Is There a War on the Term ‘War on Terror’
Jake Tapper, Teddy Davis, and Kirit Radia report:
Is there a war on the term "War on Terror"?
Apparently not.
But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to the story.
After days of confusion and denial about whether the Obama administration was officially no longer using the term "War on Terror," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration is no longer speaking of a "War on Terror."
"I haven’t gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It’s just not being used," said Clinton during a briefing with reporters aboard her plane to the Hague to attend an international conference on Afghanistan.
"The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself," she said at a different point during her trip. "Obviously."
The discontinuation of the term "War on Terror" marks a departure from the practice of the Bush administration which began using the phrase in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Many in the international community take issue with the term, finding it overly broad.
The story began after the Washington Post’s Al Kamen obtained an e-mail from an official in the Office of Security Review, Dave Reidel, saying that, "This Administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT). Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ "
Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said, "There was no memo, no guidance. This is the opinion of a career civil servant."
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell added that he had "never received such a directive…Perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little over-exuberant."
What has gone unnoticed, however, is that the discontinuation of the "war on terror" phrase also marks a departure for Secretary Clinton and President Obama.
During an April 26, 2007, debate in South Carolina, the moderator asked the eight Democratic candidates to raise their hand if they believed there is such a thing as a "Global War on Terror."
Clinton and Obama joined Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., in raising their hands, indicating that they believed that there is such a thing as a Global War on Terror, or GWOT.
Future Vice President Joe Biden joined former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, in not raising their hands, indicating that they did not believe that there was such a thing as a GWOT.
As reported at the time on ABC’s "Political Radar," Edwards subsequently tried to use his misgivings with the "War on Terror" terminology to differentiate himself from Obama and Clinton. It didn’t work. Though apparently Obama and Clinton may have been at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument.
– Jake Tapper, Teddy Davis, and Kirit Radia
Email
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
If I recall correctly and I do.It was her husbands administration who refused to use the term “GENOCIDE” in regard to what was going on in Rowanda. Remember that,they just Flat Refused to use the term. Of course that would mean they would actually have had to do something, which they did not. This is What Liberals do, they actually think using useless, Political Correctness Tatics is actually going to change the reality here. What’s in a name? To say Terrorist only act the way they do is because we call them what they are is Ludicrous and Dangerous. That is like saying a criminal is only a criminal because that is what we call them. BUT it also why a Liberal Democrat will never run in or win an election calling themselves what they truly are.”Socialist”. But what’s in a Name Right? Barrak HUSSEIN Obama
Posted by: John Kuzara | March 30, 2009, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
So we start the war on “Really really bad people” or maybe that is too judgemental. How about “the disagreement with people of other view points”- that make actually be PC enough. This administration is ridiculous.
Posted by: jschmidt | March 30, 2009, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm
“Many in the international community take issue with the term, finding it overly broad.
If broad is the new euphemism for stupid, then yes.
It was like saying we’re going to launch a war on respiration.
Since the US government used terror constantly, it was quite hypocritical.
Posted by: Flash Override | March 30, 2009, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm
Thank God. 41 started “war on drugs” and look where that has lead us. 43 starts “war on terror” and it’s a never ending war. How do you exactly win a war on terror? I love our President with a brain.
Posted by: Iraq Vet | March 30, 2009, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm
John Kuzara:”If I recall correctly and I do.It was her husbands administration who refused to use the term “GENOCIDE” in regard to what was going on in Rowanda. Remember that,they just Flat Refused to use the term. Of course that would mean they would actually have had to do something, which they did not.”
They did not deem it a genocide until about a month after it happened – a failure of leadership from the Clinton administration, but it needs to be put into context. The genocide occurred shortly after the Somalia failure, that saw American casualties and embarrassment. There was a definate feeling of “let them kill themselves, they just kill our boys and drag them through the streets if we try to help.” Declaring Rwanda a genocide would have been to commit American troops to help stop it – in those days, “never again” actually meant something. And Clinton was loathe to throw our military back into that ungrateful meat grinder.
You clearly think the US should be the world’s policeman and send our troops out to the most barbaric corners to bring peace and democracy. Sadly, that just doesn’t seem to work too well in reality.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 30, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
Ooooh, more hand-raising questions, please!
Posted by: kw | March 30, 2009, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
Obama, just more smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: CC | March 30, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
At this time there may NOT be a War on Terrorism. Look at the just-passed UN resolution urging member nations to pass laws making criticizing religion illegal. Of course, the only religion mentioned was Islam!
