Note the use of anonymous sources to get the White House side of the argument.

No good reason for anonymous sources once again.

How 'bout War on the American Taxpayer?

What we should be fighting is a soft coup de ta, of our democratic government by corporate fascist.

War on a political tactic(GWOT) is just the means to accomplish this goal.

This was and still is an international policing effort.

Even some conservatives agree that what we're fighting isn't a war and it's not directed against terrorism, but if that's the case, then what is it?

What the US government under the guise of the "War on Terror" is in fact doing is an elaborate propaganda scheme to create a friendly political environment for various right-wing policies, especially the expansion of executive power and the erosion of certain personal liberties and even the increased transfer of wealth to the already rich.

Clearly, though, conservatives aren't going to out and say that, and now that the "War on Terror" is wearing thin, are looking for a new label, just as they looked for a new framework when the "War on Drugs"—a fairly effective mechanism of selling many of the same policies—seemed to have reached the limit of its utility.

As to what the US government ought to be doing, well, that's a lot more complex, and probably isn't reducible to any simple "X against Y" formulation.

4GW -- That's what the pros call it.

I'm a bit slow witted I guess: What the reason that no one would use 'violent jihadism'? Overtones of a religious war maybe?

Global Village Idiot's War on Unacceptable Violence

Somewhat off topic, I saw and heard most of the major Dem candidates speak last weekend at the California Democratic Party's annual convention in San Diego. I came to the convention still hoping for Al Gore to re-enter the race and not looking to pick anyone different.

All this changed for me when Edwards took the stage. What he said was fundamentally different, in both tone and content, than what any of the other candidates spoke about.

I'm now a huge Edwards fan, and I'm learning my conversion experience was shared by many others in the hall that day.

Gore who?

How about just calling it The Troubles?

How about the War on Civil Liberties?

Seriously, though, why do we have to call it anything? Why this need to attached reductive and often misleading labels? Let's just deal with terrorism as what it is - a complicated effort that will have to be handled over years using a mixture of law enforcement, diplomacy, economics, and military means -- without having to give it some stupid silly name. Why give in to the right wing's desire to propagandize everything?

My crush on Edwards continues to grow.

The problem is that this conflict is almost exactly like the Cold War - at its heart, the war is between two ideolgies, with physical conflict popping up on occasion in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

So until you can come up with a catchy phrase like "Cold War" which captures the fact that...

(1) Most of the enemy are Islamists, but
(2) most of Islam is not, in fact, our enemy

...I'm guessing "War on Terror" will remain the shorthand.

How about "the conflict with al Qaeda", "Iraq occupation" and "operations in Afghanistan"?

Ah, Kevin.

Classic liberal debate tactic. Change the framing of the issue. If it's not a war, then voila, we can't lose!

Just like if we called WWII the holocaust problem. Hey, we could have packed our boys back home and saved a lot of effort, huh?

Except...except...

We won't be heroes to our children. We will lose honor. The rest of the world will see the cowardice. The PC name twisting. We will lose stature in the world.

Edwards just sunk his campaign with this one. I love it!

Instead of the "War on Terrorism" how about just calling it the "War of Terrorism"? Pretty much captures the reality of the situation, and no need to change the acronym.

Slightly off-topic, but one thing that drives me nuts is the media's constant use of a small "w" when referring to "the Iraq war." Why not "the Iraq War"? After all, we don't refer to the "Gulf war" or the "Vietnam war," we instead use a capital W. I believe it's an attempt to minimize the scope of our involvement, to pretend that somehow Bush hasn't gotten us bogged down in years-long losing war.

Kevin is so lightweight on military and terror issues. He declares "good for him" in endorsing Edwards' semanatical game and abandonment of the war on terror term, but then Kevin cannot come up with a better term himself. Isn't it obvious that Edwards is just using the issue to take some shots at Bush and try to court far left support?

Edwards is like Kevin. He does not have anything to say of substance or sense on military and terror issues.

oh, you germans just like to capitalize nouns....

Even conceding that all the stupid military maneuvers Bush wants to make are somehow related in one big war is conceding the ideological ground. There isn't one big war on anything. Bush wanted to invade Iraq for unrelated reasons and came up with this phony world war as an excuse. Renaming it doesn't change that.

How about War for A Permanent Republican Majority?

Oops. They already lost that one.

Why not just describe what you're doing each time? "We are assisting Philippine forces to confront terrorist elements there." "Treasury has been valiantly pursuing those who finance terror worldwide." Etc, etc.

Why do we have to wrap these initiatives under one great big label that distorts their purposes? The public has been made aware of the threat of terrorism. They understand that it is a global phenomena. Perhaps actually describing our policies as policies rather than catch-phrases will give the public some sense of accomplishment. As it is, GWOT as a phrase seems to have the effect of burdening people's minds, it is perceived as this all encompassing thing that must be won but we understand at the same time that it cannot be won. Taken individually, as policies, initiatives and progress reports things actually start to look better.

How about "the Phoney War"? or the "Bogus War"? or the "So-called 'War'"?

Egbert,

It wasn't refered to as "World War Two" until after the war had ended - and even then, only in some countries was it called that.

And issue framing isn't exclusive to the political left; the very fact that you (probably) consider yourself 'pro-life' and I consider myself 'pro-choice' is the result of issue framing and word manipulation (you're obviously 'anti-choice' and I'm obviously 'pro-death'). Of course, you realize this, and you're just being disingenuous, as usual, but you should still be called out on it.

Kevin, if you think it's a "stumper" to name this operation, maybe it's becaues it's not a coherent operation at all. I tried to pin down a conservative on what GWOT was, and he did find a White House document that seemed to try to define it. But the fact the rest of us can't nail this particular bit of jelly to a tree probably means that it's not a real concept at all --it's propaganda. It's propaganda to allow the government to do ANYTHING it wants! As long as they justify torture, the elimination of habeus corpus, illegaly spying on Americans, invading innocent countries as part of the war on terror, who can argue with them? There are NO arguing points because no one knows what the GWOT is.

