You are herecontent / War on Terror Remake?

War on Terror Remake?


This column was written by CBS News Early Show Co-Anchor Harry Smith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you noticed, but the "War On Terror" is over. That ubiquitous catchall phrase that the administration so liberally used to help draw support for the War In Iraq has been deemed unfit for public consumption. From now on, it is "The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism."

You think I'm making this up?

Well Donald Rumsfeld seems to have dropped the War On Terror in favor of the clunkier "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism," and Monday at the National Press Club, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers said he objected to the old phrase. Said Myers, "Because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform being the solution."

Well the War In Iraq is a war. But, does this mean these guys are admitting that when they started it, it really wasn't a war on terror because there weren't any terrorists in the first place?

Google this when you get home tonight. It sounds to me like the administration is trying, in the words of a marketer, to "reposition a brand." Americans were more than happy to support the war in Iraq because they believed, and old polls bare this out, that it was part of the greater war on terrorism.

Support for that war has plummeted. So do we change its name and assume that no one will notice or that it doesn't matter? How about we go back and call the war in Iraq "The Perilously Dangerous Mission To Unseat Saddam Hussein And Install Democracy In A Country Full Of People Who Really Hate And Distrust Each Other"?

That might have been a tougher sell.

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

Harry's daily commentary can be heard on many CBS Radio News affiliates across the country.

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

George Bush said the war is over. That means we can bring our national guard and our troops home.

GWB is full of sh*t.
I think we have men that started a war on a LIE and are in way over there heads.
There making it up as they go,with human life on the line!

Perhaps there should be a contest to see who can come up with the most ludicrous name. Extra points for excess verbage, and double extra points if it can be made into an acronym. My entry is "Struggle To Unite People In Dispute" or "STUPID"

With an Arsenal--- WAR

yes, but emphasize the "ARSE" and "[A]NAL" in honor of our fearless leader W (for "W"hat's his name?)

If Bush is now waging a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, then he ought to look in any mirror to see the most hated, violent extremist on the planet. For some reason, there are those who can't seem to understand why that man in Georgia lobbed a grenade at him. As hated, loathed, despised and detested as Bush is all over the world, I'm surprised there haven't been more incidents similar to that one.

If anybody is interested, the Vote to Impeach site only has a little over 512,000 signatures, impeachbush.org so click on the link (or copy and paste in your browser address box) and sign up today.

I think we are witnessing a new gold rush, substitute the American West with the Middle East and gold with oil and it all seems pretty cut and dry. The oil traders, attorneys, and corporate heads in BushCo. are going to drag this one out to the very end. Considering the fact that other reliable forms of energy already exist and are currently in use around the globe, it's obvious that they want to continue down the road of oil until we run out; look at Europe, they have been supplementing their oil use and electrical generation for quite some time. Our government and our citizens need to get on the ball. Bush will not pull out of Iraq until they have built high walls topped with razor wire around the oilfields over there. Why the heck is oil so important? Is it because oil is the only economy base that the administration understands anymore? Are they not at all prepared for a change? Do they think that the rest of the world is going to sit idly by and continue to use the oil they capture while waiting until America is ready to convert? They can make money from new energy technologies and the industries that those technologies will bring about just as easily (and seamlessly, if conversion starts before the supply of oil really begins it's decline), not to mention the fact that there are a multitude of new energy patents which are currently owned by the big oil companies (which they hide away from the rest of us, every corporation has got to have it's trade secrets).

I often wonder what it's like to be addicted to money the way that this administration is. Money is their drug, they are so addicted to the current economy and the money they grab from it that they have gone to war with the Middle East to ensure that they are controlling the global oil economy until the last drop goes through the pipelines. The desire to be in control of the final decline of oil, if done from a humanitarian angle (saving our economy and people from possible end-of era regression) could be looked at from the perspective that the end justifies the means, but when done in the manner that BushCo. has, (lying, covering up or otherwise changing facts, ignoring questions asked of it's citizens and press) it seems more along the lines of deceitful corporate money-grabbing and self interest. If they don't act soon the aforementioned patents the energy corporations hold wont mean squat. It's going to take a good amount of the remaining oil to fabricate the opening salvo of new industrial machinery and the equipment necessary to convert, being that it currently takes the usage of oil to allow today's industry to function. Considering the track record of the administration, it's unlikely that they have any such plan in mind. They are far too unwilling to listen to reason, and why should they? They are here for the quick money, the easy money that they are accustomed to and so enamored by.

If our country could either get off the current electricity grids and create one hundred percent of the power our homes consume or enact a law requiring our utility companies to make the switch then it seems to me that would cut our dependence on oil by nearly half which would allow for more time to develop new resources for transportation. It would be optimal to convert both utilities and transportation on a concurrent time frame, however there would be less shake up within the global economy if one commitment was executed prior to the other. Some companies, like Toyota have their own time frame, they have announced an additional 10 hybrid vehicles to their lineup over the next decade, seen here: http://biz.yahoo.com/usat/050803/13023716.html?.v=2. Maybe we'll all be able to buy John Deere wind generators from Home Depot in the near future! Not really soon enough, but Deere is doing something nonetheless. Here's a bit from Renewable Energy Access: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=34959.

-Ben
bentpatriot@yahoo.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.