I think you are sending a confusing message if you are claiming that we are bringing democracy to Iraq and simultaneously claiming that Iraq is the fly trap to attract terrorists so we can fight them over there and not here. Every group that has looked at our occupation of Iraq has claimed it is actually aiding the recruitment of new terrorists who hate America.

It is beyond belief that america rewarded the dem party with an election. God bless our brave troops who will win despite the dems and God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.

Get this guy some Dramamine...pleez!

There was no political intent in doing this," said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. "We were just trying to avoid catch phrases."

So, to avoid using "Bush's catch phrases," they encourage "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world."

Someone's "catch phrases" seem better than others, now. Of course, they successfully separate the battle in iraq from the War on Terror and make them separate conflicts.

No political intent, though. *rolling eyes*

Speaking of trying to seperate things has there been any word on the funding for the troops still in Afganistan?

To Democrats: Denial of reality never got anyone anywhere.

I have said it many times.

The "War on Terror" is a total farce, a con, that Republicans use to consolidate power and smear political opponents.

There can be no more a war on terror than there can be a war on anger.

Terror is a tactic that oppressed or fanantical people use against a power far stronger to weaken and it or for some short sighted political gain.

You are duped if you think that we are at "war" with anyone or anything.

Wade

Gee, Wade. How many more buildings occupied need be destroyed before someone is willing to take a stand?

How many attacks are needed both overseas and at home against U.S. interests before the left realizes there is in enemy there in radical Islam?

Would a nuclear attack in New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Chicago or another large city, or maybe a massive chemical attack be enough for the left?

Personally, I doubt it. Appeasers have always thought they could talk their way out of anything, no matter how many others have to die first.

Every group that has looked at our occupation of Iraq has claimed it is actually aiding the recruitment of new terrorists who hate America.

Every group, carpool? Every group? Which groups comprise this so-called every group of yours? Every left-wing kook group?

How old are you? My guess is college-age, or younger. You sure don't have much upstairs that you can call your own...

Lew,

Looks like these donk-turds have been listening to George Lackoff(sp), some kook out in CA who tries to assist the left in "framing." Either that, or they're avoiding the words "terror," "terrorism," and "terrorist." They don't want to offend other human beings, after all. *BARF!!!*

Wade,
Can there be a war on cancer? A war against poverty? Yes, there can be a war on terror or anything else that continually threatens our lives. I think it's just a matter of how this war has been conducted that is a matter of contention. Of course there was "political intent in doing this". Again, we're just dealing with political semantics here, of which both sides are guilty.

Before the Iraqwar forty six countries were listed as having al-Qaeda cells. Iraq was not one of them. To fight this non- Iraqi al-Qaeda threat the "Great Decider" took almost 90% of our military resoures from around the world to fight non al-Qaeda cells in Iraq. The logic escapes me.

George Walker Bush, the most dangerous Errorist on Earth, perhaps even the universe.

I love the self-stroke of posting on this blog and using as your source another blog you write, Matt.

Facts be darned!

I love how people like Matt and Mark celebrate the will of the American people when they give a decisive victory to Bush in 2004, but they attack those same Americans when they elect Democrats.

Unlike Matt and Mark, though, I don't think they're seditious for doing so. Bad writers? Yeah. Simple minded brownshirts? Yeah. But not traitors. In fact, I welcome their continued rants because it helps, in a miniscule way given their level of influence, to further marginalize the Radical Rightwing hatekooks in America. But at least Jeremiah will still kneel before them...

"Would a nuclear attack in New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Chicago or another large city, or maybe a massive chemical attack be enough for the left?"

Many people on this very blog celebrated the deaths of all the liberals in the WTC. Mark himself has said that he wishes all us liberals would leave America one way or another. I sometimes wonder if losing one of our great cities like NY or LA would really bother someone like Keefer or Rev. Jeremiah Wingnut.

