Now if we can stop waging war on plants as well...

"war on terror" was nonsensical from the start: didn't anybody notice that it should have been "war on terrorism"? ... sort of like Bush's shortening of "Democratic" to "Democrat"

but it was also conceptually flawed, as it was a "war" that was never legal (did it ever meet constitutional muster?) and would extend into the future forever

good riddance to it ...

Gore Vidal said it best when he made the analogy to a war on dandruff.

Personally I liked the Mujahideen better when it was a typewriter in Naked Lunch. Let's bring back those halcyon days.

In the future, and just so there's no misunderstanding, the words “War on Terror� or “Global War on Terror�, should always be prefaced with the words “George W. Bush's�.

It's unfair to the majority of US citizens to phrase it any other way.

Terrorism is causing terror among a population through violence, possibly as a means to obtain a material or ideological end.

Ok, it's time to stop worrying about absurd right wing attacks. During the past 8 years, liberals (and I'm one) have gotten so defensive that they now anticipate and try to respond to crazed lunatic irrational (did I get enough adjectives in there to make the point?) objections to sane rational thought. Why? Why be so defensive?

At some point, liberals, and I hope the Obama Administration fits into that category, have to stop worrying. That doesn't mean ignore legitimate objections or different points of view. It means quit legitimizing crazy talk from the right by deferring to their spokespersons even before they've bloviated.

And one more thing: why is it that we liberals have gotten to the point that we trot out the most Republican or military or right wing person (i.e. Admiral Mullen) to validate what is obviously a correct statement or a cogent opinion? Let's just quit doing that. If 1+1=2, we don't need an Arlen Spector or a Richard Luger or Orrin Hatch, or a Colin Powell or Admiral Mullen or David Petraeus to say so. (sorry if I mangled any spelling of names).

If we are right, say so. If they are wrong, say so. Then explain why. Cite facts, history, objective evidence. And don't apologize for being right from day one or defer to those who have been consistently wrong, whether it's invading Iraq, not planning for securing the country, not anticipating an insurgency, not recognizing the insurgency when it happened, not paying attention to Al Qaida in the months leading up to 9-11, pretending that tax cuts are the answer to every economic situation in the face of resounding evidence that they aren't, and so on.

It's about time. "War on Terror" "Axis of Evil" "Homeland Security. Fucking fascist terminology which the republicans speak fluently.

"It's not what you say but what they hear," - probably Frank Luntz

The problem is too often the right want to offend. Like when Bush Sr. used to call Saddham, Sodom. He knew it would be received as an insult, but he continued. Republicans are not grammatically challenged when they use Democrat as an adjective. Elitists, Marxists, the Axis of Chocolate, Axis of Evil, etc.

I agree with Giant Kid to refer to it as the "Bush Administration's" War on Terror.

It is time for Americans to explain to the world that we are not all the same. For instance; Ahmadinejad insisted that America appologize for the 'wrongs' perpetrated on his country.

It would be great for President Obama to talk to Iran by saying: "As president of the United States I apologize for the horrible mistakes perpetrated by some Republicans and the Bush Administration as a whole. I will give you my personal assurances that our Justice Department will look into any and all allegations of misconduct and bring the evil-doers to justice."

If you pay attention to the nuances on the news media, especially on TV and Radio: Republicans tend to refer to "America" to describe the mistakes (Economy, war on terror)but never taking credit for the fact it was THEIR party and their ideology that brought us were we are.

Let's not refer to America when describing what's wrong, and put the blame where it belongs: Republican Party and conservative ideology.

Obama is always very careful with his symbolic language. (Ever notice that he always says, "God bless the United States of America" and not just "God bless America"?) So I'm guessing this is a deliberate choice to get away from the "War on Terror" rhetoric.

If Bush had been president in December 1941, he would have declared war on airplanes, and then invaded some country rumored to be building an airplane factory.

Something new in my heart.

I'm going to
believe that
everything shines
in the light
of a footprint,
with a loving
desire, in the
sound of the
darkness.....

Francesco Sinibaldi

Another loser tactic invented by losers that were scrambling to convince America that 911 was not the largest terror attack on the US. And one which to this day, we have never gotten justice or closure.

Dump it pronto!

Tom said: If Bush had been president in December 1941

The good news would have been, there would never have been a Korean War, a Vietnam War, or a Gulf War or any other war since World War II. Cuba would be a territory of the United States, not unlike Puerto Rico.

The bad news would be that we'd still be fighting the Cold World War II. Japan 'occupying' pretty much the most important parts of China, and the Pacific Rim; Germany pretty much in charge of Western Europe all the way to Moscow; Russia being a minor player.

So... Let's not even go there. Bush has done enough damage already, we don't need to imagine any more crazy stuff.

While we're at it, can we stop singing God Bless America during the 7th inning stretch at baseball games? It was a great idea for a year or two, but now, more than seven years after 9/11, it's just become an annoying nuisance. Politics and baseball do not mix.

First, the British, via Foreign Secretary David Miliband, have beaten us to the punch on this by several weeks, and with a more clear break.

"Struggle against terror," that said, isn't really that much different than "war on terror."

So, it remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen what Obama intends to do in A-stan and how and why.

===

Second, if Obama REALLY wants to change his language, he can stop talking about the "War on Drugs," I hope, and change his actions there.

I recall that Rumsfeld wanted the phrase dropped in favor of Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.

The "Global" part was always kind of wishful thinking by Dubya after her told our NATO allies.

"It's okay. I got this."

Nevermind that he DIDN'T, and WOULDN'T. Part of the idea of an alliance is accepting help. We claimed to be ready to give it is the USSR had attacked. Did we mean it? If we did, we were entitled to our allies support and they were ready. God bless 'em they were ready.

A true Global effort was postponed until an adult could take the wheel of the good ship USA. Here's hoping the new captain will recognize the value a willing fleet.

Can we please, PLEASE, get rid of the term "Homeland" now, too?

Terror isn't a tactic, it's an emotion. Terrorism is a tactic.

In Bush's defense, he wasn't doing too well fighting real wars or catching real terrorists (Where is OSB?), so he figured he had better odds picking a fight with a slogan.

He lost that one too...