posted August 01, 2005 01:16 AM            

WASHINGTON - President Bush and White House officials still use the phrase "war on terrorism" to describe the global fight against al-Qaida and other militant extremists. But with the failure to capture Osama bin Laden and a recent surge in terrorist bombings, there is growing sentiment at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the administration to retire "war" and use broader terms.

The internal debate broke into the open last week when Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the National Press Club 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. And it's more than terrorism," Myers said. He said "violent extremists" were "the real enemy here and terror is the method they use."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld already has moved away from the "war on terror" description, saying the conflict is a "global struggle against violent extremism."

Bush has not wavered, however, since the term took hold after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"We are engaged in a war on terrorism. It's a long-term ideological struggle that we're engaged in," said his spokesman, Scott McClellan.

Asked about the language that Rumsfeld and Myers were using, McClellan said, "I think that they're just talking in greater detail about what we're engaged in."

An analyst who has studied the Iraq war's effect on U.S. politics said the administration "purposely commingled the war on terror and the war in Iraq."

"We're going to have an interesting time watching how the Bush people get themselves out of this rhetoric cul-de-sac," said Stephen J. Cimbala, a Penn State University political science professor.

Bush also likes to say the U.S. is fighting terrorists abroad "so we do not have to face them at home."

But bombings this month in London and Egypt showed that terrorists seemingly can strike with impunity anywhere, renewing debate about Bush's formulation.

Critics suggest that the Iraq war, rather than making Americans safer at home, has provided terrorists with a laboratory for new tactics.

"In fact, what Iraq has become is a training ground for al-Qaida beyond its wildest dreams," said Michele Flournoy, a senior Pentagon official in the Clinton administration.

For every militant killed in Iraq, "there will be many more who pass through Iraq, become battle-hardened and more expert in their craft, and who go to other places to launch attacks in the future," said Flournoy, now a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Bush has added a second part to his fighting-terrorists-abroad line to emphasize what he calls "a dual strategy."

"One, stay on the offense, bring these people to justice before they hurt us. And, at the same time, spread an ideology that competes with their ideology, and that's an ideology of democracy and freedom," the president recently told an Atlanta audience.

Bush said the battle is with those who have an "ideology of hate."

It echoes the main theme of Bush's second inaugural address: spreading democracy and freedom through the world.

Some outside experts think the time to retire the "war on terrorism" phrase is long past.

"We are fighting al-Qaida and its allies precisely because they are bombing people. We should be challenging not only their terrorist tactics but also their ideology that leads them to kill in the name of religion," said Kim R. Holmes, former assistant secretary of state in the Bush administration. Holmes now is affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization.

Yet even at the Pentagon, there is some support for the catch phrase.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "war on terror" probably is here to stay for a while longer.

"It is a discussion that has been had philosophically with our allies. And we've been told actually that global war on terrorism translates pretty well into the various languages. So I think that continues to make it a part of the discussion," Conway said.

Vice President Dick Cheney has his own variation. He cites a need to "hunt down the terrorists before they can hit us again."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.

posted August 01, 2005 01:27 AM            

"And it's more than terrorism"

"global struggle against violent extremism"

"It's a long-term ideological struggle"

"a dual strategy"

"spread an ideology that competes with their ideology, and that's an ideology of democracy and freedom"

"We should be challenging not only their terrorist tactics but also their ideology that leads them to kill in the name of religion"

--------------------

posted August 01, 2005 04:13 PM            

quote:

---

Sounds an aweful lot closer to what I've been saying, doesn't it Jwhop? It can't be about only killing.

---

Sorry Acoustic, what those in the Bush Administration and Bush himself are saying and doing sounds nothing like your Hug a Terrorist Today rhetoric. Nothing about understanding their viewpoint, nothing about wafting the scent of peaceful discourse and protesting against terrorists and terrorism in anything they had to say either.

Anyone who is not predisposed to terrorist activity has already seen the facts that 50,000,000 Muslims have been liberated from the most hateful, repressive and murderous regimes on Earth. They've also seen the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq to standards beyond what existed before the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam's brutal regime. They've seen representative governments set up in place of the repressive regimes they replaced, governments of the people. So any who remain unconvinced aren't going to be convinced and will use any excuse to give cover to their terrorist activities.

Bush calls terrorism, terrorism, calls terrorists, terrorists, calls the fight against them the War on Terrorism and the nations who support, fund, shelter and train terrorists, nations who are themselves headed by terrorists and dictators, those, Bush calls the Axis of Evil.

In the meantime, terrorists are being hunted down and killed and that isn't going to make those who are left hate the US any more than they do; nor is that a recruiting tool for other terrorist groups.