At any rate, those of us who live in the real world are anxious to see a real war against the terrorists who attacked my town that day. Only the rightwingnut kook contingent still believes that IRaq should have been a part of that. Once President Gore comes in Jan. 2009, he'll clean up y'all's mess just fine. And no need to say thanks...

Also, the GWOT phrase was abandoned by Rummy's memo in 2005, Matt. Facts be darned!

Did anyone read the article? The request can be paraphrased as "when you ask for money, you must tell us exactly what it is for, rather than provide a vague description." I realize most Republicans support unlimited government spending, but it would be nice to have some clue as to where the money goes. At least the people who control the purse strings should have an idea.

When did Republicans become the party that believes the government should be trusted completely, and should be allowed all the money it asks for? I thought you guys questioned this stuff.

We tried denial during the Clinton administration and it led to 9/11. Brushing a war under the carpet will not make it go away.

Gorewarright (aka dougiew) is drinking some mighty stong koolaid! I never saw one thread celebrating the deaths of liberals on 9/11. Liar. (tick tock tick tock)

The Dems aren't trying to avoid catch phrases. They're trying to avoid falling from the graces of OBL and his ilk. After all, AQ and other terrorist groups were very pleased the Dems took over congress ... they'll also be pleased to learn their war is no longer a war against them. Go figure.

ChooseLife: Yeah, I bet all the aliens in the universe are shaking in their boots. LOL!

Kimberly, I'm sorry you're plagued with such paranoia and ignorance.

At any rate, the Dems are the ones that wanted to kill OBL. Your Dear Leader and the other brownshirts(skirts?) were focused on Saddam. If a Democrat had acted as Dear Leader, one of you wingnuts would have shot him or her already.

And check the archives. BearmanUSMC is on record calling for liberals to stand in front of OBL so that he can shoot them both. His statements were not deleted and were cosigned by Mark and Leo.

Check yo facts, sweet tits.

Kimmy, I don't know who DougieW is but you seem to attribute everything you can't get your teensy brain around to this person.

Now, go bake your cookies and obey hubby.

Many people on this very blog celebrated the deaths of all the liberals in the WTC.

Poppycock!!! I don't know of anyone, right or left, who celebrated anybody's death on 9/11.

Now, define "real war against the terrorists."

Had Gore been at the helm on 9/11, we would still be searching for who to apologize to for upsetting them enough to slaughter our people!

The democrats wanted to kill Bin Laden? Really? They had a strange way of pursuing such a purpose, unless you believe that destroying a few tents in the desert could be categorized as "wanting".

How many years, how many attacks, how many outrages, how many deaths had to occur while the democrat president ignored the threat? Yet the man had enough apparent resolve to send U.S. forces into battle against Serbia while the real threat, Bin Laden, sat secure in his mountain rathole.

What about Bin Laden? What about BIN LADEN? Sound familiar?

GWR writes: "Many people on this very blog celebrated the deaths of all the liberals in the WTC"

I told him he was a liar because NO ONE ever wrote that. He comes back with something Bear said that has nothing to do with his original statement.

GWR=Liar.

Fair enough about calling you Dougie W. From now on, I'll just call you BrownUnderwear ... because you, GWR, are full of crap.

“We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.” President Bush

“I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. … Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.”
Donald Rumsfeld

“General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had ‘objected to the use of the term war on terrorism before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.’ He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that ‘terror is the method they use.’”

it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control.

duh... This is exactly what they are trying to do.

I guess in your eyes the towers were just tall buildings they could hit flying fast in an airplane.

Also,I guess they should have neen tried in a court before they could be called terrorists.

Tom,
You make no sense. Try writing your comment again.

Tom,
Above your comment are quotes from President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and an article quoting General Myers. If you look again you'll see I included the quotation marks and attribution.
If you disagree with Rumsfeld, please take it up with him.

I don't think it should be called the Global War on Terror. It should be called the Global War AGAINST Islamic Extremists. I know it's not politically correct, but it fits the fight to a T.