I give Edwards a prize for trying to bring this to a national debate. Until we clear away some of the propaganda, the right wing has a very big advantage in implementing their policies --and it's impossible to argue against them.

This is not to say that there are not threats from fundamentalism (a broader threat than just from our Islamic neighbors --a reaction to the modernization of civilization-- but that's another story), or that there aren't things we should do to counteract those threats. But until we identify the threat we shouldn't be putting policies into place (or starting wars for that matter). We just end up appealing to bigotry and fear.

Egbert Souse strikes again!

To properly appreciate the persona, picture the bank dick character by WC Fields. Calling Egbert a troll is a disrespect to his art.

Missed you from the Atlantic boards, bro.

Kevin:

I think you miss the point. Everyone seems to be casting about for some catch phrase that can replace the "war on terror." You are essentially conceding that you must accept the way this administration has framed the debate. Edwards is saying he does not accept that frame, in part because the way the debate was framed was never about actually protecting Americans any better than before, but rather to scare them into accepting fewer civil rights, more spying, and inure them to more despicable atrocities.

Bush and his ilk spoke with great derision about Kerry and his view that acts of terrorism should be investigated and the perpetrators brough to justice. They claimed that looking at it as a law and order problem, which it is, was quaint, sort of like the Geneva Conventions were quaint.

You cannot wage war on a noun, and whether you believe or not that in order to properly combat terrorists you have to do more than merely bring them to justice, we have learned through experience that forcibly rearranging the governments and societies in which they exist and/or thrive only increases their numbers, dedication, and ferocity.

It is more than sufficient to say you will vigorously defend our country without resorting to fear and intimidation, because to do so makes us little better than the people we seek to bring to justice.

Also, you cannot ignore that the reason the "war on terror" was created by this administration was precisely because it can never be won. What better than an unending war against a foe, such as Eastasia, than to cow the citizens into obedience and to cling to the warmongers for safety against the horrible others. What better prop than our troops to continually suck off of, like a leech, to inncolate a government against criticism. Take our troops, historically revered and equate criticism of the government or its leader with criticism of the troops.

The "war on terror" is nothing more than a poll tested talking point to end debate and browbeat one's political opponents. It doesn't need to be replaced by anything.

-no relation to Ann

How about "the jihad against jihadism?" Since Islamic scholars not associated with violence are at pains to stress the Quran describes jihad as a struggle, and not necessarily a violent one ("the greatest jihad is the jihad within oneself"), this phrase would be catchy, surprising, and to the point.

What we are fighting is Bush's War (and Occupation). What we should be doing is something else altogether

Irony alert: brian, everyone's favorite faux-reasonable concern troll, werite: Kevin is so lightweight on military and terror issues.

Bonyus: He then wrote: He does not have anything to say of substance or sense on military and terror issues.

Sure, Brian and Egbert, I don't understand why we called it "World War II" when, in honor of Pearl Harbor, we obviously should have called it the "War Against Planes."

At one point, before he lost his sense, Tom Friedman called it a war against religious totalitarianism, which is maybe the least bad phrase at the moment.

Uh, who cares?

The Cold War wasn't called that until we were years into it.

Naming a war isn't important to winning it. It is, however, important if you want to characterize the war for domestic political propaganda. And, um, given the fact that using this war to serve domestic political ends (Republicans winning the midterms, Republican winning re-election in 2004), it's really not a good idea to get too caught up in this.

Naming isn't important for policy, it's just important for domestic politics.

The British government no longer uses the term. Our House of Reps no longer uses it in official documents Edwards is dropping it. Now if you and the WaMo drop it perhaps more people will get on the bandwagon. How's this to wean you away 'The So-Called War on Terror'

There you go again, Kevin:

For what it's worth, I tend to think the right answer is that we're fighting "violent jihadism," or some similar formulation. For obvious reasons, though, nobody's very eager to put that phrase into wide usage.

Mr. Edwards is trying to help you find your way out of a conceptual cul-de-sac.

We are fighting a war in Iraq. Some of the people shooting at us are violent jihadists, but we don't know how many. All we know is that Iraqis and a few non-Iraqi allies are shooting us and blowing us up. They say that they are attacking us because we started it and we refuse to stop.

We are fighting a war in Afghanistan. Our adversaries are attacking us and our allies for a variety of reasons. They may be violent jihadists, or they may not.

Elsewhere in the world, including festering Pakistan, violent jihadists are not at war with us.

You are defining your war and your enemy by terms that you and our armed forces can neither use nor understand. What is the point?

Brian,

For what it's worth, I was in Everett Washington (my home town) on May 1st and took advantage of the opportunity to see Edwards speak. I've been a supporter of Bill Richardson from the start (nobody can accuse me of personality driven politics on this one...) because he has been the only one to offer some actual policy credentials. However, Edwards's stump speach does outline specific policies regarding healthcare (public/private financed hybrid), energy (decentralization), the war (get the fuck out), immigration, and even the debt (which, unfortunately, amounted to long-term policy planning, which never works since administrations change over and blow a financial wad right away). I think Edwards's (and Obama's) major problem is that people have trouble looking past his ken-doll hair cuts and pearly whites; he's almost too charismatic for his own good. Obama and Edwards both are like that really really pretty blond girl in one of your college classes who aces the tests and does complex math in her head, but no one takes her seriously at first because she's so nice to look at. The press is starting to get over the Edwards/Obama beauty contest and will soon-enough start exploring their policy platforms.

Also, regarding your critique of Kevin's post...

