We Are Back To A War On Terror

It was not that long ago that Barack Obama decided we were not in a war on terror. He decided that this phrase as well as a few words/phrases like Jihadists and global war were no loner acceptable and did not reflect what was taking place.

“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,'” said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a “new way of seeing” the fight against terrorism. Washington Times

It seems that we are now back to a war on terror and this might have something to do with Obama’s war in Afghanistan. He has sent more troops as part of an increase that started under President Bush’s surge (a strategy Obama said would not work when implemented in Iraq) and now he will likely have to send more if he wants to achieve victory. This has to drive his base nuts because he promised them when he was candidate Obama that he would bring the troops home. It might have looked as if he was heading that way when he softened the terminology but the return to “war on terror” leaves a quick end unlikely.

The term is more threatening than the watered down versions that came out of the White House early on and this might be because Obama wants support for his actions. To be clear, I support any movements that increase troop strength and include tactics aimed at victory but the right is not who needs to be convinced (though we will certainly deride him for his naivete during the campaign). His base is the gaggle that took him at his word when he said he would bring the troops home and they are the ones who need to be convinced.

Obama has not read the assessment of Afghanistan yet (it was sent to the Pentagon today) but it is believed to include the need for more troops. If he decides to send more troops, and it looks like he will, the left will go bonkers. Cindy Sheehan is already ginning up her band of merry mischief makers and it will not be long before the entire left is fed up with Obama and his war.

I want to see an end to war but the only way for it to end is with victory defined on our terms. Obama desperately wants to bring the troops home to fulfill his campaign pledge but now that he is no longer a candidate reality is setting in and he is beginning to see that the decisions are tough and one cannot just make statements or snap fingers and expect results even if the one is the messiah of the left.

It will be interesting to see how the left reacts if this all takes place. The right supports the troops and their efforts and knows that the only exit strategy is victory. Obama won’t have to convince us of the need to support the troops. His task is to reel in his base.

This is a tough position because if they do not side with him he will have hell to pay and if they do it will show once and for all that they are hypocrites.

I think Olbermann will be the first moonbat to jump on board along with tingle leg Matthews. It would not be the first time these guys changed positions based upon the party of the White House occupant.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

34 Responses to “We Are Back To A War On Terror”

  1. Blake says:

    Now, here’s where the left, with all their “causes” could really help Nobama- if they all joined the peace corps, and volunteered to show the Afghanis how to dig wells, and farm decently, and provide plumbing, the good deeds would be twofold- they wold help the Afghanis, and they would learn how to work instead of just bitch about things from the relative safety of their momma’s basement.

    • Darrel says:

      It’s a safe bet that the 195,000 that have been trained by the Peace Corp (currently 7,876) to work for peace are not the war monger chicken hawk types.

      The ’09 budget for the Peace Corp was $340 million.

      That’s about five hours of money flush in Iraq alone.

      So some priorities appear to be out of whack.


  2. Big Dog says:

    And they would all be out of the country.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Waaah waaah.

    Who is the chicken hawk, the guy in there now who never served but is increasing troops and fighting the war? Am confused. You can’t mean anyone here, can you?

    • Darrel says:

      BigD: Who is the chicken hawk,>>

      You can see a nice, extensive, list of them here.

      Bigd: the guy in there now who never served>>

      Nope. Didn’t support the war. Not a hawk, thus, can’t be a “chickenhawk.”

      Bigd: but is increasing troops and fighting the war?>>

      Pull out of Bush’s quagmire in Iraq is on schedule.

      Afghanistan? That ball was dropped when the focus was shifted to that country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (contrary to about what about 1/2 of the republicans erroneously believe).

      6,001 US killed in both as of yesterday.

      That’s 2x 9/11.

      “George F. Will, the elite conservative commentator, will call in his next column for U.S. ground troops to leave Afghanistan, according to publishing sources.”


      He’s on the list. Under “mouthpieces.”

      • Blake says:

        The guy in there now has no stones. but that is a liberal failing- they naturally live on their knees.

      • Big Dog says:

        So this little political piece is supposed to be a list of Chickenhawks? Bush served and honorably so. I know all you lefties think he went AWOL but he did not. He served his time. Clinton was a draft dodger but he used force so is he a CH? Would you label him as such?

        Obama is using our military to project force rather than pull them out as he said (a move I am not in favor of) so is he a CH.

        You can blame it on Bush but this is Obama’s war now. Iraq had ties to the folks who planned and implemented 9/11. But Iraq was not about 9/11 which many on the left seem to think. It was about WMD and regime change as well as forcing compliance with UN resolutions that had been ignored for 14 years. The resolution to go to war contains about 19 items. I don’t think any mention 9/11 and 3 or so mention WMD. The lefties think it was all about 9/11.

