You are herecontent / War on Terror Is Over (if you want it)
War on Terror Is Over (if you want it)
A Phrase That Launched A Thousand Bombs
By Christiane Brown
One phrase can divide an entire country, one phrase can circumvent 800 years of law, one phrase can justify the horrific, condone the illegal, and bankrupt a nation, both financially and morally. One phrase can kill.
Of the thousands of nefarious actions to emerge from the Bush administration, it is astounding to realize that at the root of the abuse of power, at the very embryo of the fires of destruction – was a deceptively simple enabler, a basic four word slogan that opened all doors before it and paved the way for the misery and misconduct that followed: The War on Terror.
This vague, and yet all encompassing phrase, was first used by President Bush on September 20th 2001, in the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington, and from that moment forward it became root force behind the staggering orgy of lawbreaking that followed.
The War on Terror, an endlessly versatile tool, succeeded as no other political campaign has before, in throwing a blanket of legitimacy and justification over all questionable Bush administration policies, military activities, intelligence gathering, detention practices and sequestering of information.
By emphasizing the imperative need to wage an all out war against a nebulous, and yet fearsome threat, this shamelessly propagandist slogan instantly placed the United States on a permanent, and yet conveniently hazy, war footing.
In the name of “protecting America,” those in positions of power were suddenly given a sweeping carte blanche to commit grave and destructive violations against our Constitution with impunity.
A staggering range of government actions, previously considered illegal, became not only permissible in The War on Terror, but imperative. The unrestrained ability to wage pre-emptive war, to torture, to endlessly confine "enemy combatants,” to sequester evidence of wrong doing, all were now vital in protecting our national security.
The simple phrase War on Terror cleverly masked an ideology that allowed the Bush administration to alter the very definition of war. As a fight against a tactic, rather than a defined enemy, a War on Terror could continue endlessly, be waged anywhere, and need not articulate specific goals, strategies, limits, parameters or even enemies.
A perfect storm of unrestrained power and hubris.
The vital question is: Will The War on Terror framework become the permanent defensive footing for our nation going forward?
Will George W. Bush’s legacy turn out to be an everlasting adoption of a phrase that endlessly justifies an ongoing drain on our nation’s purse strings for weapons, occupations, and invasions, for unending expenditure outside of our nation, rather than within it?
President-Elect Obama , Vice President-Elect Joe Biden and Senator Clinton, our new Secretary of State, already seem to have adopted George Bush’s rhetoric, referring to Afghanistan as "The Central Front in the War on Terror.”
Which among them has the courage to state the truth to the American People. That there is no War on Terror because terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or institution. That George Bush has given the American people the false impression that we are fighting a unified enemy rather than separate groups with different motivations. That terrorism must be fought as a police action against specific criminals not a war action against invisible enemies.
As we drag our nation, gasping, to the end of the most reckless and destructive administration in our history, shouldn’t the phrase The War on Terror, this twisted brain child of the Bush Presidency suffer the same death at the hands of Barack Obama as Bush’s failed policies?
On January 31st, 2008 Barack Obama said –
“I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership that I think we need from the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to provide.”
The time for President Obama to start providing that leadership is now. If the new administration truly intends to ”end the mindset what got us into this war in the first place,” a total rejection Bush’s shameful and misleading War on Terror mantra is required.
The phrase War on Terror, or War on Terrorism should be eliminated from our national dialogue, our official speeches, our government policy, our documents, and our bills.
The United States is too great a nation to continue
cleave to a disastrous president’s manipulative and immoral terminology.
George W. Bush’s words, and the damage they have inflicted upon the people of the United States and the world, should be buried along with his failed presidency.
The power of words, and the damage they can do is legendary.
The power of change and the wrongs it can right is history.
#
- Login or register to post comments
-

- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version









Miliband regrets 'war on terror'
The idea of a "war on terror" is a "mistake", putting too much emphasis on military force, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said.
Writing in the Guardian, Mr Miliband said the idea had unified disparate "terrorist groups" against the West.
He said the right response to the threat was to champion law and human rights - not subordinate it.
Mr Miliband repeated the views in a speech in Mumbai, India, the scene of attacks by gunmen last year.
Mr Miliband's warning comes five days before the end of US President George Bush's administration, which has led the so-called "war on terror".
The foreign secretary wrote that since 9/11 the phrase "war on terror" had "defined the terrain" when it came to tackling terrorism and that although it had merit, "ultimately, the notion is misleading and mistaken".
The phrase was first used by President Bush in an address to a joint session of Congress on 20 September 2001, in the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington.