Kevin's points are valid. It's okay to expose the problems with a policy or platform, or with particular language without offering an alternative. Somethings are just bad. Personally, I don't think we need a catch-phrase to describe this conflict. It's timeless, and we should all just adapt. Language which touts the use of the military to fight this conflict (however it's defined) simply hurts our chances of success, since militaries are powerless against such tactics - it is more of a law enforcement matter (coupled with intelligence).

Bush's war against common sense?

Starting to appear to be more of an Eternal Hall of Mirrors War

Note the last line:

"But the truth is that the war on terror is destined to outlast a change in the Oval Office — or in vocabulary."

This is Mike Allen's editorial comment--that the "truth" is that the war on terror will continue. What is that doing in this piece? We are supposed to take away the "truth" that Edwards is simply wrong? Because Mike Allen says so?

How is this an appropriate ending to this article?

Coltergeist saved me the trouble of writing out a long post.

Disputo: oh, you germans just like to capitalize nouns....

If we don't, then who will?

It's the Battle Against Fanaticism, which takes in not only the conflict with Osama, but also the one with Dobson and Robertson. This puts the islamists on the same side of the fence with the chistianists, which is both useful and right, in that the latter are a far greater threat to world peace than the former.

I will enlist immediately if they call it War on Voilence Caused by Irrationality and Fundamentalism.

First of all don't call it a war.
Second of all don't call it a fight.

Call it a struggle.

I'd call it:

The Struggle For A Peaceful Middle-East

Edwards is like Kevin. He does not have anything to say of substance or sense on military and terror issues.

What are your military credentials? you certainly cast stones at everyone elses, especially if your Idiot Prince doesn't get fellated in the process. Where the fuck, exactly, do you get off making this "observation" on every god-damned thread?

If you can't produce a DD-214, stfu.

Borat has it right: it's our war *of* terror.

We'll invade the wrong country.

We'll lie about why.

We'll bomb the wrong people.

We'll break all our own laws.

We'll let one man do whatever he wants with our government. (I'm not sure if that one man should be specified as Bush, Cheney, or Rove, though)

We'll let people be held without reason or due process, tortured, and killed.

We'll let the Administration do what it wants rather than risk a constitutional crisis.

And we'll complain that *they* hate us for our freedom.

If we weren't Americans, "American" wouldn't be the first adjective that we'd use to describe a country like that. At least, not in a good way...

DD-214? Sorry - need a translation. Otherwise, your post is spot-on. Thanks.

Egbert - real patriots don't wait to be asked. Suit the fuck up already.

How about expressing a general contempt for Theocratic Authoritarianism?

Needn't call it a war, just call it something we know we need to get rid of.

I changed my mind. Let's call it "The Fucking for Virginity".

A DD-214 is what the military calls a discharge.

At one point, before he lost his sense, Tom Friedman called it a war against religious totalitarianism, which is maybe the least bad phrase at the moment.

No, that's not right. If so, the US would be invading Saudi Arabia.

the commenters above are correct--this is not a war, anymore than there is a war on poverty or a war against drug abuse. It's a metaphor that used to generate support, not a description of any actual activity. Trying to find some name for a series of activities meant to stop terrorist attacks by violent Islamists has the same effect of calling it a war. In fact, Bush has done tremendous damage by continually reinforcing the al qaeda brand. There is no longer, as far as I can tell, a coordinated operation headed by bin Laden (and, if you read The Looming Tower, you'll discover that there have been only a few operations coordinated by bin Laden, the Cole, the African embassies and 9/11.)

Terrorist attacks by small fringe groups have been around pretty much forever. The war metaphor inflates the importance and the degree of threat of such small, fringe groups--which the president has used to implement an authoritarian regime unique in our nation's history.

Edwards is right to stand up to this dishonest framing of the policy situation.

cld: Struggle Against Theocratic Authoritarianism. Cool - I'm going with that for now.

Secular Humanists, Unite!

At the moment the current conflicts are best described as nation-building in Iraq and nation-building in Afghanistan. The apparent objective is to install stable US-friendly governments in both countries.

The war on violent jihadism has been sidelined by these enterprises.

How about, One of Many Socio-Politicak Problems Rendered Small by the Threat of Global Warming? Catchy, eh?

Actually, "a Bush-created political phrase" is absolutely fine. Even better is Edwards' use of the term "Bush and his gang", which is precisely how history is going to view them. Up until now, the names Haldeman and Erlichman were enough to sum up ne set of criminals, but this time the corruption s deep and wide, the whole Bush-Cheney Gang will have to be invoked to encapsulate the near-collapse of US democracy.

And guys like egfart and brainless, if they even exist (and they've never delivered any evidence that they do), will be viewed as the pathetic enablers who helped edge us towards collapse. Let's see who they suck up to when this disaster is over.

Egbert ("Ah, Kevin") sez:

"Edwards just sunk [SIC] his campaign with this one. I love it!"

Brian, predictably, chimes in, telling us Edwards is a "lightweight", in contrast to that intellectual titan now in the Oval Office.

Yeah, right. What a colossal mistake by Edwards. Now the 28%
who are still Bush/Cheney hard-liners and dead-enders won't vote for John Edwards.

Let's have progressives chip in to hire K. Rove on retainer, to guide Edwards on policy issues, right guys? Then he can avoid such blunders from here on out.

Thanks to Egbert & Brian for comedic relief. It helps with the tension of the times.

You can never go wrong with a snappy acronym. I propose Global War on Islamic Zeal, to be pronounced "Gee Whiz."

jayackroyd - good point. Of course, maybe not a bad idea, either. Of course, using the phrase "war against religous totalitarianism" would make a lot of undeserving countries nervous. Good post.