The Islamic Supremecists* would very much like to have criticism of their so-called “religion” banned around the world. They want this in the same way they want us to forget that virtually every major act of terrorism in the last 20+ years has been committed by these self-same Islamic Supremecists, acting under the guidance of the Koran. When this is pointed out they scream “defamation” and “hate speech”, even though mentioning this is as factual as mentioning the sun appears to rise in the east every day.
There NEEDS to be a Global War on Terror, and it needs to be waged against those who practice terrorism against us. Sadly, this does indeed mean that we will mention the world-wide conspiracy of the Islamic Supremecists, for it is without question this group that is responsible for the terrorist activities we see happening around the world. To mention this is NOT “hate speech”, it is simply the truth, a concept these people do not care about. Their stated aim is to conquer the world and make Islam and Sharia Law the only religion and legal system allowed to exist.
If “hate speech” exists, it is to be found codified in the Koran. No other so-called religious tract is so full of commands to conquer, kill, and subjugate; no other religion teaches that one gender (the female) has a worth that is less than one-half that of a male; no other religion teaches that it is the obligation of a husband to regularly beat his wife, and to behead her under certain circumstances.
This “religion of peace” and its system of law was recently made the law of the land in the Palestinian territory. It is now legal there to “peacefully” use crucifixion for a large number of “crimes”, including the exercise of what we in the West know as free speech. This is the system they want us all to accept. I for one will fight them on this, to the grave if need be, for their ideals run contrary to every principle that free men hold dear. By admitting this I am in their eyes committing “hate speech”, while most reading this will recognize it for what it really is – the exercise of free speech, and a simple statement of facts. And therein lies the all-important difference that makes a War on Terror necessary.
*I use “Islamic Supremecists” as a descriptor instead of the more common “radical Islam” because it more correctly describes these fanatics. It is their belief that their backward religious system is the Greatest Glory of God, and that it MUST supplant all other, lesser religions and legal systems. They are willing to lie and murder in order for their “Supreme Religion” to rule — thus, Islamic Supremecists.
Posted by: Walker Evans | March 30, 2009, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
Iraq Vet, as I recall, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996. On 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. The US didn’t start any war. The terrorists attacked us first.
Posted by: Sandy | March 30, 2009, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
If going into Afghanistan isn’t a war on terror, what is it? Dropping GWOT is only a marketing ploy. By not facing the issue and calling it what it is, Obama is hoping that his mindless drones will forget that we’re going into Afghanistan altogether.
Posted by: BT | March 30, 2009, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
When the 3AM phone call comes, how will Obama sugar coat & glaze over that?
Posted by: from Ohio | March 30, 2009, 11:02 pm 11:02 pm
Thank God. 41 started “war on drugs” and look where that has lead us. 43 starts “war on terror” and it’s a never ending war. How do you exactly win a war on terror? I love our President with a brain. – Iraq Vet—————
If you are indeed a war veteran than I thank you for you service in protecting my life. Our president with a brain is now conducting his very own war on terror wholey different from the war on terror Bush was waging. I’m glad he is, but please you of all people should realize that labels, catch phrases, and sound bites don’t mean squat to an active practitioner of radical islam.
Posted by: Well? | March 30, 2009, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm
They did not deem it a genocide until about a month after it happened – a failure of leadership from the Clinton administration, but it needs to be put into context.
Baloney….His administration never acknowledged it until he was already gone and then he issued a WEAK apology after the fact…Clinton would never had the Guts to do anything about anything except Cut and Run which is what he did his entire presidency..
BUSH at least had the GUTS to reach out and Touch Someone
The point is this is just a Liberal Ploy to just NOT acknowledge WHO and WHAT we are fighting over there…PERIOD..And it SERVES NO USEFULL PURPOSE at all…
Having served in Gulf War I and Kosovo I know exactly what we are fighting over there.
Posted by: Nemesis | March 30, 2009, 11:29 pm 11:29 pm
‘War on Terror?’ Perhaps ‘War on Terrorism’ or War against those that perpetrate terror on others’ but not ‘War on Terror’. Never made any sense grammatically or otherwise. But then consider the sources, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and Rice, one can understand. The more frightening the Bush administration made it sound, the more anxiety they could create among the public, even the threat scale used to silence critics… hence the more acceptable their sordid and illegal acts were in the public’s collective eyes, i.e. unprovoked attack on Iraq, Blackwater’s no bid contract, torture, no WMD, fake press coverage by paid reporters in Iraq. Tricksters they were, working in the best interest of the USA, they were not.
