Indeed, nine days later, I'm still not quite sure what it is the right is complaining about.

American Muslims aren't being arrested en masse?
We haven't declared war on all Muslim countries?

Other than just general political opportunism, and possibly a casual interest in national security, this is all about perceived threats to the dominant (white, Christian) culture. I think I can see why they think their culture is under siege. I'm just not as sure as they are that it's a bad thing.

That seems right to me. A couple of items. First of all, Krauthammer's argument was based on three completely distorted (not just fudged) quotations. So the basis of his case (they don't use the word "terrorism") is false. Second, the Post today attempts to excoriate such critics of the "straw Obama". They maintain, in response to these attacks, that Obama really does use the language of war and evil. With defenders like those.

The "War on Terror" meme is more than an inapt phrase to describe what in actuality is an international criminal pursuit. It is a tool to frame the conflict in militaristic terms to justify the invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.

The Bush Administration used it purposefully after 9-11 and the American public bought it hook, line and sinker. The Obama administration took the first step in stopping the use of the term, but unfortunately still views the problem in the same twisted light.

Terrorism is a symptom, not the problem, which can only be solved through international political unity and enforcement coordination. The USA has to stop trying to solve the problem by itself and admit that it needs help from the international community. That means not acting like our shit doesn't stink.

Longer lines at airports, less comfortable flights, soon there will be scanning machines that show us all essentially nude to the TSA.

Still no one is inspecting all the container ships.

PS. Mr. Krauthammer - the only person who declared a war over in the last decade was George W. Bush. Dick Cheney said we were seeing the "last throws" of the insurgency.

I have missed out on the Krauthammer files . There are strong indications that he is delusional . You point out he produces this dreck for the deluded . He certainly succeeded in one task , getting his name inside a lot of heads . Who Brick Tamland "Seems to think" is a nice segue into the chiseled features of the Krauthammer . That is the dynamic frozen image a dollop of the enervating anger (wanger? Angry wanker) suppurating from the open wound that is Krauthammer's mind . The insolence of public wanking "... to make sure even the dimmest understand," is like the big balloon in the prisoner . Massive , suffocating , insubstantial , inert , and malevolent , good on ya Mr. Krauthammer

Sorry Steve, but what you "bourgeois" liberal thinkers don't get is the importance of symbols to the public. It doesn't matter (really, not just for show) whether you can "really" wage war on a tactic. The phrase "war on terror" meant war on terror-ists from context, so what's the big deal? They aren't a nation-state and can't be conventionally declared war on anyway. It's better to keep the symbolic phrases and take something from conservatives to complain about. The public is turning its nose up at the dorky approach, and Dems could take losses if they don't appreciate the "style" requirements - like them or not.

Can we try to be adults here?" Did you mean to put (snark) next to that? Please, don't ask Kraut-whatever to do anything other than act like a mindless pit bull fighting for a bone.

Chuck Krauthammer hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Krauthammer has devolved into nothing more than a hack. His arguments these days are on the level of Jim Hoft, completely dishonest.

The only difference is he has a bigger megaphone and sounds more intellectual and sophisticated. He's not.

The "War on Terror" meme is more than an inapt phrase to describe what in actuality is an international criminal pursuit. It is a tool to frame the conflict in militaristic terms to justify the invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.

Not to mention its other important feature -- by definition, it's a war that has no end.

Fools never seem to realize that when they circle the wagons, they can't move forward! By now it is obvious the Right is in nothing more than a circle jerk! -Kevo

The public is turning its nose up at the dorky approach, and Dems could take losses if they don't appreciate the "style" requirements - like them or not.

Er, facts not in evidence. What is the basis for the conclusion that the public (as opposed to the pundits, for whom the more bellicose answer is always right) doesn't agree with this approach?

I haven't seen any evidence of a downturn in polling, and from everything I've heard, people were more pleased that their travel plans weren't massively disrupted than displeased that there wasn't more official chest-thumping.

Brick Tamland: [shouts] Loud noises!

The far right wing is merely reacting to events. A one sentence response from the white house is more than sufficient. If the far right were acting on principle, they would stick to a dialog of objection for a period longer than the interval to the next tick in the news cycle.

"Can we try being adults about this?"

No.

This has been another edition of 'Stupid Answers to Stupid Questions.'

Well, polling has gone downhill but we'd have to trust the suspect R-ass-musin' polling scheme:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update
This is not just about the latest incident.
I stand by my defense of the phrase "war on terror" and the vapidity of the complain, "but you can't wage war on a tactic." Yes, you can and it's done all the time: war on poverty, war on defects (company TQM etc.), war on littering, war on bullying - all of which sound worse if you pick "war on [whoever does it]." Granted, we are warring against terror-ists, but we're also trying to impede those things that make it easy for them etc.