Disputo - you bring me down memory lane. As the Vietnam War neared its end for us, in the early 70's, that's exactly what a lot of American solders said about "fighting for freedom in Vietnam."

There is of course no war going on. The US has occupied two poor underdeveloped countries while telling anyone who will listen it is fighting against the 'terrorists' who launched the attacks of 9/11. A funny thing about those 9/11 actors though, they used to be allies of the US, who were trained in asymmectrical warfare by our CIA during its semi-clandestine war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

So, since the only terrorists who have assualted our nation were previously allies, the expression used to describe our conflict ought to include some culpability of the strategists and tacticians who helped to create our new antagonists:

The CIA Mujahideen Wars.

On the other hand, the invasion of Iraq was for oil. It is an imperialistic war to enrich the petroleum industry and secure a strategic resource. The fighting is with those resisting American hegemony:

The Oil Slave Revolt.

how about,

The attempt to justify a military occupation of a country that just so happens to have the worlds second largest known oil reserve (virually untapped).

How 'bout the "war against fundamentalism?"

That's something we can (and should) do both at home and abroad.

Energy War II would also work.

It's the Bush Administration's Global War On Its Own Feet, because that's where it keeps shooting itself.

BGRS,

Bet his 208 file was "massive". GT of 78?

But, he did see Audie Murphy's "To Hell and Back" three times or was it Abbott and Costello's "You're in the Army, Now"?, "No Time for Sergeants"? "F-Troop"?

We're talking about 2 separate things: the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Iraq War. The Iraq War should be called Iraq-nam. The conflict with Al Qaeda should be called Bringing International Murderers to Justice.

"GT of 78"

Well, those Prep Courses do help.

Violent Fundamentalism. I think it is clear, succinct and all-inclusive. And it points up that there is a struggle on our own shores against this creeping menace.

The Politico is nothing if not a bunch of DC Beltway Insider gossip and drivel, a Cool Kids Club newsletter, as it were. Mike Allen is one of those obsequious DC-based journalists who were more than happy to suck up to those in power, like Karl Rove, who told him all about CIA NOC operative Valerie Plame on -- what did he call it? Oh, yeah -- "double super-secret background".

See? They've even developed a Cool Kids Code to talk to each other.

Collectively, these are the very people who took our country on a drunken bender, drove it off the road and into this drainage ditch in which we find ourselves, and then initially denied that we're in this ditch before trying to blame us for giving them the keys when they were drunk.

If there should be a "War on ____", let us wage it upon this fetid nest of overprivileged, corrupt bastards currently haunting the corridors of power, the likes of which haven't been seen in such numbers in our nation's capital city since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

The late author Lillian Hellman had a perfect name for such troubling periods in our history. She simply called it Scoundrel Time.

"President Carter in 1973"

Change that GT score to 73.

mhr - Nixon, not Carter was President in 1973; Carter would not take office until 1977. Kerry, unlike yourself, actually went into combat, supposedly to fight Communism. It was that liberal, Harry Truman, who designed the policies that ultimately defeated Communism.

George Orwell was writing after Stalin had already killed millions.

We win more by our good example than by our bad example.

Acting arbitrarily and violently simply lends validation to any action or rhetoric they care to emit, as in but Clinton did it too!

The social conservatives favorite hystrionic pretense.

Why don't we just terminate this whole futile thread and get busy working to elect John Edwards president? He's the only candidate who's proven himself thoughtful enough to be president and once he's in office the correct term for the current international struggle will be his to define.

How about Bush's criminal war of terror?

President Carter in 1973

BZZZZTTT!!!! That was Nixon. Do try to get those three neurons you are clinging furiously to firing in unison.

You do bring the comic relief, I'll give you tat!

If this joker is representative of the reich-wing, how did we ever lose out to these idiots?

Oh, right - drunken yahoos wanna have a beer with other drunken yahoos - like that is the skill set to run a Republic.

I would back a law that allowed ordinary citizens to just dispatch to the hereafter any stupid mother fucker who ever utters that "have a beer with" analogy ever again. Seriously. Out of the god-damned gene pool with every last one of these cretins.

mhr pontificates thusly:

"What is it about leftwingers that makes them recoil from dangerous situations and attempt to smoothe them over with nice words?"

Couldn't agree more, mhr. Gutless progressive weasels like Harry Truman (Korea), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (WW II) recoiled from "dangerous situations". Not to mention Woodrow Wilson (WW I) and
even Bill Clinton (much derided for "over-extending our troops" in engagements which ended years of misery, genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo).

Ah, but you may have a point, mhr. Progressives ARE reluctant to enmesh our nation, squandering lives and our treasury needlessly in predictably disastrous colonial adventures like Iraq 2003-forever.

Iraq was like an elective surgery gone awry, regretted ever after. It's a no-graceful-exit, never-ending battle our administration reached for, then bungled.

The progressives, well, they've been a little more successful (but not 100%)(Vietnam was a quagmire shared by Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon) in choosing winning strategies. So if your point is that progressives "recoil" from destroying lives and resources for no good reason, well, you've got us.

Theocratic Authoritariamism. That works for me. Then we could go to work finding and jailing abortion clinic bombers in Austin and wherever else they might be.

Jake

"War on Terror" is the ultimate contradiction in terms. War is itself the ultimate act of terror and an unjust war against an innocent population has got to be the ultimate crime. Listening to the news ninnies repeat this nonsensical piece of propaganda on the msm is sickening.

The first question would seem to be whether it is properly called a "war" at all. My view is that it is not, but for those who diagree, is "The Forever War" arppropriate or the "The Eternal War Against Evil"? As even Donald Rumsfeld makes clear, the phrase "War on Terror" is non-sensical.

Perhaps we could return to Vietnam era language and refer to it as global police action.

Personally I think its plain old national security.

