New York Times

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of 'a global struggle against violent extremism' rather than 'the global war on terror,' which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had 'objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.' He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that 'terror is the method they use.'

Hmmm...weren't these the same folks who took offense at the idea that what we were really facing was a challenge that required intelligence, compassion, understanding, and a lot of POLICE type work? Somewhere there's a guy in a cubical burning scraps of paper and changing headlines, press releases, and re-shooting press conferences to excise the offending language of "war" and "terrorism."

And does this mean that George Bush is no longer a "war" president? If so, does that mean the press can now ask questions?

posted by Idle Crank at 7/26/2005 03:34:00 PM