Posted by: Robert Dent | March 30, 2009, 11:39 pm 11:39 pm
That’s the kind of change we needed!! Let’s change the “war on terror” phrase. Now that we’ve officially abandoned that phrase, I feel so much better about everything. Glad we cleared that up. This guy wastes no time. . . he’s a real man of action. I’m literally on the edge of my seat waiting for the next phrase to be changed. Although I am a bit confused. If we’re not involved in a war on terrorism any more, then exactly who are we at war with?
Posted by: Spread That Wealth | March 30, 2009, 11:39 pm 11:39 pm
I always wondered why we waged war on a tactic. We should be waging war on fundamentalist or terrorists. Not terror. It’s always been a weird phrase.
Posted by: JJ | March 30, 2009, 11:54 pm 11:54 pm
Fascinating that the Clintons, whose inaction precipitated and created the conditions for 9/11, are now participating in a denial of the war and returning to the ostrich position that got us into the mess in the first place… Nice work guys – you and Obama are so focused on tanking the U.S. that you’ll leave us dangerously exposed and vulnerable
Posted by: Jon | March 30, 2009, 11:56 pm 11:56 pm
Gee, it’s not like the previous administrations didn’t play with the wording of things. Did Bush want to label McDonald’s workers as “Manufacturers” because the “make” hamburgers?
Posted by: SamTyler1973 | March 31, 2009, 12:07 am 12:07 am
Until the next terror attack like 9/11 which, by the way, was more deadly than Pearl Harbor. It’s a war Hillary. What a clown and ugly as sin too!
Posted by: Skullsplitter | March 31, 2009, 12:18 am 12:18 am
WORDS! More idiotic plays on WORDS! THEY are the ‘terrorists,’ but what about US?? The US is the biggest terrorist network in the world today.
Posted by: Mockingbird | March 31, 2009, 12:20 am 12:20 am
Terrorism is a tactic used by the weaker side in an asymmetrical war. As a prior contributor pointed out, you cannot fight a tactic. Perhaps we can finally declare war on the Islamic jihadists who seek to return the world to the 11th Century. They are the enemy of modern civilization.
Posted by: ChainsUCanBelieveIn | March 31, 2009, 12:28 am 12:28 am
Excuse me, the problem is not grammar, its people like Mocking bird and the ever popular Flash who don’t know what side to stand on.
It aint gonna matter actually, a suicide bomber is an equal opportunity killer. More Muslims have died at the hands of their fellows than any other group. Most of Western victims have not been “little Eichmans” in Ward Churchill’s lovely phrase, but in urban settings probably a lot of liberal idealists and assorted innocents.
Posted by: robert b | March 31, 2009, 12:33 am 12:33 am
War in Iraq was a distraction from the war on Al Qaeda and the war on Alqaeda was a distraction from the war on the wall street looters,swindlers and crooks. So how about a “war on the evil people” around the world including the drug cartel and the domestic nuts who keep emptying out their guns on innocent people for trivial reasons.
Posted by: gjkotw01 | March 31, 2009, 12:33 am 12:33 am
DAMM obama is realy changing this country. The change we can realy beleive in is to change everything we’ve got. This reminds me when Vietnam has changed their regime when the commies took over they did the exact same thing Obama is doing right now. Change the way you live, change the way you eat, change the way you sleep, change the way you talk and slowly change the constitution and the laws. I don’t know about you guys but I’m scare. I mean I left a changing of a country (Vietnam) to be here and now going through another change of country.
Posted by: vegas | March 31, 2009, 12:39 am 12:39 am
Leave you with this on Overseas Contingency Operation – OCO
Think Wizard of Oz march of the “winkies” – OCO, Oh No!! OCO, Oh No!! OCO, Oh No!! OCO, Oh No!!OCO, Oh No!!
Posted by: robert b | March 31, 2009, 12:40 am 12:40 am
we are becoming just like the old Russia The government will tell you what think ,what to eat what to buy what cars to make what radio station to listen to ( No Rush Limbaugh ). what t v station to watch etc etc etc etc oh yes and what doctor to see and when and when your time on this planet is up!!!
Posted by: M S Long Beach | March 31, 2009, 1:01 am 1:01 am
Poor Hilary, she just as stupid as old Bill. What will they call it when we are attacked again?