Just getting the word "war" out of the equation would be extremely helpful. The "war" on terror is no more a war than was the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs." Those previous "wars" did not result in the loss of American freedoms the way this one has.

It's another example of how we've been bushwacked by the president's lack of verbal acuity.

And while there should be a concerted effort to confront and defeat terrorism, it is not a battle that can be won exclusively with military means. It perhaps cannot even be won by primarily military means. This conflict requires finesse, not bludgeons.

He declares "good for him" in endorsing Edwards' semanatical game and abandonment of the war on terror term ...

... and Kevin's exactly right to do so, because the only thing the Bush administration does is "semantical" games! "Clear Skies" - "Healthy Forests" - "Death Tax" - "Private, no wait, Personal Accounts" - "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - "Mission Accomplished" And it's too funny to expect Kevin or anyone else to present expertise to refute such sound military concepts as "Stay the Course", "Bring em On", "Standing Down When The Iraqis Stand Up" and the "Surge" (hint - it's not an actual military strategy, it's an ad copy name for an energy drink!)

"War on Terror" doesn't actually describe anything! Where is this "terror", and how many bombs do you think it'll take before it's defeated? It's about time "War on Terror" was dismissed as the bullshit propaganda catchphrase it is, and kudos to Edwards for doing so.

As someone said, fighting a war on terror is like fighting a war on bullets.

Iraq was like an elective surgery gone awry, regretted ever after. It's a no-graceful-exit, never-ending battle our administration reached for, then bungled.

Like Michael Jackson's elective surgery. The best outcome we can hope for is stabilization, and a miracle from stem cell or regeneration research.

Revenge of the Chicken-Hawks.

Holy War Against Anyone Opposed to Radical American Conservatism

While kudos to Edwards are conveyed, we must also note that Hilary Benn, the Development Secretary from Britain called for the term to be abolished recently in a speech in NY.

A liberal LA Times columnist tells us that 3,000 people killed by a terrorist attack in New York was small potatoes.

Don't you mean leading Republican presidential candidate George "Flipper" Romney? From the AP:

[Romney] said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught..."It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said.

I tried to float “fancied emergency� to describe these cooked-up princely projects. It is in honor of Charles I who invoked the “fancied emergency� of pirate attacks on commerce to legitimize a tax to build up military forces during a time of peace. He was secretly using the money to support the military campaign of Philip IV of Spain against the Dutch. It was an attempt by Charles I to rule without the consent of Parliament and it met with great resistance and is one of the causes of the English Civil War. George Bush and his cronies have used the same methods of subterfuge to pursue their project-wars against the Congress and the people they represent. They invoke the same privileges of executive power as Charles I, they lie for the same reasons- their actions would be unpopular if fully understood and they make the same mistakes. It is one of the reasons why America's kings are elected. You can understand the English Civil War (and indeed the American Revolution) by imagining George Bush as a hereditary monarch.

mhr: "President Carter in 1973 scolded the American people for what he called their 'obsessive fear of communism.'"

Richard Nixon was president in 1973, not Jimmy Carter. And if you were honest about what Carter had said, you would have included his subsequent prediction that the Soviet Union would eventually collapse under the weight of its own corruption.

But you're not honest. You like your facts cherry-picked and then twisted and half-baked like a pretzel.

The truly pathetic thing about you and other trolls is that you your fellow cowardly clowns are the only ones who are currently reveling in your own bullshit.

If you feel this war in Iraq is so important, then why don't you enlist, instead of sitting there casually hurling insults at liberals and "leftwingers" from behind the anonymous security of your own PC monitor? Why are you perfectly willing to send other people into harm's way without sharing their risk?

You talk tough and posture -- "What is it about leftwingers that makes them recoil from dangerous situations ..." -- but in the end you're in all likelihood the kind of macho man who would curl up in a fetal position at the mere prospect of physical harm to yourself.

You are a chicken hawk, in the purest sense of that term. You best not come to liberal Hawaii on vacation, where we serve chicken hawks sauteed in a light basil pesto cream sauce on a bed of linguini, with the requisite orchid garnish.

Concerning Stephan's quote supra, Mitt should be charged with a passed ball, or if he was pitching the drivel, a very Wild Pitch.

mhr, you really shouldn't cut and paste from your previous comments left in other threads at other web sites. I googled the phrase "carter obsessive fear of communism" hoping to find a cite for your assertion, and I found this:

washingtonpost.com, April 21, 2007:

Brzezinski was in the Carter administration and that says a great deal. As president Carter scolded the American people over their obsessive fear of communism. John Kerry talked about the US fantasy war against communism. Ronald Reagan took a different view and confronted and in time finished off the Soviet Union. But liberals do not change. Many French people are convinced that their country will soon be attacked by islamists. The same with Germany. London has been attacked as has Madrid. Liberals have no difficult fighting Republicans. That is as far-sighted and as courageous as they can be. Oh, how the Democrat party has changed since the days of FDR, Truman and John Kennedy. Democrats today are a gathering of women and of wimps.

By mhr614

I'm not doubting Carter said that; in fact, I hope he did. The only source for the phrase I found was in a ridiculous December 2005 op-ed at OpinionJournal.com by the loathsome Norman Podhoretz, which also contained these pearls of wisdom:

"On any given week, World War II offered more [foul-ups] and catastrophes than anything that has been seen in postwar Iraq."

And I would also still say, as I have said before, that the number of American casualties in Iraq is minimal as compared with the losses suffered in past wars: in World War II, 405,399; in Korea, 36,574; in Vietnam, 58,209. Similarly, the mistakes--again assuming they were mistakes rather than debatable judgment calls--committed in the first year after the fall of Saddam were relatively inconsequential when measured against those made in the aftermath of the Allied victories over Germany and Japan.

