculous. The United States Homeland Security Secretary shouldn't sound like a politically correct, "everything is relative" Reuters hack.It's wrong to call the slaughter of 3000 people, the destruction of the World Trade Center, the damage to the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania something as benign as a "man-caused disaster." It was terrorism. This is like spitting in the face of all those throughout the world who have suffered and died due to the savagery of Islamic terrorists. It's wrong to diminish the horror and the evil of those acts by softening the terms.Who carries out these "man-caused disasters"? Not terrorists. If we can't call their actions "terrorism," we certainly can't call the perpetrators "terrorists."I guess we're supposed to call them "man-caused disaster-doers." We can't be referring to Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, now can we?What a load!I will never stop calling the 9/11 attacks "terrorism." Never. And I will never stop calling bin Laden and his barbarian followers "terrorists."However, I agree to use the term "man-caused disaster." The 2008 presidential election was a "man-caused disaster."