Bush Administration in Rebranding of 'War On Terror'
With pessimism about the war in Iraq, coupled with mounting skepticism about the nations link with terrorism, the Bush administration have announced a phasing out of the use of their much-publicised phrase 'war on terror'.
Emphasis has recently been put on 'a global struggle against the enemies of freedom' and the use of 'tools of statecraft' to beat them. All of this is to shift the branding of the war towards ideological struggle rather than a purely military one.
Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook echoed recent criticism when he remarked "I think the problem with George Bush's approach is that he does keep talking about it as a war on terror as if there is a military solution and there isn't."
...The War Against Terror, it seemed to fit so well with Bush's handling of events. But TW*T to TWOT wasn't too much of a change, but now the GSATEOF? How are we now going to know who's running the show? ;P
I for one am so sick of "War on..." because generally it means a failing policy that is going to be applied over and over again even when it doesn't work. For example the war on drugs.
Changing the name will not alter what it is but still it is an over used American buzz phrase and needs to be stopped. Also the term war is not a positive one, and should not be used so lightly.
At last there are signs of intelligent life: "For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
I love it when politicians start interpreting such polls, putting their favoritive spin on them as they go. "I think the American people understand the importance of completing the mission," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said when asked about the poll results. "Success in Iraq will help transform a dangerous region." But Scott - 32%, say the United States can't win the war in Iraq. 21% say the United States could win the war, but they don't think it will. So you're congratulating a minority of 43%. Now thats what I call an endorsement.
well at least they're finally admitting what the "war" is really about...
it's an "ideological struggle" meaning "our government is better than yours and we will invade you and make you obey our better form of gov't....and you'll like it because we said so"
First it was the "Search for WMD's", then it was "The War On Terror", now this???
I agree with GZadmin and whitewarrior, they should just call it what it really is. "We need more oil and Iraq has tons of it, oh and while we're at it we might as well give them a new government to make it sound like we care'
There's really no need to mention Kerry's name here when talking about flip-floppery - since Bush brought it up, it was pot v. kettle. The thing is, all Bush ever did was spin Kerry's Senate record and some poorly phrased statements. We, on the other hand, can observe Bush policy and law directly to see that he's as flexible as any politician, if not an outright hypocrite in many cases beholden only to what, or who, benefits him at the moment.
Really, things around the White House must be greased up like a pig at a fair, the way they slide everything around. "We're fighting nobley in the War on Terror in Iraq, because Saddam had...no, terrorists were...no...well, it's not really a war, it's...well, whatever it is, I'll fire anyone who leaks about it...well, as long as the leak is criminal...and that criminal act is..."
ARGH!
I only hope we can get some sanity and stability (dare I say, even honesty and integrity?) back when we get this yokel and his pack of ideologues out of the White House.
"I only hope we can get some sanity and stability (dare I say, even honesty and integrity?) back when we get this yokel and his pack of ideologues out of the White House."
but how long will his effects linger even after that fact...
Therein lies the problem - a country so large and diverse as the US needs a wider spectrum of choice at election time. If I was a US citizen it'd really get on my tits only having a choice of two - especially when both camps are rich businessmen with a variety of potential conflicts of interest. It leaves the political process wide open to corruption and manipulation. I suppose being the most capitalist nation in the world, though, you ain't about to get a socialist or environmentally-based political organization going with any great effect. Its all about image and who can use their funding to greatest effect in the media.
next election I am writing in Jesus Christ. In all seriousness I would write in Ross Perro because he had his schiet together more than Kerry or GW. I would even vote for Clinton, atleast we didn't go to war for some bull-crap reasons; the worst he did was get a little noggin in his office. Case close, so he lied; I bet 9 out of 10 people would lie about it also.
Finally I want to propose a petition to officially change the name from whatever GW wants to call his 'war on terror' to the 'International Let's Get More Oil Act' or ILGMOA for short. /end rant
How long will the effects of this administration linger? That's very hard to say. On one hand, they're definitely pushing for hard changes, since this is the NeoCons chance to really get their ideology codified into law. Because of this, they're going to make damn sure that what they do won't be easily undone. The US has already changed radically, and I worry about what they'll do as Bush's term draws to a close. They already needn't worry about re-election and are pushing hard, but I think they're still hesitating because they don't want things to come apart at the seams. Things are unravelling, of course, as browsing SN will show - the scandals are getting bigger and more objectionable while polls drop, and it's only 2005. If they want to keep pushing their agenda, they need to hold on until 2008, and so one has to wonder what will be proposed in the 11th hour.
As far as our election choices go, this is probably why most Americans don't vote, especially the young. Most are too cynical at this point to think that voting for either party matters at all. They are, to some extent, right, as evidenced by the last two elections in which bland candidates were propped up along the party line. It IS maddening, and the only reason I vote is because I believe that at least SOME good can be done in voting for the candidate who might be more honest, genuinely concerned, or at least mess up our country the least. Imagine going to a store that only carries two brands of food products, because "no one will buy those other brands." Both brands are generic and bland because they only really compete in counter-advertising. You have to choose one, though they both taste like crap. That is what voting in the US is like, and that is the reality of our much-touted democracy.
Although a shop would stock what the consumer wants rather than dictate to it what choice it can have and if it doesn't like whats on offer then the shopper can get its commie pinko ass out of the shop and go to another shop elsewhere if it really wants to. Not really my idea of a healthy democracy. I understand what you're saying though and it sucks.