Kid, if you expect to win any arguments here (you won't anyway), you need better sources of information than pinheads like Podhoretz.

I suggest "Action against Generalized Violence" not very sexy, but something on that tune. I suppose it can't float in the US, because violence as such is not a four letter word in the US (as opposed to Europe). And if it's not a war, then just forget it, no one will even listen.

Don't you mean leading Republican presidential candidate George "Flipper" Romney? From the AP:

I mean of course Mitt "Flipper" Rommey, damn it!

The only legitimate war we're fighting is the war on Al-Qaida.

So here's a name for it:

"The War on Al-Qaida"

Duh!

Well done Ken. Now return mhr his testicles that he might slink away in shame.

Most of the trolls here seem to be young white men, not married, no kids. No real life experiences.

Edwards is like Kevin. He does not have anything to say of substance or sense on military and terror issues." Posted by: brian on May 3, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Yet you come back time and again to read him.

Why is that?

young white men,not married, no kids. No sexual experiences.

Fixed it for ya...The reason Clinton getting a blow job was a big deal had nothing to do with morality - it had everything to do with jealousy.

egbert: "The rest of the world will see the cowardice."

They can see it now--every time your name appears!

Suited up for action yet, soldier? Or are you a hypocritical sack of lying shit? Choose one, please.

"The war on violent jihadism" Another stupid name.

1. It picks out an ordinary term from the Arabic language. Might as well just declare war on Islam.

2. 'jihad' = 'struggle' in Arabic. So, to translate 'The war on violent struggle' - under which banner Ultimate Fighting will finally be driven from the airwaves!

Upthread, a few people have asked, quite reasonably, some variation of "why does this thing need a catchy name?" Since there seem to be a number of SF readers hereabouts, I would direct them to "The Marching Morons" by C.M Kornbluth. Explains a lot of recent American political hisotry, if you ask me.

Beyond that, I think lampwick wins with "War on Al-Qaida." Pithy, and accurate.

We have [a] propped up butchers and tyrants for decades, wherever it served our "vital interests" (international corporate agenda). When we get [b] told to back off in the only language we understand, we refuse to see it as a response to our own actions. We instead claim to have been attacked on the initiative of our enemy, whom we define by his tactics, his religion, or the extremism which must motivate him. We then [c]wage war against him.

But [c] is just round three of [a]

It is not a war against anything. It is a war for American empire.

How about Wingnuts vs. Wingnuts, or WvW for short?

Thanks, BGRS, probably both sexual and just plain livin' life experiences. "Get a life. Move out of your parents' basement. You: have you ever kissed a girl?" - William Shatner, SNL

Halliburton Cash Cow War

(Truth in a jingle. :)

How about "law enforcement against radical fundamentalists"?

Granted, that my upset James Dobson, but I'm willing to take the chance.

"Anti-terrorist operations"?
(Shortens to "anti-terror ops".)

No one can object that this term excludes their favorite options, even so-called "war", yet it doesn't say "War".

Defense Against Jihadism (DAJ)

Western Imperialism: Surely The Future Universal Language?

The Bushies don't call it that but the title is what they're feeling.

It's a stumper.

Nahh...Edwards (and maybe Kev) could just be more specific about what they are saying, that's all.

Try Neutralization of Terrorist Entities (NoTE) as a substitute for 'Global War on Terror' and instead of 'Iraq War', use Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (IOI)...Then make sure that the two aren't conflated as they have been over the past few years.

But I think that Edwards' larger point that:

"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do...It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable..."

is spot on. Using the idea that what's going on now is a glorious War, an event on par with The Big One, the Bush administration is claiming a level of executive primacy far beyond anything I can remember.

Of course, very few people who have actually seen combat regard war as anything but a horrible necessity...not as a glamorous, for-profit undertaking.

It's a police action, not a war. Unlike Korea, our last "police action," it is not limited to one Asian peninsula. Like Korea, we had most of the world on our side. And then the malignant morons invaded Iraq in their constant quest for votes. Oil, pleasing AIPAC, and upstaging daddy were added attractions. It is long past time to get out of Iraq, revive our ground combat arms, and get down to suppressing terrorism through sophisticated police work aimed at the communications, and weapons and money transfers terrorists need to survive without a state sponsor. You invade a nation only when you find a true state sponsor of terrorism. Bush and his fellow yellow bellied liars got it backwards, naturally. That is if you think they really care about fighting terrorism at all instead of just manly posturing to prove they really would have gone to Vietnam to fight in their generation's war if it only hadn't been so inconvenient.

xpara's right, "police action" would be the perfect name for it. Except that the phrase has been so badly misused in the past that it's almost a sardonic joke. Anyway, they definitely are more about manly posturing than actually fighting anything and what's more manly? Police Action, or War? Especially to those who've actually never done either one?

Kevin,

You wrote that Islamofascism is a "bad joke". I think that is the perception because the term was coined by a rather extreme right wing radio host.

I feel that Islamism as a philosophy is pretty dangerous due to its equivalence of treating Blasphemy and Apostasy to treason and as capital crimes. What makes it particularly serious is the sheer number of muslims in Europe and North America.

From http://muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm

"for the Prophet had said "Punish not with God's punishment (i.e., fire), but whosoever changes his religion, kill him with the sword."

You are welcome to read the full thing yourself.

- AKM

With apologies to Jon Stewart, it should be called "the Mess-o-potamian Incursion".

AKM - don't get too hung up on something that's written in the Koran. The Bible has plenty of violence in it, too. Historically speaking, Christian violence probably outweighs Islamic violence. Moslems are just catching up.

I've always liked the "global struggle against violent extremism" (G-SAVE). It should have had traction, but I suspect GWBush couldn't stand the idea of being a "struggletime president".