And if the plane had blown up and rained wreckage over Detroit, what would you have said then. The fact that the trails leads back to Yemen, to at least one of those 'innocent' Gitmo detainees like
Al Shehri, that Durbin, Kerry, et al, were all pining for. It's another example of 'all is well' from the nutroots,

If chickenhawks like Cheney et al had bothered to show up, maybe they wouldn't be so confused about what war is.

I would really prefer it if we left the word "war" for the times that Congress declares war on another nation. Using the word metaphorically -- the war on drugs, the war on cancer, the war on carbon dioxide -- ends by turning all actions into military actions and the US into a nation that has only one way to deal with problems.

the "war on terror" has "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."

BINGO! That's exactly what Krauthammer wants.

Neil B @ 8:55: The public is turning its nose up at the dorky approach, and Dems could take losses if they don't appreciate the "style" requirements - like them or not.

Yeah! Obama talks like a fag, and his shit's all fucked up and retarded!!1!

There's nothing "incoherent" about conservatives' criticisms of Obama's counter-terrorism policies. You may disagree with those criticisms, but to pretend you don't understand them seems more than a little obtuse. And it doesn't elevate our discourse.

"War on terror" was not the most apt term the previous administration could have chosen, but it at least emphasized that we would confront those who are clearly at war with us (i.e., jihad) as if we were at war with them. IOW, we wouldn't deal with terrorism as either a law enforcement issue or as a low-level priority; and we would attempt to the DEFEAT the enemy, not stand down in hopes of their eventual rehabilitation.

The conservative criticism of Obama centers on the idea that he hasn't shown himself to be committed to waging a hot war against jihadists. He has definitely backed away from the use of "WOT", he wants to treat captured terrorists as criminal defendants, and his overall approach to foreign policy places a disturbing emphasis on apologizing for Americans sins and winning the approval of other countries.

Granted, nothing has happened that would prevent Obama, from this point forward, from being every bit as dedicated and every bit as successful as the Bush administration in combatting terrorism. However, Obama hasn't yet earned his bona fides in this dept., and unless and until he does, he can definitely expect his leadership on the terrorism issue to remain under sharp scrutiny.

BTW, Islamic terrorism isn't really a "tactic." That would imply it's a means to a strategic end. For Islamic jihadists, killing Americans isn't a means to an end, it's the end itself.

"every bit as successful as the Bush administration in combatting terrorism. "
CB on January 3, 2010 at 11:41 AM

You mean allowing only the single largest terroristic incident ever to happen unimpeded on their watch?
Mighty low bar there...

It's hard to overstate who strikingly dumb this is.

C'mon, Steve, get a grammar checker. If you're going to call something dumb, it'd carry more weight if, you know, you did so in a way that didn't look dumb.

As to the Global War on Terror: I thought that the Bush Administration ended this in 2005 and we were now in a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.

Charles Krauthammer is a stupid man. Why do you care what he thinks? Because others do? Being able to string sentences together does not mean one can think deeply or that one can overcome ones fundamental prejudices to understand a situation. Krauthammer seems to exhibit both of these weaknesses. He is a frightened, stupid man. I wish him well.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Well, I don't approve of much of the way the public's attitudinal gears work, but you have to pamper them or lose elections. Sad but true - if you'd rather be right-styled than President, you'll get your wish. I would rather educate the public than give in to them, is that possible?

It's hard to overstate who strikingly dumb this is.

Nope. Krauthammer is just lying.

"[H]is overall approach to foreign policy places a disturbing emphasis on apologizing for Americans sins and winning the approval of other countries."

In the imagination of conservatives, yes. In reality, no. Obama has not apologized for American "sins" and is treating other nations with respect instead of Bush-style arrogance. This approach is already yielding dividends, with nations such as Russia and China showing more willingness to work with us on issues that matter to us.

To conservatives, however, this kind of approach is considered weakness, pandering, and apologizing. I guess they consider any foreign policy approach other than bluster, chest-thumping, and arrogance to be weak, craven, unpatriotic, and dangerous to our national security.

it's not either/or with the kraut...he's both stupid and immoral....lying is just trivia to a guy like that...

Of course Krauthammer is lying... he has been lying for years. Understand that Krauthammer is well connected and loved by the conservative "in crowd" in Washington D.C. He KNOWS what is going on... it's his job to know what is going on... so to suggest that he has not been paying attention is blatantly naive..... which leaves us the obvious alternative... Krauthammer is lying. Nothing new about that. Krauthammer is not stupid... or ignorant.... he is simply dishonest.

Give please. All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it. Help me! I can not find sites on the: 13 seer split air conditioning system. I found only this - split level air conditioning. Split air conditioning, it is actually the simplest and easiest to confine. Split air conditioning, you can cool them or you may almost maintain them for an attractive power or pan in your offices to their years. Thanks for the help :mad:, Pansy from Uganda.