How to use the new code words

USAToday and WSJ editors are struggling with the new terrorism language in English. It's come down from on high--don't say anything mean about those guys threatening to blow up the White House--if we act really weak maybe they'll choose another target. Here's what appeared in the USAToday story about the terrorist attact (Taliban/ Mehsud) on the Pakistani police station.

"deadly assault"
"retaliate"
"militant bases"
"Mehsud plans to attack Washington and White House" [this was said twice in both articles; apparently repetition for emphasis is good if you can't use plain English about terrorism, and if you live in DC]
"striking targets"
"killed Benazer Bhuto" [the WSJ didn't get the memo, and used the more volatile "assassinated"
"harbor foreign fighters"
"revenge"
"launch and attack"
"sparked a stand-off"
"stormed a compound"
"some gunmen blew themselves up" [good-bye suicide bomber language]
"seige-style approach"
"seige of Mumbai" [remember when this story first came out before the language revision rules?]
"men arrested"
but here's the phrase that replaced EVIL, TERROR, etc. "cancer of extremism"

The WSJ actually used "terrorist attack on the U.S. capital" twice and called it Bhuto's assassination, but then downgraded to

"assault on a police academy"
"raided"
"avenge"
"attack"
"retaliation"
and it calls al-Qaeda "a group," "loyalists," "growing power of Taliban factions."

And so the U.S. print media, waiting for its bailout from Obama, continues on the search for wimp-out words. Do you suppose fewer would fail if they weren't just megaphones for the Democrats?