Just wanted to let you know that now the White House no longer wants to refer to our military action as a war; they have now officially changed it to a struggle. Guess that's considered a downgrade, right?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4719169.stm
So I suppose this means that Bush is no longer a wartime president but a struggletime one?

Ah, yes. The "war on terror" brand was no longer selling well and had to be taken off the shelves. It's been replaced by the more, er... sensitive "global struggle against the enemies of freedom" logo. Cynics may point out that the actual product remains the same.

Cynics may also point out that the mid-term elections are coming up, and things are not going well for the administration - time to rearrange the deckchairs...

What a difference a year makes...

'...national security advisor Steven Hadley co-wrote a piece for the New York Times in which he set out the current thinking.

"Military action is only one piece of the war on terrorism," Mr Hadley wrote.

"At the same time, however, we must bring all of the tools of statecraft, economic influence and private enterprise to bear in this war.

"Freedom-loving people around the world must reach out through every means - communications, trade, education - to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends."

The country's top military officer spoke in a similar vein on Monday.

General Richard Myers told a meeting at the National Press Club: "The long-term problem is as much diplomatic, as much economic, in fact more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.

"And that's where the focus has to be in the future."' (from kellygirl's link)

But...

'"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney told a crowd of veterans, law enforcement officers, firefighters and current members of the armed services in Dayton, Ohio.

The vice president was referring to a portion of Kerry's explanation of how he would reach out to potential allies in the war on terror. (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

"A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity."

Last Thursday, Kerry told minority journalists at the Unity 2004 conference in Washington that "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."' cnn.com (August 2004)

Perhaps not that much of a shift. Bush himself did use the word "sensitive" at the very same conference as Kerry (saying that we need to be sensitive to the concerns of a community - he used Lackawanna as an example - when pursuing terrorist suspects).

Funny how the Cheney's didn't mock that bit of "left-wing foolishness."

Newspeak has been around for a while, this is it in action.

The defnitions don't change, what changes is our perception of the word.

Sort of like softening the blow when somebody dies.

"She passed on." is gentler than "She died." Same thing - she died - just a different way to say it.

The Spectator a magazine to the right here, rejoices that this phrase 'War on terror' is being shelved. They had argued for that and were then denounced by the neo-con tendency.

They say the new phrase is 'struggle against violent extremism'. At least that makes 'S.A.V.E' ; a much better title than 'G.W.O.T' or 'W.O.T'. The first of those suggested 'God wot' i.e.'God knows!' in Elizabethan English and the other suggests 'What???'. Both seemed appropriate as a suitable response to the level of understanding demonstrated by the proponents of such an unfortunate, moronic title

'In the closing days of the 2004 election campaign, President Bush returned time and again to the theme that aroused the most fervent support for him. "The outcome of this election will set the direction of the war against terror, and in this war there is no place for confusion and no substitute for victory." He ridiculed his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry. "His top foreign policy advisor has questioned whether it's even a war at all, saying that's just a metaphor, like the war on poverty," Bush said. "I've got news: Anyone who thinks we are fighting a metaphor does not understand the enemy we face and has no idea how to win the war and keep America secure."

But that "war," like the campaign, is over, and it has been rebranded. A new metaphor has been ordered up for duty. Just as Bush has leapt from reason to reason for the Iraq war, from weapons of mass destruction to the "march of freedom," so he now jumps from slogan to slogan. His changeability, in the short run, according to Trainor, may be a hazard.

"Bush has to keep up a brave front. If he shows any signs of changing course perceptually, that could be a problem for him not only domestically but also on the battlefront. Any backing off from the hard position has a strong chance of giving encouragement to those who wish us ill. What happens when you aren't seen as exercising control? What happens when you are seen as less than all powerful? That's the position they are in right now."

The undermining of democracy by sacrificing credibility to justify endless war was early described by the historian Thucydides in his "History of the Peloponnesian War": "The meaning of words had no longer the same relation to things, but was changed by them as they thought proper. Reckless daring was held to be loyal courage; prudent delay was the excuse of a coward; moderation was the disguise of unmanly weakness; to know everything was to do nothing. Frantic energy was the true quality of a man." ' Selling the war

Why not just call it what it is?

Operation Iraqi Liberation or just shorten it to O.I.L.

Very good, KG!