Okay, Bill Arnold, I laughed so hard at "struggletime president" that I thought I was gonna pee a little.

max: "Tom Friedman called it a war against religious totalitarianism..."

Until he very gradually realized that it would be fought by our own very version of the Taliban. Or does he realize it yet?

Kenji - Two words...Jesus Camp.

Kenji - Thanks. A friend e-mailed me a pretty good Friedman column from last week (the pro-Obama one). My reply was: I have just about lost all respect for the man. He went along with Bush's lies and smears about Iraq; Friedman was spectacularly wrong. And ever wonder why on the economics front, he sounds like a corporate shill? Might it be he's married into one of America's wealthiest families? etc. etc. etc. Friedman turned into an embarrassment. And I think he knows it.

"Religious totalitarianism" is not half-bad, (certainly less bad than WOT), although as others have pointed out in this thread, it has severe limitations, like Saudi Arabia. "War against al-Qaida" is probably the best here. That works for me.

I like Edwards. If he gets the nomination, it's not in the least difficult to conceive of a Democratic landslide*. The country is aching to vote Democratic. It will only increase in the remining 18 mmonths. Did anyone see the poll showing Bush at a 17% approval rating in New Hampshire? New-freakin'- Hampshire! A truly conservative state. (So might we see single digit approval ratings in really blue states in a year?)

*Can anyone honestly say this about Hillary or Obama?

How about "the War Against People Who Fight Back When We Steal Their Resources, Overthrow Their Leaders, And Install Our Own Puppet Governments"?

Too "in your face"?

Tip for the Edwards people or whoever else would like to use it.

It's not the "war on terror". It "Bush's War".

Always refer to it as Bush's War. He chose he it. He planned it. And he claimed he already won it 4 years agot.

We will no longer fund Bush's War.

I think we are fighting crime and criminals. I view the tiny number of people who flew planes into the WTC building as criminals. They have to be hunted down and brought to justice via criminal investigative tools and methods.

Of course, if you invade a country, destroy its infrastructure and institutions, and spark an insurgency and civil war, that's a different matter. It's called insurgency and/or civil war.

If you try to impose apartheid on the folks next door and spark an uprising, then it’s called an uprising, or maybe an intifada. Not a war, no.

The War Against Those Brown People Who Helped Us Fight A War Against Those Asian People With Bushy Eyebrows

Brojo Wins!

Although a well-placed "scary" or two would've added some punch.

Edwards was an extraordinarily successful plaintiffs' lawyer, but to anyone who knows that type of lawyer, he comes across as a complete and calculating phony.

I think he has been so successful in life as a phony that he has lost the ability to see himself accurately, e.g., the house, the haircut, the hedge fund, etc.

Now, he has a "We the People" television ad up that actually features Washington inside political operatives as supposedly the "people."

I think he will do better than expected in the primaries. He might have about a 20% chance of being the nominee and probably a 50% chance of being elected president if he gets the nomination.

I think I have to reevaluate Mr. Edwards' candidacy. I like it that he wants to reframe Bush's war rhetoric and that he said, "Bush and his gang." Perhaps Mr. Edwards can be a good communicator and lead a change of the American character.

Shouldn't call it a "war" because there is no "it". There's a wide range of responses that are helpful when terrorists attack, many or most of them not particularly warlike.

If you MUST call it a war, call it "Bin Laden's War", because we are doing exactly what he wants us to do - overreaching and misreacting to his attack on the US on September 11. He wanted the US killing Arabs (to recruit for him) and to be bogged down in some Arab country (to weaken the US in image and reality.)

Worked for him in Afghanistan versus the Soviets. Didn't work for him in Afghanistan versus the Americans, but just when things were looking bad, the Americans saved his jihad plans by attacking Iraq. Whew!

Now, Bin Laden's nutcake "Caliphate" plans will never come to pass ("him and what army?") but he can be extremely dangerous and troublesome in the meantime all the same.

Brian is absolutely correct - Only someone who has come directly from a Jump for Jesus Mission, after spending the previous night listening to some ear banging and eating his SOS in the morning, should be able to run for President. Otherwise, he, or she, would be a phony.

Or some poor kid raised either in Casper, WY or Midland, TX, with just a touch of help from the kindness of strangers.

Brian, you have influenced me. I'm going to back Edwards. Anyone who rubs you that wrong has got to be right.

Yeah, Brian, Edwards is one of those plaintiff lawyers . . . like Abe Lincoln. And William Howard Taft.

Something utterly beyond the comprehension of these trolls with no lives, one of the things I admire about John and Elizabeth Edwards - beyond how they are now graciously handling Elizabeth's cancer - is how they coped with the death of their 16 year old son. My wife and I lost twin sons when she was 32 weeks' pregnant, and it was a terrible and life-defining experience, as no one without children can even begin to comprehend. So seeing how a couple can be so gracious about losing a 16 year old is most commendable.

John and Elizabeth Edwards pass the character test.

MaxGowan, I am so very sorry for your loss.

Appreciate it, BGRS. It does teach you some things. In spite of our loss, we carried on, and have two wonderful sons, ages 11 and 9.

Fine exchange of humaneness between MaxGowan and BGRS.

However, can understand why Brian would want someone who has suffered through the very painful losses incurred in defending GM gas tank fires, the tobacco industry, and spending over 40 Mill going on a wild goose chase. Someone who has sat in corporate board rooms listening to the angst of losing a product's liability case. And for what, so he could earn a few schekels to spend eating with the masses at McDonalds? Yeah, Corporate Whore Civil Defense counsels for Prez, that's the ticket. Revoke Li vs. Yellow Cab!!!

How about just calling it:

George's War on THEM.

We keep the same acronym and it's completly multifunctional. Can be used on Iraqi's, British Squaddies, Democrats, Afghani's, the American People etc...