        Interestingly, many of the politicians on the left actually spoke about taling out Hussein (the iraqi dictator not the American one) when Clinton was president and even The Sainted Murderer Ted Kennedy said there was no doubt that Hussein had WMD. When CH Clinton was in charge the CH Democrats all wanted to take out Hussein and all made claims that there was no doubt he had WMD. Some made the same claims after Bush took office only to act as if they never had when it was politically expedient to do so:

        “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
        President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
        “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
        President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

        “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
        Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

        “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
        Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

        “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
        Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

        “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
        Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

        “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
        Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

        “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
        Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

        “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
        Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

        “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
        Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

        “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
        Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

        “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
        Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

        “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
        Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

        “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
        Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

        “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
        Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

        “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
        Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

        “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
        Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

        “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
        Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

        “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
        Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: So this little political piece is supposed to be a list of Chickenhawks?>>

          Correct. They are chickens (didn’t serve), and hawks (war promoters/supporters/mongers). That’s the two requirements to be a chickenhawk.

          Bigd: Bush served and honorably so.>>

          No, he used his connections to get his fanny in the guard so he could avoid the war. Then he didn’t show up.


          “In fairness, Bush has been candid about why he enlisted in the Air National Guard. Like many young men of his generation, he wanted to avoid Vietnam. He told one reporter, “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”

          Bush = Chicken + hawk.

          Thus, he’s a chickenhawk.

          Bigd: I know all you lefties think he went AWOL but he did not. He served his time.>>

          He hasn’t even started serving his time yet. That wouldn’t be until after the conviction.

          BigD: Would you label him [Clinton] as such?>>

          Nope. Not a hawk. You can call him a chicken, but no one but a partisan hack reaching for straws would label him a hawk.

          Bigd: is he [Obama] a CH.>>

          Nope. Not a hawk. He is cleaning up after Bush disasters as best as possible. As promised. It’s the responsible thing to do.

          Bigd: You can blame it on Bush but this is Obama’s war now.>>

          These will always be Bush’s wars (read disasters). Wear them with pride.

          Bigd: Iraq had ties to the folks who planned and implemented 9/11.>>

          No it didn’t. That’s just rightwing, rubbish. Saddam hated al-Qaida.
          No one has more interest in pushing that howler than this guy, but even he admits:

          “Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.”


          Another example of how those on the right were, and are, serially misinformed by the dishonest on the right:

          “Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year [2002], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.”

          The answer is zero.”

          Christian Science Monitor.

          Bigd: But Iraq was not about 9/11 which many on the left seem to think.>>

          Of course it was. Where did so many Americans get the following, erroneous belief?

          “A New York Times/CBS poll this week [2003] shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.” –ibid

          Bigd: It was about WMD and regime change…>>

          Right. Which was a bunch of hooey.

          “This isn’t an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam’s WMDs
          and the threat of their imminent use.”
          –Sen. Carl Levin

          The threat was bogus, their “imminent use” a falsehood used to promote a baseless war.

          Bigd: as well as forcing compliance with UN resolutions…>>

          We don’t care about those. Israel goes against them all the time.

          Bigd: many of the politicians on the left actually spoke about taking out Hussein…>>

          Politicans running their mouths. They didn’t do it, so they don’t get the blame. Bush did it, so he gets the blame.

          “President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said ‘bring it on.’ Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead.” –Mary Kewatt, aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, Minnesota Public Radio

          Bush likes to talk tough when other people are doing the dying. That’s what chickenhawks do.

  4. Adam says:

    We can’t send the Peace Corp out of the country. They are part of Obama’s civilian security force that’s going to guard the polls to keep Republicans from voting Democrats out of office next year. See, I could be a right wing blogger, for sure…

    • Blake says:

      The peace corps job is to go out of the country- that is if the lefties have the fortitude to do so.
      hat I want to know, is, if the Peace Corps has been a success, and they have been in existence for forty years or so, how come they have to keep training these people? Wouldn’t you think one tribe could teach another?
      Is knowledge only good for one generation?

    • Blake says:

      oh- that,s not the eace Corps- that’s Americorps, Nobama’s “Purple Shirts”

    • Big Dog says:

      Nah, you’d never make it. Only Black Panthers are allowed to use voter intimidation. Peace Corps folks would get beat to death (as should have happened to the Black Panthers).

  5. Adam says:

    I can’t wait until AmeriCorps takes your guns.

  6. Adam says:

    You guys are so blind that you can’t see that Peace Corp are the nazis coming to turn your kids into zombie liberals? These are the connections that I’m just making, somebody talk me down from the crazy tree…

    • Big Dog says:

      Can’t happen. My kids were raised properly and would not become zombie liberals. They might beat the hell out of a few peace corps folks, or shoot them though.

      Peace through strength.

