Obama abandons ‘war on terror’ catchphrase.
By on Jan 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Obama abandons ‘war on terror’ catchphrase.
The AP notes that only once since taking office on Jan. 20 has President Obama used the phrase “war on terror,” which was always on the lips of President Bush. Obama has instead more broadly referenced the “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.” CSIS national security analyst Anthony Cordesman notes that Bush’s phrase “became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab.” Indeed, a Pentagon-funded study last year recommended that the U.S. do away with the terminology as the strategy behind it was “not successful in undermining al Qai’da’s capabilities.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Somebody pass the oxygen bottle…a President who speaks real words and rational thought. No wonder the Repugs hate him…no two syllable sound bites.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:31 pmSomebody pass the oxygen bottle…a President who speaks real words and rational thought. No wonder the Repugs hate him…no two syllable sound bites.
That’s great, isn’t it? The MSM hates Obama as well, because he’s intelligent, speaks in coherent sentences, and isn’t ashamed of it. So refreshing!
January 31st, 2009 at 12:34 pmChanging commonly used conservative phrases usually results in the cry of “politcal correctness” from the mic jockeys, who lament for the days when they could use racial epithets freely.
Curiously though, here’s a thought… anyone know whose administration “political correctness” first came to light in? I recall it first being used in Gearge H.W. Bush’s administration. I could be wrong though…
January 31st, 2009 at 12:35 pmand by mic jockeys… I meant the conservative blowhards.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:36 pmObama abandons ‘war on terror’ catchphrase.»
– - Right-wing meme: Obama Capitulates!!!
January 31st, 2009 at 12:37 pmI just hope we keep “freedom haters that hate our freedoms”. I love that!
January 31st, 2009 at 12:38 pmErm… George, not Gearge. Although he does pronounce it that way. ;)
January 31st, 2009 at 12:38 pm“Except for that one freedom, what was it… ‘happya$s corpuscles’? I don’t even know what that is… so OUT it goes.”
January 31st, 2009 at 12:40 pmthe “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.”
the ESATE… nope, doesn’t work, sir…
‘course, GWOT didn’t work too well either…
could it be? … the need for acronyms is not necessary any more?
January 31st, 2009 at 12:41 pmal Qai’da’s
– - How many ways is this damn name spelled? Aren’t there hard and fast rules for you spell something?
Or is this how the terrorist franchise spells it in Hawai’i?
January 31st, 2009 at 12:41 pmI just hope it is contagious. Listening to the crap that comes out of Goopers is painful. I can almost sympathize with the plight of those who are used to listening to Bush, Rush and company because it makes me feel like my brains are actually leaking out of my ears.
I can only see it as a good thing to have an erudite President who’s words might actually encourage thought.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:42 pmThe War on Terror was lost in May 2003 when a U.S. soldier turned his gun on a grumpy Iraqi crowd in Baghdad demanding food and clean water. That moment, all was lost.
I’m glad we’re no longer waging wars on adverbs. We never seem to win those.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:55 pmTo add, because it’s just irresistible:
Only a moron would wage a war on an adverb, or put support for war on an adverb on a bumper sticker on their automobile.
You really have to be extra-stupid to be susceptible to such nonsense. I have stronger words, but I just don’t feel like using the asterisk today.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:56 pmBadmoodman: Good call, Garth.
“- – Right-wing meme: Obama Capitulates!!!”
Irresistible comment: To the morons who still support Bush and can be called neocons, as long as we’re still SHOOTING at somebody, as long as somebody’s still SHOOTING AT OUR SOLDIERS, the war goes on.
And if a Republican stops the shooting, and calls the war ‘finished’, we WIN! But if a Democrat stops the shooting and calls the war ‘finished’, we LOSE.
Glad I have that straight now.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:01 pmOld Goat Says:
Curiously though, here’s a thought… anyone know whose administration “political correctness” first came to light in? I recall it first being used in Gearge H.W. Bush’s administration. I could be wrong though…
The term as first used before that, but it was used by the right-wing to mock liberal policies during the 90s. I believe David Horowitz (former Communist and now rabid Right Wing Agitator) liked to use it a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
January 31st, 2009 at 1:03 pmCan we keep “the foundations of the economy are strong”? I like that one too.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:03 pmSince the last TP post has 121 comments already, I’ll sneak one in here nice and high on the list…
It makes perfect sense to me that the last Occupant of the White House and his first Chief of Staff find it more important to make an APPEARANCE of ‘propriety’ (coat and tie in the Oval Office) rather than the REALITY of it (plots, crimes, shredding of Fourth Amendment, torture plans in the Oval Office).
