Depends on what the meaning of “hostilities” is…

posted by Bob

When it comes to meanings of words, many politicians subscribe to the thumbscrew theory of lexicography: torture the language until it says what you want it to say. Bill Clinton concerned himself with little words like “is,” but Barack Obama has bigger fish to fry: he wants to redefine the word “hostilities.” The Bard of Murdock elaborates:

For Democratic presidents
Afflicted with precision,
The definition of a word
Can be a grave decision.

It stands to reason that elites
Who take a small excursion,
Would want to find replacement words,
And with them a diversion.

But stupid is as stupid does
And ‘is’ is self-defining;
No matter how Bill Clinton spins,
The word needs no refining.

A decade later, once again
We’re back to definitions,
This time primarily with guns,
With bombs and live munitions.

The President prefers what he
Would call kinetic action;
He hates the word hostilities,
Preferring an abstraction.

I’m sure Gaddafi and his friends
Might raise a point of order,
As NATO’s bombs drop left and right
Inside their country’s border.

But if we were to call it war
Then, per our Constitution,
It would require Congress pass
An awkward resolution.

So following in Bubba’s steps
And Democrat tradition,
The President just redefines
And doesn’t seek permission.

Copyright 2011 by The Bard of Murdock. Used with permission.

(crossposted at bluebird of bitterness)

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Benghazi, Bill Clinton, Constitution, Democrats, Funny Stuff

2 responses to “Depends on what the meaning of “hostilities” is…

  1. Pingback: Depends on what the meaning of “hostilities” is… « bluebird of bitterness

  2. chrissythehyphenated

    Excellent! I shared this with my bloggy list along with the latest news from Congress:

    House rebukes Obama on Libya
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/24/house-weighs-cutting-off-funds-for-libya-mission/

    The House voted 295-123 against a resolution to “authorize” the mission in Libya — even a limited operation with no ground troops. One-hundred-and-fifteen Democrats and only eight Republicans voted for the proposal; in a blow to Obama, 70 Democrats voted against it. Though that resolution is non-binding, it represents the most definitive statement the chamber has made about the conflict.

    Then the House voted 238-180 against striking funding for the troops fighting Obama’s “war” in Libya. 89 Republicans opposed.

    Like