President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton want to know what difference it makes to use the term "radical Islamic terrorist" ("Hatred, rhetoric and the violence they spawn, isn't that a more specific name than just saying Americans who want less taxation? What about when Ms. Clinton and President Obama insisted that the Benghazi attack was the result of a video? And it was said over and over again. Sloppy use of the language led us to believe that media caused the attack and not radical Islamic terrorists.
You see, language does provide clarity. When President Obama wants to play 18 holes, he doesn't tell the driver to take him to the park. He tells him to take him to a specific golf course. Or maybe sometimes he's not specific enough and they take him to a tree-planting where many holes lay waiting for someone to plant a tree.
See how absurd it is to not call things what they are? How absurd and illogical is the resistance to name calling. So why is it important to say what we mean? Imagine forming a war strategy that says we are going to tell our military to kill everyone in the Middle East. Clearly, we need to tell them to hunt and execute a devastating defeat upon radical Islamic terrorists and not the entire population. Makes some basic sense, doesn't it?
Stephen B. Tabeling, Abingdon