Why we had the "war on terror"?

[kentuck]

It was mostly an exercise of CYA (Cover Your Ass). Everything that has happened since 9/11 was not done to protect our country but done to camouflage the responsibility of George W Bush for the attacks of 9/11. So long as we could focus on the "war on terror", we would not have to look for the people that were truly responsible. Benedict Arnold could never dream of such traitorous acts as those perpetrated on our country in the last eight years.

Now, President Obama has officially announced an end to the Bush version of the "war on terror". We do not bury our heads in the sand as far as threats to our country but we will no longer involve this country in George W Bush's fears and paranoia. We have much larger enemies to fight.

Only with a compliant and cowardly Congress was George W Bush allowed to get away with his hideous conspiracy he called the "war on terror". It was a disgraceful period for our country. Until we recognize "why" we had the "war on terror", this period will never be truly defined. The starting point is that George W Bush refused to accept any responsibility for the attacks of 9/11 and everything that followed was meant to cover his own tracks. That is why we had the "war on terror".

[panader0]

1. The "war on terror" was a cover so the bush administration

could steal us blind. The plans for it were made before bush was even elected.

[kentuck]

3. I think that was the opportunity that arose...

But the August 6 memo that said "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US" was on the desk of George W Bush when he went on vacation. It was ignored. As were all the warnings from the officials of the previous Administration. Bush has never been able to accept responsibility for anything his entire life. Even as he left office, he could not think of any "mistakes" that he had made. His crimes and traitorous behaviors gave rise to the opportunities to rob us blind, which they did without thought or consequence.

[ThomWV]

2. I think you are mighty close to right

I would only argue one point with you. It seems to me that the cover up which is the War on Terror (contrary to reports it hasn't so much as slowed, let alone ended) was not so much about cloaking his responsibility for the attack as it was distracting us from the incompetence that allowed it to happen even in the face of warnings from the most credible of sources.

On edit: of course there is nothing to say we aren't both right - the war on terror was a distraction from both responsibility and incompetence.

[kentuck]

4. And those that continue to defend the "war on terror"...

cannot accept responsibility for their own culpability. They cannot accept that they were used as pawns in this game of fear and conspiracy.

[ThomWV]

7. yep, including both those in the previous Administration and the Press - don't forget the Press.

The greatest failing in the last 8 years wasn't Bush, it was the Press. If the Press had done its job we'd never have had him in the first place and he certainly wouldn't have politically survived the 2004 election.

[kentuck]

8. I am more and more convinced that if we did not have the Internet...

We would now be in a state of "fait accompli". Folks such as yourself and the blogging community saved this country up to this point, in my opinion. I agree that the MSM failed miserably.

[remember2000forever]

5. Let's Hope This Jargon Is Changed From:

War On Terror
War On Drugs

To:
Hope To Alleviate Poverty
Hope To Promote Peace

I'm sure there is many more that could be added

[ProfessorGAC]

6. I Think The Word "Campaign" Works Too

A campaign to end poverty.

A campaign to end the NEED for terrorism.

A campaign to promote peace.

Same as what you were saying. Just offering an alternative word.
GAC

[LWolf]

9. The key:

"Now, President Obama has officially announced an end to the Bush version of the 'war on terror'."

So we're still going to be at war for the next 4 - 8 years. This time with the "Obama version." Will it be any better?

I guess it depends on your definition of "better." For me, that means:

1. No more use of the U.S. military as instruments of international policy. The military only used to directly defend direct attacks on the U.S., or to take part in an international action decided by, and directed by, an international agency. The UN, if they can operate independently of U.S. and other powerful nations' manipulation.

2. The end of the "bogus war on terror."

[kentuck]

10. That is left to be seen...

I agree with you. I have hopes that we will see dramatic change. Time will tell.

[LWolf]

11. And I hope

that your hopes are realized, as long as the "dramatic change" is in the direction of leaving war behind." ;)

Time is marching on. By summer we should have a pretty good idea of where we're headed.

[kentuck]

12. Yep...

and millions of others, besides you and I, will not be silent if it continues in the same mode.

[bdamomma]

13. oh the crack WH press corps is going to have fun with this one.

making President Obama sound he is soft on terror, the media just sucks.

[azul]

14. And now President Obama calls it a "fight" . Good news.

The press will have to pick up on it or be instructed (FBI?) that GWOT is an unhelpful propaganda term in the fight.

The Fight Against Poverty, and helping its desperate victims, not terrorizing them further by usury and deprivation?

FAP FAP FAP