New York Times at it again.

Hello BMEWS readers - and thank you Skipper for the linky love! :) We're honored. Truly.

Whatever.

War on Terror, "War on really mean people who hate us", "Conflict with Extremists", "Misunderstanding with misguided Islamic wierdos"...whatever! It's a war. We're at war. The President has SAID we're "at war" since 9/11/01. We're "at war" with terrorists that want to kill us. I don't understand what all the debates on semantics are for.

It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy.

Yeah, because Bush makes a habit of reversing himself. These libs need to look up the definition of the term "projection".

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Mr. Bush said in his address here, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."

Mr. Bush made a nod to the criticism that "war on terror" was a misleading phrase in the sense that the enemy is not terrorism, but those who used it to achieve their goals. In doing so, he used the word "war," as he did at least 13 other times in his 47-minute speech, most of which was about domestic policy.

"Make no mistake about it, this is a war against people who profess an ideology, and they use terror as a means to achieve their objectives," he said.

Whoa. Wait a minute. "made a nod"? "the enemy is not terrorism but those who used it to acheive their goals"? Huh? Are we splitting hairs now just to sound analytical?

Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on July 18 in an address to the National Press Club that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

General Myers said then that the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Not "violent extremists". Terrorists. Murdering f*ckheads who want us dead. Say it with me. We are at war with murding f*ckheads that want to kill us. What. Are we trying to soften the rhetoric, General? And what the hell purpose will that serve? People in uniform, our brave soldiers, ARE the solution. They are doing their job and dying doing it. We proved that sanctions and "time outs" for vicious dictators doesn't work. Like Bush said, "hunt them down and kill them where they hide".

Enough of this namby-pamby crap.

"Some ask, are we still engaged in a war on terror?" Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no mistake about it. It's a war. The president properly termed it that after Sept. 11. The only way to defend against terrorism is to go on the attack"

That's what I'm sayin'. Enough with the semantics.

General Myers and Rumsfield can try to call it whatever they want, but Dubya has made it clear. It's a War on Terror. Now if we could please start FIGHTING this war, without the weenie libs wailing every time we kill or capture a terrorist, we'd be making progress.

p.s. I just love the comments about this article at Lucianne. :)