Mr Miliband wrote that the phrase was all-encompassing and "gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda" when the situation was far more complex.
Calling for groups to be treated as separate entities with differing motivations, he wrote that it was not a "simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil" and treating them as such was a mistake.
"Historians will judge whether [the notion] has done more harm than good", he said.
The phrase, informally dropped from use by the UK government several years ago, "implied a belief that the correct response to the terrorist threat was primarily a military one - to track down and kill a hardcore of extremists", he wrote.
But the stance he now promoted was international "co-operation".
Highlighting US President-elect Barack Obama's commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, Mr Miliband said it was time to ensure human rights and civil liberties were upheld.
He suggested that the different organisations took advantage of the belief that they had one common enemy and a key way to tackle them was to stop this.
"Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology."
Edward Davey, foreign affairs spokesman for the Lib Dems, said: "If the British foreign secretary had said this to President Bush many months, if not years ago, then it would have deserved some credit.
"Mimicking President-elect Obama's lines days before his inauguration does not show leadership."
The Scottish National Party leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson, accused Mr Miliband of hypocrisy: "This declaration by David Miliband and the Labour Party is rank hypocrisy. His government acted as a poodle to the Bush doctrine in Iraq and elsewhere.
"People will not be misled by this wishful re-writing of history."
Mr Miliband repeated his views on the "war on terror" in a speech at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel, in Mumbai, India. The hotel was among several sites attacked by gunmen in the city last November.
He is in the country in an attempt to defuse tensions between India and Pakistan over the attacks which killed at least 173 people.
Mr Miliband urged Pakistan's government to take "urgent and effective action to break up terror networks on its soil" and called for a resolution of the dispute over Kashmir.
His remarks irritated the Indian foreign ministry which issued a tersely worded statement saying the foreign secretary "is entitled to his views, which are clearly his own and are evolving".
"However, we do not need unsolicited advice on internal issues in India like Jammu and Kashmir."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7829946.stm
Published: 2009/01/15 16:04:19 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Hope you all go to hell since it's obvious most, if not all, of you are Aetheists.
Do you believe in GOD? I can better answer that I know in GOD.
When Jesus was talking about GOD he was talking about the chief priest
Jonathan Annas, a.k.a Jacob of Alphaeus. Jonathan was a Sadducee and
Sadducee chief priests were referred to as GOD. A majority of
Sadducee chief priests became high priests. A chief priest function
was as a Pope, however, his position was not lifetime. Jonathan Annas
replaced John the Baptist and was then replaced by Simon Magus.
Jonathan Annas returned as chief priest (son by law to Caiaphas)
during the crucifixion. Jonathan would later become high priest
following the footsteps of his biological father Eleazar Ananas.
Eleazar was the high priest in A.D. 17 when Jesus as a twenty-three
year old acolyte (not twelve years old) chose his faith. When Jesus
coined the prayer "Our Father Who Art in Heaven" he was referring to
his Father Eleazar and not to Joseph (a Pharisee) who was not supposed
to be his biological father in the first place. The GOD we trust on
the back of our coins and who we pledge our allegiance to is a Jew.
Jews reverend God just as the Islam do. Neither Islam or Jew reverend
Jesus Christ. Our prayer, OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN is a Christian
prayer once removed (the original Christians were replaced by the
Roman Catholics).
With my knowledge (not belief) do I qualify as an atheist or do I
qualify as GOD-fearing? With my knowledge can I change what I know?
I guess I am doomed to the hell fire. BTW, I, Earlywine, am an
ordained minister and even though I am a veteran I cannot join
organizations such as the VFW or the Legion because I cannot sign a
entry examination that states "You Must Believe in God or you are
Ineligible to join this organization".
thanks,
EW
those of us who are athiests, also don't believe in hell, so your comment is meaningless.
It's no wonder you reprobates never get any attention worth writing about.
You people are disgusting.
Wrong place, time and motive.
Diplomacy, policing and intelligence are much better weapons against terrorists that the military. Bring Bush to justice for his negligence and dereliction of duty in failing to bring the alleged terrorists of 9/11 to justice.
Even Chris Matthews gets it. He compared Bush's disappointment of "bad intel" on Iraq to the reaction of a cop who just shot and killed an innocent person because the cop mistook the innocent person's wallet for a gun. Waiting for Chris to compare Bush's "I truly am not that concerned about him [UBL]" to the reaction of cops whose job to apprehend a mass-murderer was outsourced to foreign rent-a-cops who let the perpetrator escape.
Justice should be brought to a White House that punished innocent Iraqis and American soldiers while letting the primary suspects of the worst terrorist attack on American soil to go free.