...for calling the wars what they objectively are instead of using the White House spin.

Also, does anyone outside of the Beltway actually refer to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as "The Global War On Terror(TM)?"

"Republicans believe..."

Who cares what Republicans believe?

Republicans believe that by increasing the number of failed states in the world, America will be made safer.

Republicans believe that a supreme being created the universe and everything in it in 6 literal days, and that therefore evolution is bunk and should not be taught in public schools.

Republicans believe that only by appealing to the most narrow-minded and ignorant of citizens can their party maintain its hold on power.

Looks like they're 0 and 3.

"Keeping them engaged"? Isn't that a slightly new take on why the US and UK went to war? I mean now, when the weapons of mass destruction thing is long gone as an argument, or what you want to call it, their is a new reason, the third or fourth in order I think reason. You start a war and fool the terrorist thereby to go there to fight, instead of the in the American homeland. Like putting a big pile of shit outside the door, to keep the flies from coming in to the kitchen. Only in this case, the shit means the death of tens of thousands of civilians including children and women, as well as the total destruction of a whole country. But of course, I forgot. Those maimed kids and children who lost their parents, and wives who lost their husbands and men who lost their brothers and their children and so on, they are "immensly much better of now, with Saddam Hussein gone". Because Tony Blair and George Bush say so.

Was the "War on Terror" merely a large heading under which specific line items were specified or was Congress actually abdicating their responsiblity to fund government by giving Bush wide discretion over how money was spent. If huge chunks of money were actually handed over to the Executive branch under the label "War on Terror", this would provide Bush huge latitude to engage in virtually any activity to which he could pin the infinitly malleable label "War on Terror". If this was the case, I shudder to think what the Republican controled Congress ultimately funded with no accountability required. Torture and illigal wire tappings are just a couple that spring to mind.

Yes, to the "War in Afghanistan," but not in Iraq. That one should be the " Occupation of Iraq."

The Neocons and the Israel Lobby have transformed the war on terror into a fake war that suits their twisted agendas. They will continue to take this war in directions that will INCREASE terrorism rather than reduce it- as they did in Iraq.

This really needs to be done so we can stop spinning all these appropriations bills into the "GWOT". It's such a stupid, vapid, childish phrase, and I'm surprised the Republicans got away with it as long as they did.

From the beginning the "war on terror" made no sense. How does one declare such a war? Who is the enemy? Where do you bomb? Where are troops deployed?

Terror is a tactic. This is an "ideological struggle," and you can't fight an idea with bullets.

War is pretty much meaningless these days anyway--it's overused and trite.

How about redefining our nation's debt that has increased around two-fold during Bush's presidency as "The George W. Bush National Debt To Be Passed On To Our Unborn Children"?

It might be too late to save future generations from what Jon Tester appropriately termed a "birth tax", but at least with that title they would have a good idea of where to start looking for the truth about how, when and why such a burden was put upon them without thier choice or consent.

"Yes, to the "War in Afghanistan," but not in Iraq. That one should be the " Occupation of Iraq."

-- Karen M

Does the new bill about getting U.S. troops out of Iraq also cover Afghanistan? I hope not. Will we stay in Afghanistan after we get out of Iraq? I hope so.

Wow. I think they have it a bit eschewed. They are not stopping terror they are feeding it. They are not stopping the enlistment, training, or deployment of terrorists either, they are embolding them, breathing life into their political movement. In reality the GOP is helping to build terror networks by allowing us to be pinned down in Iraq keeping us from going after them in the rest of the world, say in, Afganistan, or Pakistan, or Saudi Aribia, or Syria ,or Lebanon, or Egypt, or Iran to name a few. Heavens have I just fingered a few allies in Bush's War of Choice?

Impeach Bush and Cheney. So we don't forget, lets impeach them before midnight tonight...

You can't have a war against a tactic.

Of course only someone as dumb as Bush would think you could.

Why stop there?

Aren't we still fighting the "War in Mexico", the "War in Colombia" as part of the War on Drugs.

I forget who said this, but America is the kind of place who will declare a "War on Weather" should the doomsday hurricane scenarios come to fruition.

Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a tactic. I hate the term "War on Terror". It makes people think that all they have to do is sign on, sign away their rights and the government will fix it so that we never have to be afraid again. You might as well call it, "War on Scary Stuff".

"War on Terrorism" would be a more accurate description. It would, to my mind, suggest a much different response than the one we have taken. "War on terror" is such a vague term. You can justify almost any sort of action under this umbrella term.

But, yes, you are right....you can't have a war on a tactic any more than you can have a war on an emotion. Changing the way that this war is described in our budget to "War on Iraq" will go a long way to clarifying what we are doing there.

But, ultimately, the big question is "Did the government consciously choose the term, 'War on Terror' because it would cloud our perception of the invasion of Iraq or simply because our president is incapable of saying the word "terrorism"?