Why do Democrats say "War on Terror?"

[garybeck]

The only way out of this is to stop playing their game.

There is no such thing as a war on "terror." You can't have a war on a word. You can have a war on a country, or a group of people. It is a stretch to have a war on a problem, like the war on drugs. But to have a war on an emotion is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen discussed in politics.

Every time I see a Democrat conceding to this stupidity, I want to puke. There is no war on terror. There is no such thing. Every time they say it, they are playing the Republican's game. they are cowering to the concern that citizens will think they don't support the troops if they express any dissent. I call BULLSHIT.

They should never use the phrase "War on Terror." And every time their opponent uses the phrase, they should call them to task. They should ask them to define exactly what the war on terror is. the should point out it is a useless phrase that serves no purpose, other than to encite fear and confusion.

[Marnieworld]

1. I've said this from the beginning

A courageous leader should point this out. If you don't concede the endless war then you don't concede all of the eradication of rights and law breaking that has happened in the name of it.

We were attacked by a gang of thugs. Wars are between nations and end.

[RufusEarl]

2. I completely agree with you!

[Jack Rabbit]

3. I often say "so-called war on terror"

Bush and his junta are fighting an honest war on terror. Instead of fighting terrorists, they invaded Iraq.

[Marnieworld]

4. Also Congress never declared a War

How can they say we are at war and hold up the Constitution to defend their commander in chief when the very same document proves there is no war?

[leftchick]

5. they use it because

they are afraid to look weak on defense. They have no idea how to take back the security issue without using repuke phrasing.

[snowbear]

6. I rarely hear Democrats use that term. And I NEVER hear them say

"War onTerra" either!

[garybeck]

7. I hear them say it often. n/t

[Kurovski]

8. I think the most realistic title is "Bush's War".

[endarkenment]

9. Internalization and regurgitation.

It is a visible symptom of a successful brainwashing effort from the 24/7 mediawhore propaganda division of the Ministry of Disinformation. Until we start to realize that The Matrix was an allegory of our current situation we are just thrashing in our sleep.

[Strawman]

10. But we can "do it smarter"

Look at this strategy that came out today. Dems are more or less articulating the orthodoxy of Bush's "war on Terror." "We can do it smarter." That's the difference.

Let's say we catch Osama bin Laden (that would be nice and needn't necessarily require war). Do we declare mission accomplished in the so called "war on terror" and come home? Why don't I believe that?

I'll tell you why: because the Dems have bought into this notion that they can't look like un-American pussies by questioning the wisdom of out of control defense spending and national defense by going on offense militarily. They need to take a rhetorical stance that demonstrates that they are willing to kick some ass too (no matter how stupid and counterproductive that is as policy) in order to win elections.

The rest of the world hates us because of President Bush and his arrogant so called "war on terror." We spend more and more on our national military offense (more than the rest of the world combined) in order to make ourselves and the rest of the world less and less secure everyday. Our domestic and foreign policy is increasingly anchored in complete unreality. Long standing domestic problems have gone completely unaddressed. It's time for some new ideas that comport with reality. We're heading toward a horrible precipice. Democrats are supposed to be the oppostion here. If Democrats don't present a new vision and save this country from disaster, who will? I have to believe there is some latent public opinion in America, untapped by the political parties and the press that senses this to some significant degree. I have to either believe that or believe that we're just fucked. I choose the former. I think it's our duty to try and speak to that in a positive way.

There's this tension between how does one have to think and speak as a Democrat to win the next election and how does one have to think as an American to literally save this country. If you use Bush's language to win, you become a prisoner to it. Our leaders are asking us to let them make a deal with the devil and trust in their political skill to finesse their way out of it once they gain power (wasn't that essentially the undertone of the Kerry campaign, and now this, to liberals?). I don't trust that.

[derby378]

11. Instead of "War on Terror," we should say "Reign of Terror"

Turn it back on this corrupt, criminal Bush administration.

[garybeck]

13. how about War OF terror?

[mike_c]

12. agreed 100 percent-- this is an utter sell out by dems....

The "war on terror" is a marketing slogan for perpetual military imperialism. The "opposition party" should be ashamed of themselves every time they tacitly acknowledge this sham "war."

[Vidar]

14. To keep their coporate mastahs happy.