“GWOT, which is now WOT, may soon become WOE. GWOT, which stands for Global War on Terrorism, has been supplanted by the term WOT, War on Terrorism. However, the White House reportedly is mulling over using WOE, i.e. War on Extremism. Conceptually this is the right step by the Bush Administration, which has finally conceded that you can not wage war on a tactic (i.e., terrorism). From a public relations standpoint, however, WOE will provide terrific grist for late night comedy shows. Was Jon Stewart behind this?”
– Larry Johnson at the Counterterrorism Blog
So THAT’s why Karl Rove’s people are spinning that his remarks were targeted at the MoveOn liberal extermists!
Does that mean that they’re going to start attacking their own supporters?
They already do: female, gay and minority Republicans get the short end of the stick, just like female, gay and minority Democrats. The only difference is, they vote for it.
So, hoosierspud, I assume you’re in Indiana – am I right?
Formerly of Indiana; currently in Idaho, thus the spud.
When I first saw ‘WOE’, I thought it was going to be ‘War on Earth’, which I think is quite a succint and appropriate description of this administration’s policies.
My first thought was similar but it was:
War on Everyone….
with everyone.
Pentagon Creating Student Database, preparation for draft, anyone?
The job is obviously outsourced to the private sector:
Quite a story, isn’t it. MSNBC showed a poll today. Seventy percent of Americans oppose a draft 🙂
Gives them the latitude to come after anyone else that’s convenient in addition to Muslims. Probably starting with environmentalists and ACLU members. Wow, double target on my back… 🙁
Crap, me too! :O
Ha. The WOEfully inadequate administration.
Let the <s>snar</s> fun begin.
So does anyone else think that a ‘War on Extremism’ is even less specific as to who/what exactly is the opposition than ‘War on Terrorism’ is? I mean, I do understand that you can’t wage a war on a tactic, but can you really wage a war on a subjective measurement of commitment/fanatacism?
Why not just call it the ‘War on Evil’ and be done with it? Doesn’t that put the talking points together in a better way anyway?
Why do we always have to fight wars against things. Terrorism, drugs, poverty, extremism, etc? Why not wars FOR things? If they were smart at all — both in terms of PR and strategy — we’d be fighting “The War for [Global/Int’l/World/Etc.] Freedom.” Oh well.
BTW: Karl, if you want to use my idea go ahead, but know that my consulting rates — for you at least — are $50,000,000/minute. It took me 2 minutes to type this up. So.
Maybe when one is fighting agaisnt something there is possibility of defeating it (thats part of why I think the War on Terror is such a dumb term). If we have a War for Freedom it may not be clear when we have won or if achievable.
Know anyone with a birthday in June? Do you have an intense longing for cake and no idea why? Come on over to the FBC Cafe, Birthday edition!
that this country has been overrun by right-wing “christian” extremists. I assume that they don’t mean war on the Robertson/Falwell/Dobson set.
But I was rooting wildly for Matt Lauer today! Yup. MSNBC replayed Lauer’s interview of, as Gawker puts it, “nationally renowned psychiatry expert Dr. Tom Cruise.”
Cruise is totally frightening. Try to catch this interview. I’d bet anything that Keith O. will air it.
Lauer was really good. I know, I know.