TheThirdPaul, can understand your viewpoint, but would ask who the credible alternative is?

Stick with a European perspective when it comes to politicians. They expect each and every one to have the morals of a polecat, the honesty of a compulsive liar and the integrity of an Enron CEO.

You want Jesus, the morally uncorrupted, the chaste, the just?

He was so popular that the conservative forces at work in his society nailed his arse to a cross - allegedly.

You have pie in the sky expectations sunshine.

Bill Clinton was the fastest dick in Arkansas and Washington and no doubt somewhere there's some financial irregularity. But what the f*ck, he was the best damn President of the last forty years and because of his chequered past he was more human, humane and effective.

"George's War on THEM"

The Human Enemy Mob? [Sorry, best I could do; I'm tired tonight.]

TheWesson's comment gets it about right. There is no "it" there, and the last thing you want to do is give assorted malcontents around the world the illusion that they share a common cause.

Which is basically what the British government has concluded.

bad rabbitt,

Agree with your points - My point is that the Repugs are constantly knocking Plaintiff Trial Lawyer's - They begrudge them any penny earned representing the little guy. Yet, they extol Defense Lawyers such as Ken Starr.

I have known some very fine gun slingers on the plaintiff's side - Not all were pure as the driven snow, perhaps a few were rakes and egotistic as any superstar, but they went to the mat for their clients - They were not the "Oh, those great big wonderful Billable Hours" Defense types - Some of the slimiest vermin I have ever encountered represented insurance firms, er their insured, er the insurance company; it does seem to blur after awhile.

Hell, I would rather see a Whip Lash Willie than a Lonesome Rhodes charlatan in the White House.

How about the War on People Resisting American Military Hegemony?

From the AP:

[Romney] said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught..."It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said.

Posted by: Stefan on May 3, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Ah, a new kind of "brainwashing." Or is it hereditary?

Okay, maybe it's a little crass and juvenile, but when I was working with the New Zealanders in Kyrgyzstan, they always used "The War Against Terrorism" - note the acronym. They loved it so much they made patches for their flightsuits and painted the letters on their aircrew van. They even got into trouble for painting the acronym in huge letters on the road that ran along the perimeter of the base. A rowdy bunch, but damn they were fun to work with! I should note, their navigator was female and she thought it was just as funny as everyone else.

I agree that the Edwards have handled the horrible death of their son with great dignity and have not attempted to gain political advantage from it. It appears their subsequent entry into politics and pursuit of the presidency has some connection to their son's death, but I don't think that is any reason to criticize them.

My problem with Edwards as a candidate is that he contiuously uses the same tricks as a plaintiff's attorney to try to secure votes, e.g., the two Americas schtick that he effectively delivered in precisely the same manner thousands of times is the equivalent of a well rehearsed closing argument. He is so good as an attorney that you just shake your head, but I see phoniness in him repeatedly when he responds to issues.

The "son of a millworker" is another example -- it is true only in a technical sense -- his father started as a millworker but had advanced to management by the time Edwards was growing up, ultimately was plant manager and then worked as a consultant. Edwards of course knows the son of a millworker theme is not really true, but like the most dangerous of plaintiff's lawyers, he takes a small piece of fact, and groslly exaggerates it to try to sell his case.

brain, nobody cares what you think.

Max, I've come to believe, too, that Edwards could win this thing big. Edwards-Richardson is a particularly winning combo, I suspect, with the whole youth+experience theme going for it. Not only are the Repubs over-prepared for Hilary, the whole country is sick of Bush v Clinton, and Edwards incorporates some of the most viable elements of Kerry and Gore without their baggage.

I'm just praying that Giuliani gets the nod on the other side: a volatile, power-mad, cross-dressing Cosmopolitan philanderer vs a one-marriage Southern White Man. It will be an incredible role reversal for the parties, and for the country. And I like the way Edwards keeps moving left and the country is convinced that he is in the center.

The only thing the Rs know is packaging, and this time they are going to have their ribbons and bows handed back to them--with razor wire attached.

How about the First Oil War?

This obsession you have with plaintiff's trial lawyers, Brian; Lose another slip and fall or were you forced to actually pay off a policy - Might hurt your Claims Adjusting record.

And, I'm glad to see you going after Bill O'Reilly who loves to claim his father was blue collar, except for the fact that he was a white collar middle manager - Keep up the pit bull routine, Brian.

My problem with Edwards as a candidate is that he contiuously uses the same tricks as a plaintiff's attorney to try to secure votes, e.g., the two Americas schtick that he effectively delivered in precisely the same manner thousands of times is the equivalent of a well rehearsed closing argument.

Being a competent public speaker is not much of a "trick", nor is it restricted to plaintiffs' attorneys. Most professional advocates, including courtroom attorneys and successful politicians of all stripes, use that "trick".

But attorneys who specialize in representing defendants, er insurance companies or giant corporations, in civil matters, are barred from using that "trick". Geez, that estoppal must go alllll the way back to common law.

Ken Starr using a "trick"? Hah!

Why are communication skills, used on behalf of an individual or a progressive agenda, considered "tricks"?

"Ongoing counter-terrorism operations" might encompass the political, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement and military strategies and tactics necessary to replace the phrase "global war on terror."

Whatever the US is doing against "violent jihadists" (I can see see their little beards now!) is - or ought to be - just classic Interpol/CIA skulduggery, spy stuff, and cloak and daggers. It's not a war. It's a police operation. Al Qaeda aren't warriors - they commit crimes. And their criminal acts must be stopped and punished.

7m8obj amqxwjyypnut, [url=http://ncfdnhcimnrd.com/]ncfdnhcimnrd[/url], [link=http://gfkjammvimrq.com/]gfkjammvimrq[/link], http://vcfvqrxjnawo.com/