I am among those who find it counter-intuitive to believe that the Bush Administration's Department of Homeland Security, National Counter Terrorism Center and the State Department are soft on terrorism, as suggested by the Hoekstra Amendment and commentary relating to it.
The post states that Americans should interpret the vote as meaningful not because the language in the amendment might become law, but because it "gets most congressional representatives on the record on their position regarding the efforts of groups to remove any suggestion of Islamic supremacism or Jihad when it comes to 'terrorism.'" The obvious meaning is that the Hoekstra vote has smoked out members of Congress who are soft on terrorism. Just in case anyone fails to get the point, the post lists those who voted against the amendment, all but one of whom come from the political party to which Congressman Hoekstra does not belong.
An alternative view, shared by the Bush Administration and the government of the United Kingdom, among others, recognizes that many Muslims have long considered such words as "jihadist" and "Islamacist" to be slurs that credential terrorists and marginalize moderate Muslims.
As U.S. Army General Petraeus wrote in 2005, in combating terrorism, "cultural awareness is a force multiplier." Some people may disagree, but I would not for a moment suggest that they are soft on terrorism, because their thinking on counter-terrorism, such as that reflected in the Hoekstra amendment, does not correspond to the views of the senior U.S. commander in Iraq. Given this, I will neither list here all those who voted for the Hoekstra amendment, nor suggest that they should explain why they disagree with General Petraeus on this issue.