Edwards Rejects the "War on Terror" (Time.com )

[Catchawave]

Campaign-hardened Republicans used to treat the phrase "global war on terror" so casually, even affectionately, that they talked about "the G-WOT," after the four-letter abbreviation used in White House calendars to denote Iraq messaging meetings. Democrats embraced it, too, with John Kerry asserting during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention: "We are a nation at war, a global war on terror."

But increasingly the phrase is being regarded with hostility by many Democrats, who view it as little more than propaganda, and with a degree of skepticism by some Republicans, who consider it tired and vague. The left lobe of the blogosphere roared its approval in March when the House Budget Committee directed its staff to eschew "global war on terror" and instead use more precise language like "the war in Iraq" and "ongoing military operations throughout the world." And last month the British government announced that it too had retired the phrase.

Now Kerry's former running mate is declaring his independence from a phrase that politicians have been brandishing with brio for more than five years. At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase."

Cont'd....http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616724,00.html

[Wetzelbill]

1. Rudy had a typically dumb answer, it didn't even make sense

The writer's last line was weak. Is that the best he could come up with? It almost contradicts the idea of the whole column because he uses the "G-WOT" language to make a point, which wasn't even really a point.

[waiting for hope]

4. I read this article earlier today...

while I think the whole premise of Edwards' rejecting the "War on Terror" is a smart move - look at the author of the piece: he contributes to The Politico. That should say something....

[polichick]

2. Another smart move by Edwards...

He's showing again that he's in touch with what "the people" think ~ and he's not afraid to say it. This week he's erasing the doubt people started to have when they read about his home and haircuts.

[Wetzelbill]

3. Edwards is good at this stuff

He's especially freed up this time around by virtue of not being in the Senate.

Welcome to DU! :)

[polichick]

5. Thanks, I've read DU on and off for quite a while...

...and finally couldn't resist jumping in. I love primary season!

Just to mention three great moves: Edwards was appropriately contrite about his war vote, came out with his "We the People" ad at the precise moment we feel like screaming our heads off, and dares to say what we've all been saying in our living rooms about the bogus "war on terror." So, is Edwards sincere in all this or is he just good at reading people and serving up what we want?

[mnhtnbb]

6. Very smart of Edwards. Bets that he's read Lakoff?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. Excellent! "War" falsely implies "victory" is possible. Terror is a TACTIC,

not a SIDE.

Declaring "war on terror" merely establishes the kind of permanent institutionalized fearmongering and suspension of human and civil rights George Orwell wrote about

And the recent US release of the Osama bin Laden of Cuba, apparently responible for more than 70 innocent civilian deaths on an airplane, makes it clear that Dubya's regime EMBRACES some terrorism.

[saltpoint]

8. Edwards is framing the debate for 2008 with a command of language.

This is spin with a brain, and a brain with muscle. Bush is essentially a propagandist. His handlers give him catch phrases so he can keep the populace in a state of fear and flux -- witness Tom Ridge's ridiculous terra terra terra alerts and color scale from 2004 -- and Edwards here is stuffing that crap into a leaf bag and tossing it on the pyre.

Good for John Edwards. I saw a bit of this also in Howard Dean's comments recently. I really think the Republicans need to be called on their propaganda, and this is exactly the way to do it.