Homeland Security

This exchange is from a magazine interview with Barack Obama’s Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano.

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.

What’s wrong with liberals?  Seriously?  What’s wrong with calling Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism?  Can you really be prepared for an attack from Islamic terrorists if you refuse to refer to it as what it is?  According to this silly woman, 9/11 wasn’t a terrorist attack, it was a man-caused disaster.  An accidental train crash is a man-caused disaster, too, but the root cause is a lot different than a terrorist attack.  It sure as fuck seems like it would require a different approach to “preparation.”

Who is this politically-correct wordplay meant to reassure?  Terrorists, apparently.  It seems to have more to do with muddying the rhetorical waters than providing clarity about our security strategy.