As usual, a reporter went fishing for something to show a rift in the Bush Administration and failed. His asinine assumptions and those he quoted in this story that America is not safer is sheer bombast. Anyone who thinks terrorist networks haven't been weakened by having their top leaders killed or captured, having hoards of their followers killed or captured, having their funding sources dried up, having their movements and communications tracked must be nuts.

posted August 07, 2005 10:48 PM              

quote:

---

THE PRESIDENT:"In the face of such adversaries there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy"

---

***********

U.S. Embassy in Saudi Closes for 2 Days
Aug 7, 3:42 PM (ET)
By DONNA ABU-NASR

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - The U.S. Embassy and consulates in Saudi Arabia will be closed Monday and Tuesday because of a threat against U.S. government buildings, the embassy said Sunday.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050807/D8BR68I81.html

posted August 09, 2005 05:28 PM            

What's Bush doing with this evil man TINK? How about ensuring a steady supply of oil for the energy needs of western civilization.

Let's see, leftists are totally against every alternative energy source...against nuclear power, against wind power, against coal to oil conversion, against drilling for new reserves in the US..including ANWR.

So, what are leftists for?

posted August 09, 2005 06:02 PM            

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: August 4, 2005
GRAPEVINE, Tex., Aug. 3

President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the "global struggle against violent extremism," the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.

In recent public appearances, Mr. Rumsfeld and senior military officers have avoided formulations using the word "war," and some of Mr. Bush's top advisers have suggested that the administration wanted to jettison what had been its semiofficial wording of choice, "the global war on terror."

In an interview last week about the new wording, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, said that the conflict was "more than just a military war on terror" and that the United States needed to counter "the gloomy vision" of the extremists and "offer a positive alternative."

But administration officials became concerned when some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift in policy. At the same time, Mr. Bush, by some accounts, told aides that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the wording he had consistently used since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy.

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Mr. Bush said in his address here, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."

Mr. Bush made a nod to the criticism that "war on terror" was a misleading phrase in the sense that the enemy is not terrorism, but those who used it to achieve their goals. In doing so, he used the word "war," as he did at least 13 other times in his 47-minute speech, most of which was about domestic policy.

"Make no mistake about it, this is a war against people who profess an ideology, and they use terror as a means to achieve their objectives," he said.

Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on July 18 in an address to the National Press Club 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."

General Myers said then that the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

On Wednesday, in its efforts to hammer home the point that the "war" phraseology was still administration policy, the White House sent e-mail messages to reporters after Mr. Bush's speech with some excerpts of an address delivered Tuesday by Mr. Rumsfeld. In that speech, Mr. Rumsfeld backed away from the new language he had been employing in recent weeks.

"Some ask, are we still engaged in a war on terror?" Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no mistake about it. It's a war. The president properly termed it that after Sept. 11. The only way to defend against terrorism is to go on the attack."

In a telephone interview on Wednesday evening, a spokesman for the Pentagon, Lawrence Di Rita, sought to play down any disagreement between Mr. Rumsfeld and the president, citing the secretary's speech on Tuesday, in Dallas.

"The secretary doesn't feel this is push back," Mr. Di Rita said. "He feels it's an important clarification."

In introducing the new language, administration officials had suggested that the change reflected an evolution in the president's thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks and had been adopted after discussions among Mr. Bush's senior advisers that began in January.

The new slogan quickly become grist for late-night comics and drew news coverage that linked it with the emergence of a broad new approach to defining and attacking the problem of Islamic extremism through diplomacy and efforts to build closer ties to moderate Muslims, as well as through military action.

Mr. Bush arrived in Texas on Tuesday, and is spending the rest of the month at his vacation home in Crawford. After winning a string of legislative victories before Congress recessed for the summer, Mr. Bush also used his appearance here to try to build support for the issues that will be at the top of his agenda when he returns to Washington.

posted August 09, 2005 06:17 PM            

I especially liked this part:

quote:

---

Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on July 18 in an address to the National Press Club 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."

---

posted August 09, 2005 06:31 PM            

I told you in an earlier post on this subject Bush calls terrorism, terrorism, calls terrorists, terrorists, calls the fight against them the War on Terrorism. Bush restated his position in that speech.
BTW, I told you that on August 1st, before Bush reemphasized who's in charge of the Executive Branch of Government and it's not the Generals, not Rumsfeld, not Rove, not speechwriters and most definitely not the lunatic leftist morons of the press.

posted August 09, 2005 10:13 PM              

what was wrong with afghanistan? a no mans land....the uncharted backyard playground for iran and pakistan.. right there smack dab in between iran and pakistan.....as if that doesnt attract enough "terrorists" (while we try to quell local insurgencies there...)heck even the spineless french went into afghanistan with us.....

i suppose we have to be in iraq to attract the "terrorists" from saudi arabia and syria too right?

it wouldve been nice to see him say that before the war!!

"we're going to invade and occupy iraq as a last resort not because saddam has wmd....not because he is any real backer of international terrorism.....not because he had anything to do with 911.......not because of that thing about him repressing his people while poppy helped.......but because u.s. troops will act like fly papered sitting ducks to "terrorists" from saudi arabia, who would otherwise be attacking the u.s. homeland in waves!!"

posted August 09, 2005 10:14 PM            

I have no idea whether Bush ever sees the criticisms of policy I send by email or whether any tallies of emails or comments to the President are even kept but I have been remiss by not acknowledging when he's right, using the same channels and that's going to change.