Why do we have troops in irag? The war is over bring our troops home now all of them. Hilary who – what country is responsible for all our young men and women being killed? To protect The irag way of life? No good. Who is responsible for those deaths?
Hilary you are not tough enough for the job you extorted from Obama. Mean OK but you just full of your self.
Posted by: a citizen | March 31, 2009, 1:09 am 1:09 am
The “war on terror” slogan and the terror color codes were a good combination for Bush’s propaganda to keep the world in perpetual fear.
Posted by: what667 | March 31, 2009, 1:12 am 1:12 am
Obama must so insecure in his position that he can’t even use a phrase coined by a previous administration. Sugar coating a phrase diminishes the seriousness of the problem. Overseas Contingency Operation is so broad and vague that it has no meaning at all.
Posted by: grannysun | March 31, 2009, 1:21 am 1:21 am
I always thought “war on terror” was so harsh. We don’t want to frighten anyone. Just hearing that phrase scared the holy bejesus out of me. I feel better already. These poor terrorists are only fighting for what they think is right. . .the extermination of all non-muslims. What are we going to call it now? I hope something joyful and inspiring. No more scary words!!
Posted by: Spread That Wealth | March 31, 2009, 1:43 am 1:43 am
Dear All,
In my opinion that I do not believe with war in terror because as a human being we’re all a good human kind and the difference from all of us it just our truly hearts when we’re judgement somebody else about their behaviour.
In global situation like this why don’t we join hand in hand to build our better world for us and the next generation.
God bless all of us,
Naba
Posted by: Naba | March 31, 2009, 2:11 am 2:11 am
Two important points:
1. Obama is going after the terroists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, by committing additional troops, dollars, and an integrated strategy to defeat Al Qaida.
2. ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ is being used by the OMB (budget office) because the wars in AFG and Iraq are being counted in the annual budgets for the first time. Thus, the budget line items needed to be identified by something specific, as opposed to a budget line item “GWoT”.
Posted by: Tom | March 31, 2009, 2:22 am 2:22 am
The WOT was a term coined by the Bushies so that we actually have an emeny to fight,just like in WWll. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs.
There is no real “war” going on. Both are broad criminal acts of terror. Not too different from gang violence,or random shootings in large crowdwd places by people who aren’t religious terrorists. They are just social terrorists. We don’t call these folks terrorists. We call them serial killers,or crazies. But, for some reason we must have a war on terror on Muslim extremists,but not the Tim McVea’s of the world.
Posted by: harschwarz | March 31, 2009, 3:01 am 3:01 am
The war on terror was a ridiculous phrase, designed to thrill the Napoleons and cow the frightful. As such it appealed to our worst nature, not our better one. Good riddance.
Posted by: Mike | March 31, 2009, 3:30 am 3:30 am
The U.S. needs to just do Surgical Strikes and then fall back. Iraq has taught us that lesson.
Posted by: Mike | March 31, 2009, 3:33 am 3:33 am
How about we call it a Jihad on terrorists instead?
Posted by: JB | March 31, 2009, 4:11 am 4:11 am
“Fascinating that the Clintons, whose inaction precipitated and created the conditions for 9/11…”
There is never a bad time or debate for a right-winger to attempt a little historical revision. It was George Bush who ignored many warnings from the intelligence community that a major attack was being planned and that suspicious people were training how to fly planes but not land them.
Posted by: Skip | March 31, 2009, 4:46 am 4:46 am
Obama terrorizes me when he threatens to release Guantanamo prisoners inside the United States.
He’s a very scary person. All Red Diaper Babies are extremely scary.
Her? Good heavens, she’s a power-hungry incompetent, just like him.
Posted by: tanarg | March 31, 2009, 4:46 am 4:46 am
The phrase is now the “War On Those Naughty Little Boys From Over There”.
Posted by: Mihann | March 31, 2009, 5:02 am 5:02 am
We can now officially call any Military Action or Terrorist Attack “Obama’s War”. We go back to days of the “Police Action” in Korea, and the “Conflict” in Vietnam. I guess we will have to call the September 11th attacks a “Homeland Contingency”.
Posted by: Willy | March 31, 2009, 5:57 am 5:57 am
You’ve got to be kidding me. Why don’t we just tell the guys and gals who are fighting this ‘war on terror’ woops, altercation against bad people, that there is no ‘war on terror’. Give me a break. You want to sugar coat it? Call it what it is. These men and women who have lost their lives and who are disabled clearly having been fighting a ‘WAR OF TERROR’. Now if we could stop Obama’s pursuit of popularlity contest by making everything sound so wonderful we’d be in better shape.
