The August 1, 2005 article "War on Terror, Rest in Peace" at http://alternet.org/story/23810/?page=1 states "Though politically useful for Bush and his minions, the 'war frame' never fit the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power -- but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.
The "War on Terror" is no more. It has been replaced by the "global struggle against violent extremism." The phrase "War on Terror" was chosen with care. "War" is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack -- an attack that can only be defended militarily, by use of armies, planes, bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war powers for the president, who becomes commander in chief. It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support for the war effort is treasonous. It forces Congress to give unlimited powers to the President, lest detractors be called unpatriotic. And the war frame includes an end to the war -- winning the war, mission accomplished!
The war frame is all-consuming. It takes focus away from other problems, from everyday troubles, from jobs, education, health care, a failing economy. It
justifies the spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits into battle with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent
civilians. It justifies torture, military tribunals, and no due process. It justifies scaring people, with yellow, orange, and red alerts. But, while it was politically useful, the war frame never fit the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power, but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat
The new phrase is less comprehensible, long, complicated. You almost have to memorize it: "global struggle against ...what was that exact wording again? Oh
yeah, "violent extremism." It doesn't sound like poetry, but it a perverse way it is. It says the administration's policy is like the words for it: hard to comprehend, long, complicated. The new phrase is not memorable, and that's the point."
Atwater as his political brain, could not get himself to trot out a war in the mid-term election period as Rove advised W to do.
We should never have opened an Iraq theatre of war in big bro 43's GWOT. We have become a paper-tiger because of his mismanagement of our military. His
hypocritical vow to get "those who are against us" was only for red state votes! If you are spouting tripe like that without a calmly approached, detailed plan
you're going to run into a mess.
Anytime you happen to think big bro 43 is protecting us reflect on "Al-Qaida, increasingly shut down in Iraq, is establishing cells in other countries as
Osama bin Laden's organization uses a "safe haven" in Pakistan's tribal region to train for attacks in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Africa and the United
States, the U.S. intelligence chief said Tuesday. "Al-Qaida remains the pre-eminent threat against the United States," Mike McConnell told a Senate hearing more than six years after the 9/11 attacks. He said that fewer than 100 al-Qaida terrorists have moved from Iraq to establish cells in other countries as the U.S. military clamps down on their activities, and "they may deploy resources to mount attacks outside the country."
The al-Qaida network in Iraq and in Pakistan and Afghanistan has suffered setbacks, but he said the group poses a persistent and growing danger. He said
that al-Qaida maintains a "safe haven" in Pakistan's tribal areas, where it is able to stage attacks supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan."
So, W didn't track him down "dead or alive" in Afghanistan and opened up the Iraq theatre so that al-Qaida could train against US military and recruit. Maybe
W wants bin laden to become powerful enough that he can again attack the US.
Everyone always contradicts each other because they are merely spouting propaganda, not attempting to develop a cohesive policy as "U.S. officials have
said they believe that bin Laden is taking refuge in the Pakistani tribal region, likely on the Pakistani side of the border. Still, McConnell praised Pakistan's cooperation in the fight against extremists, saying that hundreds of Pakistanis have died while fighting terrorists. He said Islamabad has done more to "neutralize" terrorists than any other partner of the United States.
Despite the Pakistani cooperation, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the Pakistani military has been unable to
disrupt or damage al-Qaida terrorists operating in the tribal border region. And the U.S. military is prohibited by Pakistan from pursuing Taliban and al-Qaida
fighters that cross the border to conduct attacks inside Afghanistan."
al-Libi's location was known for years. His movements were public knowledge. The US should have obliterated him years ago, but didn't. Why? W's Pakistani buddy Musharraf can't allow the US free movement in his country.
The article "Senior Qaeda Commander Is Killed by U.S. Missile" at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/world/asia/01qaeda.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=login
states "Two top American intelligence officials - Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director -
traveled secretly to Pakistan in January to press President Pervez Musharraf to allow the C.I.A. greater latitude to operate in the tribal territories.
Mr. Musharraf rebuffed proposals to expand any American combat presence in Pakistan.
Instead, Pakistan and the United States agreed to consider a series of other joint efforts, including increasing the number and scope of missions by remotely piloted Predator aircraft over the tribal areas. The C.I.A. has fired missiles from Predator aircraft in the Pakistan tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success. Intelligence officials said they believed that in January 2006 an airstrike narrowly missed killing Ayman al-Zawahri, the second-ranking Qaeda leader, who had attended a dinner in Damadola, a Pakistani village."