    • Blake says:

      You are the low hanging fruit in that tree, Adam- The peace corps, as everyone knows, has no stones, so could not do what you suggest. And “zombie Liberal” is redundant.

  7. Big Dog says:

    I know it is tough for you Darrel because personal responsibility is not a strong point but those people who VOTED for it share in the blame. In fact, it is all theirs. Without the votes Bush could never have gone in.

    Bush served and regardless of why he did, it means he is not a Chicken. I think your quotes might be off as well. He wanted to go to VN but his aircraft was becoming obsolete.

    I also NEVER said that Iraq played a role in 9/11 only that it had ties to the people involved. Hussein and OBL had communications and Hussein provided safe havens for those who were involved (there were mor involved than 19).

    You make the leap that Iraq had a role in it, something I did not say.

    Clinton pushed for war in Bosnia and he used missiles to strike Iraq. He advocated for military action when he refused to serve (chickenhawk).

    You call people chickenhawks even though they served, regardless of the reason. You have a chance of going to war in the guard. You don’t if you flee to Canada or lie about joining ROTC to get out of it.

    And who are you to determine if any of these people who got deferrments deserved them or not? Are you a doctor? We were kids back then so we do not know the real reason, only what we can speculate.

    But by your standards none of the liberals who opposed service should ever be in office because they might have to advocate for war.

    Obama said he would attack in Pakistan if he felt there were targets hiding there. We are not at war with Pakistan. He is a chickenhawk regarless of what you say.

    In your world the bad applies to the right and the good to the left. Fine but quit trying to hide it in pseudointellectual gibbirish and straw men arguments.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: I know it is tough for you Darrel because personal responsibility is not a strong point>>

      That you would say this only shows that you don’t know me. Best to not speak about things you don’t know.

      Bigd: Without the votes Bush could never have gone in.>>

      They made the mistake of trusting him when he said he wanted to use such approval as leverage when he went the UN and that he would only use force as a last resort. That was a lie and their mistake was to trust him.

      Bigd: Bush served… it means he is not a Chicken.>>

      He hid out in the Guard as so many did in that day. I have no problem with this with regard to the Vietnam war, unless you’re also a war hawk, which he is. Because this makes him a chickenhawk.

      Rather ironic that Bush took this away and gladly sent those fellows who signed up for the National Guard and it’s “One weekend a month, two weeks a year” and sent them to Iraq for up to two years. As if we needed to be guarded from Iraq. What farce.

      Bigd: “I also NEVER said that Iraq played a role in 9/11 only that it had ties to the people involved.>>

      Yes, I am well aware of how you used this vague, undefined and nearly vacuous term “ties.” It’s a carefully chosen code word that makes it seem like you are saying something when you aren’t.
      One person, a “terrorist associate” had a broken leg and pulled some strings to stay in Iraq, a country of 27 million people, for a while. That’s all you have. It’s laughable to call this “ties,” but it’s all you have.

      Bigd: Hussein and OBL had communications>>

      OBL called Saddam and was ignored. There’s your communication. This was debunked in 2004. Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed.

      Bigd: Clinton pushed for war in Bosnia>>

      Early in July, you said this wasn’t a “war.” I guess you’ve changed your position.

      Anyway, Clinton isn’t a hawk by any stretch. He had a choice between the two evils of allowing genocide, and dropping some bombs, mostly on infrastructure. He chose the latter and it was very successful. That doesn’t make him a war hawk. If Clinton was a war hawk (and he wasn’t), then he would be a chicken hawk. Bush was a war hawk/monger, and a chicken, thus a “chickenhawk.”

      Bigd: “who are you to determine if any of these people who got deferrments deserved them or not?”

      Cheney, major proponent of war (chickenhawk), said he had “other priorities.” I bet the other 58,000 that died had “other priorities” too.

      Bigd: by your standards none of the liberals who opposed service should ever be in office because they might have to advocate for war.>>

      Nope. Sometimes war is appropriate. Such as Afghanistan.

      Bigd: Obama said he would attack in Pakistan if he felt there were targets hiding there.>>

      Good. That is appropriate. You’d condemn him if he didn’t.

      Bigd: We are not at war with Pakistan.>>

      Correct. We are actually working in concert with them to root out terrorists in their midst. Quite appropriate.

      Attacking, invading, occupying countries that are not a threat to you? Not appropriate.


  8. Blake says:

    Darrel, you are mighty brave standing behind a wall of goats there, boy- Have you EVER had to fight for anything you thought was right? I mean fight, not just throw around words?
    I doubt it- you’re from Canada, the Land of the Draft Dodger- it’s probably in your DNA.

    • Darrel says:

      BLK: “Canada, the Land of the Draft Dodger”>>

      As a tee shirt I have says: “Canadians Draft Beer, not soldiers.”