Posted by: J | March 31, 2009, 6:08 am 6:08 am
Lard Obama and Sir Hillary at their most sniveling and despicable best.
Posted by: Sam Deakins | March 31, 2009, 6:34 am 6:34 am
The administration had better get the name straight before this turns into a PR nightmare.
Posted by: matt | March 31, 2009, 7:51 am 7:51 am
There was never such a thing..if it was then why are terrorist still in Aghanistan and Pakistan. Bush paid the Sunnis in Iraq to stop the violence, and now they are threatening to continue it. What Hypocrites.
Posted by: sngeorgia | March 31, 2009, 8:17 am 8:17 am
Maybe this kind of thing always goes away..just like …War on…:
‘Drugs’
‘Poverty’
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 31, 2009, 8:27 am 8:27 am
It’s no wonder BO has a hard time calling them terrorists when he has spent 20 years in a church that all but cheered for the terrorists to defeat America.
He probably would like to call them patriots or freedom fighters.
Posted by: Impeach Barry | March 31, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
Nothing wrong with calling a spade, a spade….hence the term “War on Terror”. Does Obama want to call it “A Peaceful Resolution to the Conflict with our Radical Islamic Brethren”? Give me a break! Moscow, Tehran, Beijing and Pyonyang can smell the weakness emanating from the whitehouse. Our President and his administration is naive if they think talking is going to end a holy war that began centuries ago. The pressure from Moscow regarding missles in Poland, Russian subs being armed with nuclear weapons, Iran kicking nuclear inspectors out of Tehran and the preparation of rocket testing in N Korea are not random acts. Obama’s mettle is being tested and he is failing miserably. Didn’t the Obama Administration say something about “taking advantage of the recession”? It looks like some of our enemies are taking advantage of the recession as well. Wake up. This is bigger than partisan politics, birth certificates and bailouts but the sheeple are still grazing and drinking from the everlasting “fountain of hope and change”. You better HOPE our president CHANGEs some of his policies or we will all be living underground.
Posted by: fred fulsom | March 31, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Now Obama calls it “Americas War” and it is a war of Diplomacy and Development. Give me a break. Tell that to the parents whos children come home in a flag drapped coffin. What will his say then? These gosh darn people who don’t like us very much!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: karen | March 31, 2009, 9:40 am 9:40 am
Bush wanted to call it “War on Islamic Extremism” but nobody liked that so he had to settle for “War on Terror”
Posted by: Steve | March 31, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
I call BS…on this whole administration!
Posted by: fred fulsom | March 31, 2009, 9:49 am 9:49 am
This is done for the historians.
“It was the Obama Administration that ended the War on Terror.”
Posted by: Sigmond | March 31, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am
>>Terrorism is a tactic used by the >weaker side in an asymmetrical war. As >a prior contributor pointed out, you >cannot fight a tactic. Perhaps we can >finally declare war on the Islamic >jihadists who seek to return the world >to the 11th Century. They are the >enemy of modern civilization.
Its a war on terror…the tactic because
the Islamists can choose to fight their jihad politically and in other acceptable ways. Like the blacks for civil rights in America for example…they did not resort to Jihad and now you have a black president. Its a war on whoever chooses to use the tactic of terror…whether it is Islamist or anarchist or communist. We would have no problem with them if they had a political party and just fought their battles with words, ideas and persuasion. So war on terror is correct…you have a problem…fine,
fight for your cause but don’t use violence and terror.
Posted by: gerc | March 31, 2009, 10:02 am 10:02 am
Clinton is not a part of office, let’s let her be her evil self alone.
President Obama, seems too scared to call this war what it really is “Overseas Contingency Operation”
oh please!
Mr. Obama’s just trying to make them happy,
when they are the ones who started this
“Overseas Contingency Operation”
ha!
Mr. President Obama “Baby”
Posted by: McCainPalin12 | March 31, 2009, 10:03 am 10:03 am
This is quite simply Policital Correctness run Amok!
Posted by: Mike_C | March 31, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
I just wonder this…If a 9/11 happens on Obama’s watch (LIKE IT HAPPENED ON BUSH’S WATCH), will the Republicans and Conservatives support Obama like the Democrats and Liberals supported Bush? I hardly think they will.
