The Bush Administration wants to call it a war on terrorism to reinforce the message that no matter how badly things are going in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else, "We Are Right" (the "we" referring to the Administration and their ilk).

Professor Slaughter is asking a lot in inviting TPMCafe readers to develop a better acronym or slogan to replace the ill-conceived notion of a war on terror. But I don't believe that catch-phrases are necessarily what's going to win this issue for the Democrats. They simply need to articulate the message being sent home every day in body bags from Iraq that the misadventure there is making Americans less safe, and that the ultimate defeat of terrorism will depend on good old fashion police work and addressing the grievances that fuel the anger in the Muslim world.

Posted at August 4, 2005 5:00 PM in response to Behind the Acronyms . . .

I think the Administration's reluctance to play ball in the NPT negotiations, or on any other arms-control initiative for that matter, derives from the "Full Spectrum Dominance" mentality that infects those NeoCons and Pentagon bureaucrats who do any strategic thinking. This group of people will not countenance give up any weapons system or strategic policy option no matter how odious (hello Guantanamo Bay) out of fear that America's sovereignty will somehow be eroded by it, or that America will somehow be unable to respond to some future military eventuality as a result. It's precisely the same blinkered thinking that led to the U.S. rejection of the land mines treaty, but that is now happening with weapons systems that pose far greater risks to global security.

Posted at June 6, 2005 3:10 PM in response to Diplomacy 101