      Canada has never had a draft. When you actually have a legitimate reason to go to war, it usually is the case that the people will come forward to do what is necessary.

      Drafting kids to go to a war like Vietnam, (a war that McNamara admits they knew was lost before most soldiers died*), was immoral and you should be ashamed of this history.


      *See “The Fog of War” (best documentary 2003)

      • Big Dog says:

        Yeah yeah. We do have a draft but if we need one it is there. I think it is unconstitutional but it is there none the less. If Canada had to actually be the world’s police then it might need a stronger military but its proximity to the US is beneficial to it.

        I am not ashamed of going to Vietnam (the country, not me) even though a Democrat got us into it. I am ashamed of the people who fled to Canada rather than fighting for the country and then slithered back to live under the blanket of protection provided by better men.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Vietnam… even though a Democrat got us into it.”>>

          There’s a bit more to that story. As my friend Doug once put it:

          “This was another civil war that we entered…. Eisenhower had put almost a thousand U.S. military advisors there years earlier, and we’d been funding the South Vietnamese for years before Johnson. Shall we say Eisenhower “started” it by sending money, advisors, and taking sides?”


        • Blake says:

          No, we should rightly say a Kennedy started it- as they have hands in more than women’s skirts and booze bottles- but they are all dead now.
          It is now a Democrud who wants a “draft” compulsory service to your government for five to ten years, in either the armed forces, or Peace Corps. or “Americorpse.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, you are always so convoluted. You say best not to talk about things you do not know and yet you do that all the time.

    The Guard is Constitutionally allowed to be federalized to come under the command of the President. They knew when they signed up that they might have to go to war. Some of them signed up after 9/11 AND it is voluntary service.

    As for Bush, call it what you want because you do not know what you are talking about. Best not to talk about things that you know little about.

    Those people were not lied to and they knew what was going to happen. Only when it became politically expedient did they change their minds.

    He might have told them he would use it as leverage (which shows he tried to go through the UN) but they knew he would use the authority if the UN did not act.

    ANY member of Congress who did not know this should resign and any person who did not know this should not be allowed to vote because it would make them MORONS.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “The Guard is Constitutionally allowed to be federalized…”>>

      Of course. For emergencies. I checked this before I posted. Iraq was a war of choice, and not in any sense an emergency. My point being, Bush’s use of the Guard was a huge change from the days when he used it to hide from going to war.

      Bigd: ANY member of Congress who did not know this should resign… it would make them MORONS.>>

      Well it’s easy to say in hindsight that they were morons for trusting Bush, now that we know how much of a warmonger he is.

      My friend Barbara once explained this:

      “There is a difference between a declaration of war and granting of powers that could ultimately lead to war. In 1941 Congress, at the request of FDR, declared war on Japan. What Bush II got was not the same at all. The war powers requires first going through all channels short of war, including UN, NATO, and other treaty allies. Bush I went through the UN, put together a coalition, and had the obvious act of aggression from Saddam (invading Kuwait) – with the added benefit that 90% of that war was paid out of international funds. Bush II lied to the UN, ignored our treaty allies, and refused to accept any evidence against his pet project. If he’d asked for a declaration of war, he wouldn’t have gotten it. He pulled a sneaky end run by calling war powers the same as a declaration of war. He was not given authority to go to war. He was given the authority to go to all ends short of war, and prepare for war if war was indeed necessary.” –Barbara F.

  10. Big Dog says:

    I did not change my mind. I use the term war to mean armed hostility. I also showed you that it was not a war as there were only a few official ones.

    You are pointing to semantics to make your point, quite pathetic.

    Stop being stupid and quit playing games.

  11. Big Dog says:

    No we shall say that Kennedy started it because he did.

    • Big Dog says:

      The United States entered the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. Military advisors[sic] arrived beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s and combat units were deployed beginning in 1965.

      Combat units were deployed in the 1960s. Advisers were sent in the 50s and they did not fight. We took sides? Are you serious? Of course we took sides against Communists. What moron would not?

  12. Big Dog says:

    I don’t agree with Barbara F’s assessment. Reading the history that led up to the war it is clear that he did not lie and he pulled no end around.

    Also, we do not need UN approval to go to war.

    members of Congress were calling for military action when Clinton was president. They gave Bush the authority and spoke of the danger Hussein presented. These were not based upon what Bush said or his “lies” because many of them said the same things when Clinton was president.

  13. Big Dog says:

    I think when you made the claim of war you were discussing it as a declared war and I pointed out that it was not one, it wa smilitary action. To those who have to participate there is little difference.

    You were making claims about Clinton’s war record and I pointed out he had no war (in the legal sense).

    In this case I used the generic to describe the action not the legal definition.