Bush: It's my war and I'll cry if I want to!

[moodforaday]

Interesting report from RawStory:

Former CIA man says Bush not happy over new terror language

"Bush critic Larry Johnson, who served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism from 1989 to 1993, tells RAW STORY the intelligence community is 'abuzz' after President Bush purportedly said he was not happy about changing the Administration's terminology on terror."
(...)
Bush reportedly said he was not in favor of the new term, Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE). In fact, he said, "no one checked with me". That comment brought an uncomfortable silence to the assembled group of pooh bahs. The President insisted it was still a war as far as he is concerned.
(...)

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Former_CIA_man_says_Bush_not_happy_over_new_terror_la_0802.html

This goes a little toward confirming what I've believed for a long time - W is not the one who calls the shots. He certainly isn't shaping policy. I bet most of the time he's only fed lines to deliver.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. He wants to be known as the War President.

"The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism President" doesn't have quite the same snappy ring to it.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Hahahaha!

:rofl:

[rman]

4. LOL

[rman]

3. They can stuff their new term you-know-where

I'm not going to be orwellianized.

[moodforaday]

7. Don't know which of the two is more Orwellian

Both expressions are horrible. "War on terror" was a metaphor made flesh, and it was catchy in an unfortunate way.

GSAVE doesn't roll off the tongue at all - which is why * knows he can't say it without fumbling at least twice - and says what it means more directly. It's a good thing, because it's easier to criticize and poke holes in that way. What's troubling, of course, is the implied expansion of purpose.

So I'm not happy about the new term, but it's still a hoot when * cries and runs to mommy because "they" messed with his favorite toy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. It occurs to me that if what we're engaged in isn't a "war,"

but merely a "global struggle," etc., then what becomes of the president's war powers? Can we still continue to detain people at Gitmo if there's no "war"? And if they've changed the terminology, aren't they admitting there is no possible exit strategy, no possibility of a peaceful resolution, but instead a "struggle" that will go on indefinitely? Did they change the frame to avoid admitting they've lost the war?

[moodforaday]

8. It's an end run

around possible charges that Bush violated the constitution, since he has no authority to declare war. If the claim is now brought up, all you're gonna hear is "What war? There was never any war".

What this tells me is that some people must have read 1984 and LIKED IT.

[Inland]

9. No war powers, no claim to emergency powers.....

and no ability to tell the people to rally around the president for another three years.

[atommom]

6. "violent extremism" is a term we could apply to GW himself.