Posted by: Jacques Dugger | March 31, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
I heard on the news this morning that the European don’t like it.
Posted by: anonymous | March 31, 2009, 10:15 am 10:15 am
BO doesn’t want to call them terrorists at all because he doesn’t believe that is what they are. He thinks “America is the real terrorist state”, as his pastor of 20 years has said numerous times.
BO’s actions/associations over the course of his lifetime have greatly indicated that he has no love for America, but rather, he thinks it an evil place that must be drastically altered.
The sad thing is that the more that these dark associations surfaced , the more the anti-American liberals loved BO.
How about instead of the war on terrorism, let’s have the war on liberal treason? Starting with BO, they should all be shipped out of America and sent to the fatherland, cuba. Instead of them trying to force cuba on us, let’s bring them to their haven so that they can all live as happy socialists forever.
Posted by: Dave | March 31, 2009, 10:28 am 10:28 am
Good. I’m glad we aren’t waging the War on Terror against the Axis of Evil. What stupid jingoistic propaganda. Thank God we finally have someone with a brain in office now and we can stop swatting at boogeymen and actually deal with the real problems of al qaeda and the economy.
Posted by: seth | March 31, 2009, 10:58 am 10:58 am
Does anyone remember who actually attacked American soil on September 11th 2001? It was Al Queda, based in Afganistan with support from the Taliban. What was Bush’s response? Put a token force in Afganistan, and commit nearly all our remaining military force to attacking Iraq!
I don’t care what term he calls it by, Obama is finally doing what Bush should have done 8 years ago; focus our military on where the actual threat is. Afganistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan.
Posted by: Rod | March 31, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
The Obama mantra: Ignore it and it did not happen.
Posted by: Will Stanton | March 31, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
@Rod: Bush did not put a token force in Afghanistan. He put in a large enough force in Afghanistan to boot out both alQueda & the Taliban. Plus Bush installed a democratically elected govt.
(They never had one before.)
The US did not attack IRAQ until 2 years after the fighting in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Sally J | March 31, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
If it is not a war on terrorists, then what is it?
A war on Muslims?
Posted by: Sally J | March 31, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Sally – If you are correct, then why are the Taliban and Al Queda still in Afganistan? It took a year and a half to invade Iraq because the planning and logistics took that long for an operation that large. I’ll never forget hearing IMMEDIATELY after 9/11 on the news that Bush was mentioning Iraq. My first reaction was “Huh? That can’t be right.”
Posted by: Rod | March 31, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
The concept was flawed, not the name. They haven’t changed the name, they’ve stopped using the concept!!!
Get it? Stop fixating on the name. Ideas matter. They’ve just filed GWOT in the circular file.
Posted by: JJ | March 31, 2009, 11:43 am 11:43 am
Rod,
By all means, obviously EVERYONE knows the only terrorists on the planet now are in Afghanistan. When Obama cleans it up, then there will never be another threat against us!
Posted by: Mike_C | March 31, 2009, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
were learning in school right now that obama is from kenya right? yet still has not shown his green card. how can this be? just wonder casue its a big topic in our classes. thanks
Posted by: wonder | March 31, 2009, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
Let me state the obvious. The term “War on Terror” is stupid, terror is an emotion, what are we gonna fight it with prozac and zoloft. Also, calling it a “war on terrorism” is too broad because there are plenty of groups that can be labeled terrorist groups (the KKK, violent street gangs, violent motorcycle gangs, nut-jobs who try to blow up abortion clinics, etc.) and we’re not going after them as much. It is more a War Against Islamic Extremist Terrorism if you want to be precise about it.
Posted by: Duh | March 31, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
“were learning in school right now that obama is from kenya right? yet still has not shown his green card. how can this be? just wonder casue its a big topic in our classes. thanks”
You need to tell your principal that your teacher is a moron and cannot be trusted with the minds of children.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
I see that ABC is still mum on Vice President Joe Bidens daughter caught on video doing lines of cocaine. They sure didnt waste nary a minute thrashing Governor Palins 17 year old daughter for being pregnant. ABC has ZERO credibility.
Posted by: Badger | March 31, 2009, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
The War on Terror was a really stupid name. More accurately would be a
‘Battle Against Terrorists’.
Using the word terror was silly, as if we were against anything scary or anyone who scared us. This would have been highly individualistic: i.e. bears terrify me, heights frighten my friend to immobility and the prices at the gas pump a few months ago scared the pants (along with our wallets) off of most of us. Using the word terrorists is much more accurate.
