I am something of a word freak. I've built my vocabulary purposefully in order to find words that best express my thinking and feelings about everything that interests me personally, and I'm nothing if not voraciously curious.
Terrorism has a specific meaning and several emotional connotations which are specific, useful and quite correct. I hate to see issues dulled down with mushy verbiage, and I fail to see how the word "terrorism" carries any unfair or prejudicial freight. I also fail to see how it has morphed into anything other than describing the horrific actions it represents. It's a good word that fits a specific situation perfectly well.
There's a mindset that in controlling the vocabulary, we can somehow shape public opinion this way or that. A good example of this is "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of saying "torture": it's a pernicious, Orwellian evil that has no place in public discourse.
I'm truly at a loss to understand how "man-made disaster" clarifies anything, nor why "terrorism" carries any unjustified negativity. And aside from the inevitable, predictable eye rolling from this administration's critics, seeking to change the word "terrorism" seems to be an attempt to soften the crimes one generally associates with the word. As I do not believe that Napolitano and Obama are "soft on terrorists", their seeking to change the vocabulary baffles me.