They wouldn’t know propriety if it smacked them in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. They are DUMBER than dogs.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:06 pmI think the phrase was ‘fundamentals of the economy are strong’. And, sad to say the fundies are still going strong so, yeah, we can keep that one.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:09 pmNot a moment too soon.
-AF
January 31st, 2009 at 1:13 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
So does this mean the terrorists won?
-AF
January 31st, 2009 at 1:15 pmI understand because Bush used the phrase ‘war on terror’ it has anti-Arab and anti-Islam connotations; especially when you consider Bush’s reputation among Arabs and Muslims.
Aside from that, is ‘war on terror’ significantly different than ‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’?
Here are some possible definitions of struggle and war:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&defl=en&q=define:struggle&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&defl=en&q=define:war&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
I think it’s good for Obama to create distance between himself and Bush, particularly in regards to Arabs and Muslims.
My point is that ‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’ seems more of a softening of rhetoric than a radical departure.
That being said, it’s an attempt by Obama to cool the rhetoric and it’s better than continuing to refer to the issues as a ‘war on terror’.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:27 pmYeah but, windsore, most people wear belts to hold their pants up. Tho on you, it makes a nice headband. Maybe you should loosen it every now and then?
January 31st, 2009 at 1:29 pmHooray ! Now perhaps our new Prez can take the time to explain that they don’t hate us for our freedoms but for our toppling of their governments , assassination of their political leaders and our shielding Israel from the condemnation of the world community and use of Israel as a proxy military base in their backyard !
January 31st, 2009 at 1:32 pmKeep it up O ! Hooray !
What about the bible belt and the rust belt. Neither of those match my outfit
January 31st, 2009 at 1:32 pmI’m glad this stupid terminology is being deep-sixed. It’s not possible to have a war against a tactic (terror). But it satisfied Bush’s craving to be called a “war president” until he could start a war with an actual country…like say Iraq, Iran, Syria or Russia.
Wayne: I believe David Horowitz (former Communist and now rabid Right Wing Agitator) liked to use it a lot.
Interesting thought. The Soviets always said they’d destroy America from the inside out.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:33 pmbackup Says:
Aside from that, is ‘war on terror’ significantly different than ‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’?
I’d say it has about the same differentiation as the difference between rabid and rational.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:34 pmgreat! now if obama would stop his war on america by giving away our money to these a$$hole-banks who are doing nothing but stealing…. AND HE KNOWS THIS AND WANTS TO GIVE THEM BILLIONS MORE!
jesus.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:35 pmI’m being serious here, but instead of ‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’, a more radical departure would be: ‘our pursuit of peaceful coexistence’.
Just throwing it out there.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:36 pmHey win sore ,
January 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pmhow many times has Iran , for instance ,overthrown the democratically elected gov’t of the USA or backed a brutal dictatorship in a war against us which took in excess of a million lives?
How many commercial airliners have they shot down without apologizing ?
Did I happen to mention that the CIA also overthrew the democratically elected government of Chile on 911 1973 which resulted in 30 000 deaths and concentration camps there ?
The Right have a way of declaring war on things and then losing. I fear their inability to see even the most obvious patterns will prevent them from perceiving this. :(
The Right declared the “war on terror” (after letting the terrorists get through by sheer ineptitude), but world terrorism has more than tripled under their watch. Game over.
The Right were going to “drown government in the bathtub,” another virtual declaration of war, but they ended up losing a major city and their stranglehold on power in one fell swoop.
The Right declared war on drugs many times, and (to paraphrase Bill Hicks) the drugs have won every battle. Just look at poor Rush…
Republicans have declared war on Democrats–unless you have another way of interpreting the theft of two successive Presidential elections. And look how that turned out.
If I were an enterprising Republican, looking to retool, I’d start by not declaring war on everything in sight and then losing. It just looks bad on your resume.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuWnw4Hkf1A&f
January 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pm29)
January 31st, 2009 at 1:41 pmIsn’t that a continuation of a Bush idea?
DB that is the big question , isn’t it .
January 31st, 2009 at 1:42 pmBeing Amerika means never having to say your sorry .
January 31st, 2009 at 1:43 pmTo date the billions that have gone out went to Iraq, private contractors and failed banks. The massive influx of return on these investments is boosting our economy to no end.
I may be wrong but I don’t really see any of those options in the new bill.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:51 pmHe hurt me , he beat me , he abused me , live with such thoughts and live in hate .
January 31st, 2009 at 1:52 pmHe hurt me , he beat me , he abused me , renounce such thoughts and live in love.
Dhamma Pada
windsor Says:
became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab
If the homicide belt fits…wear it.
And you seriously do not understand why we call you a bigot, you bigot?
January 31st, 2009 at 1:52 pmIt took you 6 paragraph’s to sum it up? It also means all kinds of terrorists and extremists now….not just Muslim.
Softening the rhetoric is the whole point, the only point. Run em down and kill em, etc. is why we have many more terrorists to deal with now than we had then.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:53 pmWhat size is yours?
January 31st, 2009 at 1:55 pmI say unto you resist not evil .
January 31st, 2009 at 1:55 pmJesus …sermon on the mount
I am good to people who are good ,
January 31st, 2009 at 1:57 pmI am good to people who are not good ,
because virtue is goodness .
Tao te ching
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
January 31st, 2009 at 1:59 pmNewtons 3rd law
windsor Says:
If the homicide belt fits…wear it.
____________
What happens when the Big Brass Shoe is on the other foot?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:00 pm‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’ is better than ‘war on terror’.
However, struggle could still mean war, in addition to the broader meaning that could include non violent efforts. terrorism is very similar to terror. And Obama has added extremism.
It’s better, but ‘terrorism’ could still be considered code to many in the Middle East to mean those that have been accused of employing terrorism by the West, Arabs and Muslims. Additionally, it could be seen that we are expanding the universe of those we are at war, or at struggle with to include extremists. Those with views outside the mainstream.
And the main thrust is negative, you are ‘against’ someone or some group of people.
With a more radical departure, like ‘our pursuit of peaceful coexistence’, the target seems to be not negative, but positive. We are ‘for’ something. We are for something good, not against something negative.
Most humans think they are good. They think they are for peace. ‘our pursuit of peaceful coexistence’, broadens the universe of possible allies. It doesn’t enable those looking for code words to conclude they are in a target group.
Is our goal really to battle against those practicing terror or those with extreme views? Or is our goal to work for peaceful coexistence?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:01 pmRamakrishna was asked why he didn’t remove a splinter from his foot , he replied that if he attempted to remove it the world would become filled with splinters .
January 31st, 2009 at 2:01 pmfreeman:
January 31st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
backup Says:
I understand because Bush used the phrase ‘war on terror’ it has anti-Arab and anti-Islam connotations; especially when you consider Bush’s reputation among Arabs and Muslims.
___________
Actually, that’s not true. There’s NOTHING in that phrase that connotes “Arab” or “Islam”. The problem always was “How do you battle an emotion”? It’s such a vague phrase as to mean nothing.
Terrorists are basically criminals and should be treated as such. By turning it into a “war”, Botch actually elevated “teh terraists” to a stature they didn’t deserve. they should be seen in the same light as rapists and murderers, and nothing more.
I know… I know… if it’s just a “criminal matter”, all them GOOPers won’t have a reason to get their war chubbies on. Them GOOPers… suffering from perpetual “war envy”…
Now… when Botch used the word “crusade”… that had connotations…
January 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pmWaxing philisophical is not really your forte either captain.
bush battled and the right wanted war and battle and glory. Obama, well you already know, you just want to try to appear to be insightful when you’re really just full of it.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:06 pmblessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of heaven . Jesus
January 31st, 2009 at 2:06 pmTo oppose is to less effective than to PROPOSE .
January 31st, 2009 at 2:06 pmWar is not the answer .
Love is the answer .
ectoendomezo Says:
So closing gitmo and decrying torture and re-opening a dialog with the rest of the world, that’s not change you can actually see?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pmYeah, freeman, and Mrs. Lennon’s boy asked us to Imagine.
The good news is, I think it might actually be happening.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:10 pmOne mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter ask Tippi Livni or Rahm Emmanuel .
January 31st, 2009 at 2:11 pmThousands of years of war and fear can be dispelled in an instant , if the moment is ripe for it .
January 31st, 2009 at 2:12 pmEvolve or die .
That phrase is better. Struggle can also mean self-examination.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pmFred Says:
Waxing philisophical is not really your forte either captain.
bush battled and the right wanted war and battle and glory. …. you just want to try to appear to be insightful when you’re really just full of it.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm………………..
Fred sorry man but you should check your approach sometimes it’s the blogging equivilent of Bushes war on terrorism .
Fred , loive is very not appathetic but will risk everything for the “beloved”.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pmEver read Rumi ?
freeman
at least I read your posts.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm“freedom isn’t free” is a really annoying. Any chance we can dump that stupid shit?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pmdbadass Says:
“freedom isn’t free” is a really annoying. Any chance we can dump that stupid shit?
___________
heh… but in this current economic climate, it’s been substantially discounted.
Or perhaps “cheapened” is a better word.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:22 pmfreeman, you spam the thread with inane posts and then you have the gall to be a blog nazi?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:22 pmActually, I think the phrase, “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism” is a compliment to Krauthammer’s writing chops. We know Obama’s been attempting to bridge the political chasm which separates the two competeing ideologies, and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the phrase was meant to be a sop to Krauthammer’s “A Long Twilight Struggle,” written about the Reagan Doctrine; a phrase Charlie coined. Krauthammer’s always been a Reagan groupie, and this feels like a subtle, if not sincere compliment to a vocal critic, and his hero.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:22 pmbarfly Says:
… a compliment to Krauthammer’s writing chops.
__________
That name always makes me laugh… it sounds like it such be the title of secret Nazi military operation, perhaps an invasion plan for Eastern Europe…
“Operation Krauhammergoddammerung”
January 31st, 2009 at 2:28 pm“Operation Krauhammergoddammerung”
Commanded by Oberlieutenant Robert Reich…
January 31st, 2009 at 2:32 pmTRoS that’s hilarious ! I’ll never be able not to hear his name again without thinking of your comment .
January 31st, 2009 at 2:33 pmROFLMAO
This is why bush had a war on terror:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/al-fakhoura-school-bombed-42-killed.html
January 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pmFred # 69 WOW
January 31st, 2009 at 2:42 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
Old Goat Says:
Curiously though, here’s a thought… anyone know whose administration “political correctness” first came to light in? I recall it first being used in Gearge H.W. Bush’s administration. I could be wrong though…
The term as first used before that, but it was used by the right-wing to mock liberal policies during the 90s. I believe David Horowitz (former Communist and now rabid Right Wing Agitator) liked to use it a lot.
The term itself goes back to the 60s, but it didn’t have the connotation it now does. “Politically incorrect” was more common among the Left, applied as a criticism of someone’s speech for the most part. As sometimes (often?) happens among some of us on the Left, it was heavily and smugly overused.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:43 pmBut now I’m no longer ROFLMAO but wiping tears from my eye’s.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:43 pmwindsor Says:
If the homicide belt fits…wear it.
Now, I know you would never destroy your mother’s basement like that. Before going into a fit of rage, think to yourself, “What would the Bush dress code do?”
January 31st, 2009 at 2:53 pmPre-emptive wingnut punchline: Replaces it with “tea party on terror”
.
Badmoodman Says:
al Qai’da’s
- – How many ways is this damn name spelled? Aren’t there hard and fast rules for you spell something?
Actually not for how to transliterate from the Arabic alphabet to the Roman alphabet. It’s kind of the same problem for how transliterations from Chinese use the letter “X” for about twelve different consonants.
.
Daddy-O Says:
I’m glad we’re no longer waging wars on adverbs. We never seem to win those.
We’re losing ground on the nouns too: drugs, poverty… Perhaps we should open a new front on “impoliteness” and try to encircle ‘em from the rear.
Support our grammarians! What color would that ribbon be, anyways?
.
backup Says:
Aside from that, is ‘war on terror’ significantly different than ‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’?
Oh, here’s one that’ll really drive ya nuts – guess what the Arabic word for “struggle” is? Heh heh…
.
backup Says:
I’m being serious here, but instead of ‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’, a more radical departure would be: ‘our pursuit of peaceful coexistence’.
Too wimpy. Sounds like Harry Reid begging a Republican not to hit him in the face… again.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:54 pmFreedom isn’t free, but does Wal-Mart still offer layaway?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:56 pmThe whole idea of PC or PI ranks right up there with military intelligence, jumbo shrimp and caring Republican.
Oxymoron=null input.
January 31st, 2009 at 2:56 pmFred. Forget about me. Obama’s switching from ‘war on terror’ to ‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’.
That’s good. But, why not take it to the next level. A real change with something like: ‘our pursuit of peaceful coexistence’.
Why is that a bad idea?
January 31st, 2009 at 2:59 pmElBruce. Bush is a crazy cowboy and Obama changes ‘war’ to ’struggle’ and ‘terror’ to ‘terrorism and extremism’ and that’s not obviously rational?
And progressives are now worried about being too dovish?
My original point is that it’s not that much of a departure.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:05 pmbackup Says:
why not take it to the next level. A real change with something like: ‘our pursuit of peaceful coexistence’.
Because Willie Wonka is not President? Because maybe when the pendulum swings it isn’t a good idea to be in its path? Because maybe small steps are more effective at reaching a goal than a hernia inducing leap?
January 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pmbackup Says:
That’s good. But, why not take it to the next level. A real change with something like: ‘our pursuit of peaceful coexistence’.
Why is that a bad idea?
Because it feeds into Republican propaganda about weakness. “Peaceful coexistence” is just another phrase for “pussy.” Remember how agitated they got about “nuance”?
But, honestly, as a catch phrase yours doesn’t suck any more than President Obama’s. Too many words. Personally, I prefer “return to sanity.”
January 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pmWhile Obama has abandoned use of Bush’s War on Terror catchphase, I think it’s a strange way of going about it. If he indeed referenced Krauthammer’s “Long Twilight Struggle,” it was to signal that although he’s no longer using Bush rhetoric, he still embraces Reaganist doctrine and attitudes. Although chances are remote that most muslims will make that specific connection to the past conservative phrasing, it is impossible that some won’t understand the connection, and significance.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:09 pmSome good insight from George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of cognitive linguistics:
‘Real wars are wars against countries, and in the “war on terror,” we are attacking countries. But those countries are not the same as the terrorists. We’re acting at the wrong level. Meanwhile, by using this frame, we get a commander in chief, as the Republicans keep referring to Bush – a “war president” with “war powers,” which imply that ordinary protections don’t have to be observed. A “war president” has extraordinary powers. And the “war on terror,” of course, never ends. There’s no peace treaty with terror.’
January 31st, 2009 at 3:10 pmgummitch said:
Because it feeds into Republican propaganda about weakness.
I agree gummitch! And I think Obama gets that too!
Re: Obama being “intent on repairing America’s image in the eyes of the Islamic world“, etc.:
‘Using language is one way to help effect that change, said Wayne Fields, professor of English and American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis.
“One of the contrasts between the two administrations is the care with which Obama uses language. He thinks about the subtle implications,” said Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric. The Bush administration “didn’t set out deliberately to do things that were offensive but they liked to do things that showed how strong they were, and to use language almost in an aggressive sense.”
Obama, he said, understands that language and conversation must be worked at and that it’s “not just a series of sound bites.”‘
January 31st, 2009 at 3:17 pmAs was so aptly put early on in this thread, it is impossible to declare war on an adverb. And as Mary (and George) state there can be no peace treaty because there is no entity to sign it on the other side.
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terror or terrorists as been so plainly detailed. The fact is, you can’t declare war on anything but a country. Anything else is just an excuse to play the bully and use the neat toys.
Bush wasn’t a ‘war president’, he was a cheap opportunist.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:19 pmThe Bush administration “didn’t set out deliberately to do things that were offensive
I will take vehement exception to that line. There was knowledge and forethought. They didn’t just ’slip’ over the line, they had full awareness of what they were doing.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:21 pmI think that if Obama was to take backup’s advice the righties would be screaming that Obama thinks that we can all just sing Kumbaya together all of our differences would disappear or some such nonsense.
Conservatives seem to have trouble with change and it’s probably a good idea to make incremental changes – at least at first. As long as the changes are for the better I can have some patience for that.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:28 pmRe: #16 Thank you, Wayne! :D
January 31st, 2009 at 3:29 pmHoodathunk Says:
The Bush administration “didn’t set out deliberately to do things that were offensive”
I will take vehement exception to that line. There was knowledge and forethought. They didn’t just ’slip’ over the line, they had full awareness of what they were doing.
You know, I sure do see what you mean there! I’ve gotten so used to most people verbally genuflecting whenever they say anything that might, heaven forbid, offend Bush, Cheney or anyone in that gang, that I glossed over that part of the quote.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:41 pmIt’s probably not so much that Obama “understands language”, presumably better than Bush, but that he is less willing to use words in a confrontational sense than Bush did so much.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:47 pmmary Says:
And the “war on terror,” of course, never ends. There’s no peace treaty with terror.’
___________
My point exactly. How do you ever defeat an emotion?
There’s a similar problem / the War On Drugs.
And what’s up w/ “Czars” all the time?
Czars? Perpetual “wars’ against faceless enemies w/ no names…???
George Orwell would be aghast.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:47 pmmary Says:
It’s probably not so much that Obama “understands language”, presumably better than Bush…
_________
He certainly is more coherent that Botch.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:49 pmtros,
January 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pmthat’s for sure!
We need to quit making excuses for Bush because we perceive him to be an idiot. If he was, our bad for electing him. Or allowing him to remain in office.
The fact is, he wasn’t. He was just willing to manipulate and be manipulated. Thank goodness there isn’t a statute of limitations on war crimes.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:01 pmMonday morning, C-Span’s coverage of Conyer’s committee meeting should be memorable, especially if Karl doesn’t show. The vote to enforce the congressional subpeona forcing Rove’s appearance will sail through the House, and Holder will be charged with slapping the cuffs on Karl, until he appears.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Nadler_If_Rove_wont_testify_hes_0130.html
January 31st, 2009 at 4:02 pmI hope Rove does appear. The sight of the sweating little nazi being asked leading questions, and his republican brethren being forced to defend him, will serve to remind voters of the crimes he has yet to be held accountable for, and the conservative rubberstamp mentality of congressional republicans.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:10 pmbarfly,
I’d been assuming that Rove would just not show up, but, per your link, perhaps things may not go as I’d cynically assumed?
I won’t be able to watch it. Although, I will be checking in on TP periodically for coverage of it.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:14 pmRove will not appear. He will hide behind his expired Get-out-of-Jail-Free card until the US Marshal’s haul his scurvy butt in.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:15 pmRove said , on Bill Oreilly , that he will not appear .Don’t remember where I saw that this morning but take my word for it .
January 31st, 2009 at 4:20 pmRove has already publicly stated that his lawyer said to ignore the subpoena.
Time for a sternly worded letter?
January 31st, 2009 at 4:20 pmfreeman Says:
Rove said , on Bill Oreilly ,
_________
You’re spelling his name wrong.
It’s O’Rally… Dild O’Rally.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:21 pmIf Rove does not appear later in February as subpoeaned, I think Nadler said he would be sending marshalls to arrest him.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:21 pmOh anyway U won’t have to take my word for it , here’s the link.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:22 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR1KRyJ467Q
This game is designed to challenge the power of a former President over a seated President and the trump card is national security.
A Drunken Beef pizza say they drag it out for a minimum of 3 months.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:22 pmO Really ?
January 31st, 2009 at 4:22 pmHoodathunk Says:
A Drunken Beef pizza say they drag it out for a minimum of 3 months.
___________
I say it ends up in front of the SCOTUS. KKKarl already lost once in court.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:23 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
Time for a sternly worded letter?
Will our elected officials be eligible for a backbone thank you card or a citation?
http://backbonecampaign.org/page.cfm?id=67
January 31st, 2009 at 4:24 pmmary Says:
Will our elected officials be eligible for a backbone thank you card or a citation?
_____________
Oooooooooo… I like that.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pmHopefully John Roberts doesn’t have a twing of conscience and fall off the porch again .
January 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pmfreeman Says:
O Really ?
____________
Fer sure… fer sure…
***big, blinky eyes… w/ fingers crossed behind back…***
January 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pmTRoS, you are on. But I still hold to the 3 month timeline.
(Snicker…Scotus doesn’t do anything in less than 6 months)
January 31st, 2009 at 4:28 pmFighting an emotion and not a real enemy is just another way of saying “permanent war” with anyone whom we determine to, in any way, be not of our mindset. It’s always been a joke and one used to hide many serious crimes of the Bush administration.
War on Terror is now a “tainted” phrase used by Bush to cover his crimes.
I’m thrilled that Obama has just tossed into the trash can.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:28 pm.
<blockquote>“enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.”
Anybody else comfortable in knowing that we are entrenched in an “enduring struggle”, a tug of wars per say, with ideologies and tactics that give cause for our civil Rights to be usurped.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) hate us for our freedoms…
… And so THEY(sic) have lobbied and debated and have attempted to legislated away our freedoms due to this enduring struggle.
Those that are so willing to relinquish long standing values, principles and laws during times of trials never respected those values, principles and laws and should NOT be charged with supporting and defending those long standing values, principles and law that have kept us safe.
.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:54 pmMax, go lay by your dish.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:58 pm“enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.”
The struggle should be against the conditions which lead people to use terrorism and extremism to achieve their goals. There are reasons people do these things, and if we never address the reasons why they do it, we’ll never stop them from doing it. (And the reason isn’t simply that they’re sick mutherfockers, which they are.)
January 31st, 2009 at 6:01 pm#78 backup Says:
Peace achieved at the end of a gun is NEVER about attaining peace but rather about “CONTROL”. Perhaps that is why it is not being called ‘peaceful coexistence’. I see you never played in the sand box as a child…
January 31st, 2009 at 6:02 pm… Such a deprived life to not know that the bully always controlls the peace keeping while manning patrols of the sand box.
Hoodathunk,
January 31st, 2009 at 6:05 pmWhat???
I hope President Obama starts saying “that other president” a lot. Using his name makes Americans cringe and run for the hills still!
January 31st, 2009 at 6:09 pmUh, sorry to burst your lead bubble, neocon, but the bully keeps the hate going. The bully is not interested in peace at all and because of the bully’s insecurity, he/she tries to control everyone so the environment becomes something he/she can feel good in.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:12 pmHe needs to put the War Criminal Bush in prison. The Traitor Bush has admitted to torture, throw his and Cheney’s ass in jail.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:31 pmKay,
January 31st, 2009 at 6:31 pmI’ll let the neocon jab slide as you either didn’t read my full post or the one at #113 or have no clue about me in the slightest…
Ohh, I thought Bush was saying we were fighting a “war on Terra.” Terror makes much less sense.
.
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
George Orwell would be aghast.
George Orwell would be doing the “told ya so” dance. Especially over the PATRIOT act and “Homeland.” But also pretty much everything else the cons have done in the modern age. Man, think of the books he could write today if he were alive…
.
Hoodathunk Says:
We need to quit making excuses for Bush because we perceive him to be an idiot.
He is an idiot. That, however, is no excuse. Most idiots know better than to run for President, even if they know nothing else.
.
barfly Says:
Monday morning, C-Span’s coverage of Conyer’s committee meeting should be memorable, especially if Karl doesn’t show. The vote to enforce the congressional subpeona forcing Rove’s appearance will sail through the House, and Holder will be charged with slapping the cuffs on Karl, until he appears.
And this time there’s no Republican President to countermand the order to the D.C. police to enforce the subpeona…
.
barfly Says:
I hope Rove does appear. The sight of the sweating little nazi being asked leading questions…
“I don’t recall, I don’t remember, I plead the Fifth,” etc. Plus “executive privilege (so we can tie that question up in court for two years).” Not one Republican hack has ever been forced to properly answer for their crimes since Watergate.
.
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
Rove has already publicly stated that his lawyer said to ignore the subpoena.
Well, if that’s what his lawyer said, then he doesn’t have to! /Republican
I’m looking forward to seeing him testify while wearing handcuffs. A cross-country search for the fugitive would be entertaining also.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:47 pmbarfly Says:
Monday morning, C-Span’s coverage of Conyer’s committee meeting should be memorable, especially if Karl doesn’t show. The vote to enforce the congressional subpeona forcing Rove’s appearance will sail through the House, and Holder will be charged with slapping the cuffs on Karl, until he appears.
And this time there’s no Republican President to countermand the order to the D.C. police to enforce the subpeona…
I thought I heard that his testimony date was pushed back to Feb 23. I hope they issued a brand new subpoena. That way, Fielding’s reply that Bush did not want Rove to testify would be null and void. Bush no longer has any say in this matter, especially since Rove claimed that Bush was not involved in the discussion in the first place.
But that’s a subject for another post.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:51 pmthe reason obama used the term “war on terror” only once thus far is simple. Obama is waging a war on the bullsheeyat propoganda and fear and smear left over from 43rd’s (i refused to utter it’s name) regime.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:53 pmNow I’d like to see some clarification. Without being the WOT, what is our action in Afghanistan called? What is it’s legal status?
January 31st, 2009 at 6:55 pmWiley,
Watch Bill Moyers Journal from last night.
… Just watch it, please.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:18 pmPeople are talking around me right now, so I can’t hear the Moyer special. Just out of curiosity, Max-1, why do you want me to watch it?
January 31st, 2009 at 7:46 pmI did catch the beginning. My heart sank, too. It would be tragic for Afghanistan to become Obama’s Viet Nam.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:46 pm“Coalition of the willing” is another dumb thing thatought to be retired. It was never factual to begin with and besides it is so… ” I feel like chicken tonight, like chicken tonight”
January 31st, 2009 at 7:48 pmwiley Says:
Now I’d like to see some clarification. Without being the WOT, what is our action in Afghanistan called? What is it’s legal status?
The legal status is unchanged. In fact, it never was legally a “war,” just an “authorization to use force.”
January 31st, 2009 at 7:49 pmwiley,
Watch it when you can. It’s a good discussion about Afghanistan/Pakistan becoming Obama’s Vietnam and how bombing civilians only ensures more radicalism.
Everyone should watch it…
January 31st, 2009 at 8:03 pmYeah, Max-1. I’ll watch it when it gets quiet here. I have btw never supported any military action against Afghanistan, and the drones are dystopian horror in my book.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:10 pmhe Republic of Stupidity Says:
barfly Says:
… a compliment to Krauthammer’s writing chops.
__________
That name always makes me laugh… it sounds like it such be the title of secret Nazi military operation, perhaps an invasion plan for Eastern Europe…
Actually, his name sounds like something that should be on a sandwich.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:37 pmdbadass Says:
“Coalition of the willing” is another dumb thing thatought to be retired.
___________
I couldn’t agree more. I was always so… so… impressed w/ that platoon of Spanish paella cooks marching off to battle.
January 31st, 2009 at 8:38 pmEBruce says:
backup Says:
Aside from that, is ‘war on terror’ significantly different than ‘enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’?
Oh, here’s one that’ll really drive ya nuts – guess what the Arabic word for “struggle” is? Heh heh…
I believe “struggle” translates to “jihad.”
January 31st, 2009 at 8:41 pmSpeaking of phrases that drive us crazy, other than the “war on terror,” I also hated the use of the term “czar” or czarina.” Also the word, “Homeland.” “Czar” is defined in two ways:
January 31st, 2009 at 8:57 pmcrowned head, monarch, sovereign – a nation’s ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right OR a person having great power-autocrat, despot, tyrant – a cruel and oppressive dictator. Bad term to use in the U.S. And “Homeland” sounds way too much like Nazi Germany’s “Fatherland.” Yuck!
winddancer Says:
And “Homeland” sounds way too much like Nazi Germany’s “Fatherland.” Yuck!
Or Russia’s “Motherland”…
January 31st, 2009 at 9:01 pmwinddancer Says:
I believe “struggle” translates to “jihad.”
__________
And doesn’t al qaeda translate as “the base”???
I always found it curious, the way GOOPers are always referring to “the base”.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:03 pm“Enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism” doesn’t sound like an excuse for the Patriot Act. Repealing that and all the undue executive authority claimed by Bush would be an excellent way to repudiate the WOT.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:09 pmMaybe Obama should officially change the name to “The Global Tea Party on Terrorism” just to make all the wingnuts go into epileptic seizures of rage.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:20 amElBruce,
How about “The Global Kumbaya on Terrorism”?
Now THAT would wrinkle some panties… NO?
February 1st, 2009 at 2:48 amTerror is a tactic like ambush is a tactic. Could you have a war on ambus? Then how do you have a war on terror? It was alsways dumb and only simpletons bought into it.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:33 pm