Now about using the word ‘war’, that isn’t accurate either. Wars are between countries. Yes, the word ‘war’ is used trivially, as in a ‘war of words’ but should we ever use the word war to mean anything but all-out battle between two nations?
To me, using the word ‘war’ gave too much credibility to the terrorists, remembering that they are a very small group, who cowardly kills innocents on a regular basis.
To me it is a ‘Battle Against Terrorists’. The acronym B.A.T. sounds kind of tough, as in batting them away. B.A.T. could include not just military battles but battles against poverty,(people who feel hopeless about the future are more easily recruited) and against ignorance (spreading education as defense, as the smarter the population the less people will fall for the illogic premise that blowing up innocents will change the world for the better)
I, for one, am glad using the phrase ‘War on Terror’ is over.
Posted by: Lydia | March 31, 2009, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
“I see that ABC is still mum on Vice President Joe Bidens daughter caught on video doing lines of cocaine. They sure didnt waste nary a minute thrashing Governor Palins 17 year old daughter for being pregnant. ABC has ZERO credibility.”
Yet, you continue to read it. Interesting.
And would you care to share a link to an occassion where ABC “thrash[ed]” Bristol Palin for being pregnant? And 17 year olds with unplanned pregnancies are a far bigger problem than grown adults using drugs recreationally.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
eversince obama has been in office my small bussiness has been getting taxed more and more. In that since, i had to let go of some of my workers. the hardest part was having to tell them why. I have been republican my whole life, and bussnies has always been good. People voted for obama so that there are more jobs out there and to make more. well, im sorry to say that having to let go was hard. So i did the right thing, go outside and who ever has an obama sticker was let go(6 hard working men and women) now their out of a job….You cannot belive the media today, peole need to do research so they know what would come if voting with this president and vise-versa.
Posted by: american | March 31, 2009, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
“eversince obama has been in office my small bussiness has been getting taxed more and more.”
Huh?
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
i had diffences with my boss who he is republican, i support obama always have.. but becasue i do, i was called into my bosses office and was fired. As i was leaving my office he stoped and told me 3 last words.. “yes-we-can” and that was the end of my job… anyone hiring?
Posted by: ronald | March 31, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
Wow…the mods are out in force. The disinformation campaign marches on.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
silky–”And 17 year olds with unplanned pregnancies are a far bigger problem than grown adults using drugs recreationally”– Are you kidding? thats the best defensive argument you can come up with?– Why don’t you tell that to the 8,000 killed ( thats right – twice the number killed in Iraq) who on our borders with Mexico due to the drug wars that are raging out of control right now.. its one thing to scrape the bottom of the barrel for a response, but surely you DO NOT believe that drugs are not at least as great of a problem as unwanted pregnancy is??
Posted by: arkie vet | March 31, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
“but surely you DO NOT believe that drugs are not at least as great of a problem as unwanted pregnancy is??”
No, really, I do believe it and I think they need to be legalized.
“I think you might want to take it easy on what appears to be the post of a school student. But your response is rather telling.. Let me guess, its okay to teach socialism in schools and how liberism is the only way to go, but if anyone dares question our leadership, we need to get rid of them immediately right?? Aren’t you gonna be late for your next Karl Marx book club reading??”
You’re missing the point. It’s obvious that this teacher is abusing his/her position and is taking part in a malicious disinformation campaign against our President. And with other people’s children. Let’s not only teach them false information, but let’s also show them that the moral is that being manipulative is what it’s all about.
Posted by: silky | March 31, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
joe biddens daughter was just on video snorting coke?
sarah palins daughter brought a baby into the world?
and these people want to be in charge of the US? how can they make a difference when the problem is right in the family..
whats do you think is worse becuase this is what is the main problem in the US right now.
drugs/cartel and underage preggers
just currious to what people think.
thanks!
Posted by: justin | March 31, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
I find it fascinating that this administration no longer uses the words “terror” or “terrorist”.
What a bunch of wusses. FYI-Not using the words will not make the threat go away.
I fear in 4 years this country will barely resemble the USA we love so much.
Sigh…..
Posted by: BabsNJ | March 31, 2009, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
Ask any combat veteran if they give a damn what “you” call it. Anytime steel goes whizzing by when flung in anger …..it is a “war” about something!! I don’t give an obama what the dung beetles want to call this action that has to be done. What is most important is we don’t lose sight of the fact that the “TERRORIST” want each and every infidel DEAD!!
They don’t give a cats’ obama if you are Dem or Rep or Ind in your voting choice. So argue if you must over a “name” but you do a disservice to the warriors on the FRONT by being PC about the fight!!
Posted by: American Infidel | March 31, 2009, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
silky–”You’re missing the point. It’s obvious that this teacher is abusing his/her position and is taking part in a malicious disinformation campaign against our President.”– Okay, so saying anything negatived toward the president is malicious and derogatory??An abuse of her position? How do you know the campaign is one of “disinformation”? What if it consists wholly of truthful talking points designed to make the kids think for themselves and draw their own conclusions? We can’t have that now can we??
Posted by: arkie vet | March 31, 2009, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm
American Infidel — well said…
Posted by: arkie vet | March 31, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
Silky…..beter a mod than a NEO-COM(mie)!
Posted by: American Infidel | March 31, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
Gee Rod, my little brother went to Afghanistan, I’ll be sure to tell him you consider him and his SF brothers a token force.
Posted by: dawglover | March 31, 2009, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm
Glad to hear it’s all over. Maybe that’s why we’re releasing the terrorist detainees from Gitmo. One was ordered released today. It was previously suggested that Uiyger Muslim separatists from China be released in the Washington DC/Alexandria area with a Uiyger immigrant community in the region. (They were captured in terror training camps in Pakistan.)
When the terrorists are released in the U.S. will they be monitored? Will people be protected? Adm Blair suggested the other day that they would receive some kind of government assistance. Does that mean the taxpayers now take care of the very people who bombed the Trade Centers and Flt 93?
I have never seen a people more compliant nor a media more uncurious. Perhaps we should cut off our own heads so our terrorist-citizen neighbors don’t have to break a sweat.
Posted by: jordan | March 31, 2009, 6:30 pm 6:30 pm
What the Commander in Training is doing to this nation IS a man caused disaster and now he flys to London for an overseas contingency operation
Posted by: Neville | March 31, 2009, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
Personally? I think the term or phrase “Overseas Contingency Operation” is really lame… One problem with this is the term: Overseas … as if we (America) are somehow immune?
Eisenhower: “When I can’t solve a problem I always make it bigger until I can find a solution. I can never find a solution by trying to make it smaller.”
Posted by: pb atus | March 31, 2009, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
A 15 paragraph article on ‘wether or not someone is using a phrase????
The mainstream news is done, if you want some non mind numbing information then watch THE OBAMA DECEPTION.
Posted by: Matthew Miller | April 1, 2009, 3:56 am 3:56 am
“There is no real “war” going on. Both are broad criminal acts of terror.”
3,000 Americans dead in a pile of rubble made up of the World Trade center that devastated downtown New York, took weeks to clean up. Families buried thier loved ones whos remains could fit in a pill bottle.
US Sailors pulling into port at Yemen, eating in the galley when a bomb rocked the side of the ship, killing sailors in the galley.
Women and little girls stuffed into a house in Iraq on top of mortor shells. A call is made tipping off the weapons cache knowing US planes would strike it. US planes do strike it, notice secondary explosions. Minutes later press is called to observe the carnage. Press posts picture of burned doll. No one takes notice that no males were in the house. The women and little girls were sacrificed for a press story.
This is war. This isn’t some criminal crazies. This is war with no rules, no laws, no decency. They are not random acts of violence, they are determined acts of war. When you stop thinking about it as a determined war, they win because they have not changed their determination, you have changed yours. The inevitable result will be that their determination will hit you again and again. Their will to kill cannot be broken because of a name change.
Americans have short memories and believe naively in the greater good of man, discounting the purest of evil in the world. You believe that these men are like us. They are not. They are nothing like us because they do not want to be like us. The see our limited use of our great power as weak and undeserving of God’s blessings. When they strike us, they use it to show just how weak we are.
This name change fiasco only confirms the hate they preach. We are weak and muslims should join them to strike us down.
Yeah, name change was a good idea. Don’t want to offend anyone.
Posted by: KR | April 1, 2009, 10:05 am 10:05 am
Cialis levitra viagra.
Online pharmacy buy cialis. Cialis.
Posted by: Cialis. | August 23, 2009, 3:15 am 3:15 am
Animal sex with human.
Animal sex galleries. Animal sex mating. Animal sex videos. Animal sex video. Animal sex.
Posted by: Animal sex. | September 18, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm