War on Words

Why Obama may be abandoning Bush's favorite phrase.

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 4, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: mcgillagorilla @ 05/07/2009 9:41:35 PM

    just as i figured obama will declare war on terror won and walk away hoping to talk to terrorists. we wanted change and have got it i just hope it doesent blow up in our faces.

  • Posted By: CoM2Serve @ 05/06/2009 6:21:02 PM

    How about Global Threat Organizers

  • Posted By: Liz504 @ 05/03/2009 11:59:44 PM

    "Cult" is a perfect word. I feel miserable for the rest of Muslims who have to put up with Al Queda's zealous extremism. If someone were to clump me in with some of the crazies we have in Christianity I think I'd be getting pretty defensive too.

  • Posted By: Liz504 @ 05/03/2009 11:56:03 PM

    Al Queda is a cult, and I feel miserable for the rest of Muslims who have to put up with their zealous behavior. I would be defensive too if someone associated me with some of the crazies we have in Christianity.

  • Posted By: Chris D @ 05/03/2009 11:28:03 AM

    I can't beleive that we have foregotten what the torrorist oh forgive me.The whatever we're calling them nowdone to us on 911.i will never foreget or foregive.

  • Posted By: suhail_shafi @ 04/29/2009 12:59:01 PM

    If your definition of a ``coward'' is someone who distances himself from the excesses of the Bush administration, I would be happy for a ``coward'' to be the President.

  • Posted By: eye 4 an eye @ 04/28/2009 6:43:59 PM

    Only one possible reason he would abandon the phrase...

    He's a COWARD!

  • Posted By: suhail_shafi @ 04/27/2009 6:16:32 PM

    I recently attended an anti war rally in Washington where I saw a placard that read ``If this is a war on terror, then why are innocents dying ?'' I believe the sign, which shared the placard with dead civilians from Iraq and Afghanistan, said it all.

  • Posted By: suhail_shafi @ 04/27/2009 1:27:14 PM

    Why is the term ``War on Terror'' problematic.

    Well for at least two important reasons.

    The first is that War is usally the same as terror, albeit by different terminology.

    The second is that the majority of people done to death by this senseless war, in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq and Pakistan have been INNOCENT.

    I am glad the Obama admin is finally looking for an alternative to this term, as a war on ``terror'' which takes out more innocent civilians loses both its credibility as well as whatever little moral premise it may have once had.

  • Posted By: amazed_by_incompotence @ 04/24/2009 4:54:33 PM

    How about "Some Trouble Unfortunately Producing International Discomfort" (STUPID). Come on people! These fanatics want to kill us. I don't know what dictionary you use but mine calls that TERROR! Political Correctness is the enemy of common sense.

    Someone commented that if they wanted to live in the Medieval Ages, that is their business. I wouldn't have a problem with that except they are using 21st century weapons. If they will trade them for catapults and crossbows then I am okay with it.

    If this administration thinks that "kiss and make up" is the proper approach then move the White House to Bagdad and bring all of the troops home.

  • Posted By: paulte @ 04/22/2009 4:14:31 PM

    The war on terror is not so black and white as liberals would have us believe. Civil libertarians against it, right wingers or neo-cons in favor of it. Does anyone really want another 9/11? I don't think so! As Obama modifies the Bush policies, we just may be at greater risk from Muslim terrorists.

    Yes, it is the Muslims that are the problem here; let us be honest. One way to stop Muslim terrorists is for the US to jettison Israel. We really have no great beef with the Muslim world when you come to think about it. If they wish to live in the Medieval Ages then that is their business, not ours. The only real reason they are against us is because of our support for Israel which is not really in our national interest.

    It is in the interest of the West to ensure that another Holocaust does no befall the Jews after the last one but that isn't a US interest per se. So it is up to the liberals to put up or shut up to tell us just what we should do to prevent another 9/11. The time for Bush bashing is over.

  • Posted By: WhatNow? @ 04/22/2009 9:56:04 AM

    It seems to me there are bigger things to spend time on rather than marking territory by changing what is already an accurate name.

  • Posted By: WhatNow? @ 04/22/2009 9:54:53 AM

    It seems to me there are bigger things to spend time on rather than marking territory by changing what is an accurate name.

  • Posted By: kelvinjbown @ 04/21/2009 1:50:46 PM

    I guess being in Iraq with so many dead for no reason but Bushs ideas and greed must be pretty terrifying. The Western Governments are so hypocritical. It must also be terrifying to be starved out and raped in Sudan or Congo, or South Africa where everyonbe is dropping dead around from AIDS. Perspective. All the military funding should be given to aid. See ho the world will change its opinion of America - Kelvin Bown

    • Posted By: platocamus @ 04/21/2009 4:50:51 PM

      Kelvin, I believe that financial aid to Africa for things like HIV were increased to record levels under George W. Bush. Did that help any or are even you, an advocate for increased aid to these needy areas to ignorant to even recognize that fact.
      I believe in the term "War on Terror" and have been to third world countries and witnessed this deprevation as part of the Army. If the argument is that the term should be changed to include all enemies of this great country and not just those that resort to terrorism then I am all for changing the phrase. My fear is that the stratagy is to give creedence to our terrorist enemies and reframe the opinion American's have of them. They are evil and though not always correct, America is good. I don't want that skewed. God Bless America.

  • Posted By: AzPatriot @ 04/21/2009 11:46:26 AM

    What a bunch of pansy ass pencil pushing left-wing liberals! Why not call it what it is?! Its a war on terror, so why not just call it that? It sounds like our administration's foreign policy is being crafted by the ACLU. The administration seems to be so afraid of offending anyone that they will do anything, say anything, to avoid making enemies. Well, WAKE UP Obamaniacs! No amount of apologizing to Europe or shaking hands with petty dictators is going to make us popular in the minds of our enemies. Obama's foreign policy is even weaker than Chamberlains before WWII. Haven't we learned anything from history? Appeasement only makes the enemy bolder. When the next terrorist attack comes and thousands of Americans lie dead on American soil, is Obama still going to wring his hands together and apologize for American arrogance? How long are we going to tolerate this idiot?!!!

  • Posted By: janbear @ 03/01/2009 11:27:37 PM

    The Struggle Against Violent Extremism (SAVE) would be a much better choice of words than the term War on Terror. Any way is also a terror, so War on Terror is one bad things against another and all negative. Struggle Against Violent Extremism is a more accurate term and the abbreviation SAVE is much more positive. Hopefully, President Obama will drop President Bush's War on Terror term and adopt the term Struggle Against Violent Extremisn (SAVE).

    • Posted By: Not duped by Dems @ 04/20/2009 8:03:06 PM

      yeah! let's make it sound pretty so that we make sure Obama gets his narcissistic need to be idolized

  • Posted By: harold1965 @ 04/20/2009 12:09:37 PM

    The word terror was first used by Ariel Sharon and George Bush was very happy to use it too. It was used by both just to spread fear

    • Posted By: Not duped by Dems @ 04/20/2009 7:55:43 PM

      What an idiotic comment. It suggests that terrorism and the accompanying attacks are not to be feared. Good - you stand up front!

  • Posted By: Not duped by Dems @ 04/20/2009 7:53:12 PM

    Political correctness gone awry and nothing but more rhetoric from a weak administration and congress

  • Posted By: patriot_missile0014 @ 04/04/2009 12:03:40 AM

    ???Struggle Against Violent Extremism???? Talk about watered down. That's like calling Al Qaeda a "spiritually deficient gathering of slightly misled people". Oh... they meant well, right? They declared war on our country, killed thousands of innocent people, and we fought back. Let's stop trying to rewrite history and brush the past eight years under a metaphorical rug. Sure, President Obama wants to distance himself from the previous administration. He has his own plans to take the country in a new direction, but sometimes I think he is taking it a little far. I am proud to say that I served in the 'War On Terror' and received my very own 'Global War on Terrorism' medal. I thank God for everyone that stood beside me, those who are still over there and especially those who have lost their lives to defend ours. We have not had a single terrorist attack on American soil since the beginning of the war, don't you think that says something about our military's efforts?

    • Posted By: davery81 @ 04/20/2009 4:18:33 PM

      Well put and I couldn't agree more.. This is indicative of the weak willed types that have oozed into power in the exectutive and legislative. Oh well he wouldn't be firing an AK-47 at us if enough Folic acid were in his diet. Appeasement and acquiessence make agressors more agressive. Example: If you give a bully your lunch money, that will be the start of lunchless days for you. Some things are very very simple. Again, Bravo! Patriot.

  • Posted By: harold1965 @ 04/20/2009 12:10:53 PM

    The first person who used the word terror was Ariel Sharonn and George Bush was happy to use it too. Both used that word to spread fear.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse