No distinction between Iraqi War and War on Terror

[Goathead]

http://www.defendamerica.mil/

As if there ever was. According to this website put out by the Department of Defense you get the impression that the War on Terror involves nothing but Iraq, with Afghanistan getting a brief mention. The Orwellian speak of this administration continues in the websites title "Defending America", uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Iraq a sovreign nation that posed no threat to the United States whatsoever?

[DIKB]

1. I seem to remember

* saying that there was no distinction, particularly b/c of Saddam's willingness to "terrorize himself"

The "war on terror" is a blank check for the neocons, and endless war they can use as they please. Anyone who buys into it, loses a helluva lotta respect in my eyes.

[bryant69]

2. I don't know what you mean by buy into it?

I guess a few points.

1). It's clear that the United States has a lot of enemies, some of which are willing to use terrorist tactics

2). Calling it a war is misleading, in that it implies that our primary method of fighting this enemy is with military force rather than law enforcement.

3). Certainly even if you buy the rhetoric about the war on terror, the methods that President Bush has chosen to use in it have been counterproductive and have indicated that his main goal may not be to capture Osama bin Ladin.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[txaslftist]

3. Why would he want to capture Bin Ladin?

The guy is a great recruiter for the wingnuts. As long as this boogeyman is out there, there will be a blank check for the administration to go after anyone they want.