recently, we see this:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Bush administration retools slogans, talking less of 'war on terror' and more about 'global struggle against violent extremism,' in Sec Donald Rumsfeld's words; shifting language tracks Pres Bush's references to freedom and worldwide clash of ideas, and comes as polls show Americans increasingly pessimistic about Iraq mission<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3293646">link here to houston chronicle</a><br><br>however, there was a much different tune being sung before this current flip flop:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. My opponent said, and I quote, "The war on terror is less of a military operation, and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation." I disagree -- strongly disagree.<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040325-8.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/ link</a><br><br>that's bush poking fun at kerry for trying to say what the bush administration has been shifting to for many months. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.

Another media manufactured flip-flop<br>Link here<br><br>

Not being a link clicker.. arguments using links are wasted on me unless they are only used to emphasise the point. A point usually contains an argument leading to it which should contain the quote against which one argues. If I had to read the whole content of all the links posted to see what anyone on the web was talking about. I would be here forever and never get anything done. <br>You can be sure that if that was the case .. I'd damn well make sure that nobody else got anything done either.<br><br>thanks<br><br>but where will we be when the future comes?

i don't trust your conservative link. <br><br>in any event, your link clearly demonstrates that many officials in the admin had been using language shifting away from the, "war on terror" language. bush was left with no choice but to reign them in even if he approved of their shift because it would be politically damaging to him to make the shift and get called on it. this part of your link gets at that notion:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> In introducing the new language, administration officials had suggested that the change reflected an evolution in the president's thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks and had been adopted after discussions among Mr. Bush's senior advisers that began in January.<br><br>The new slogan quickly become grist for late-night comics and drew news coverage that linked it with the emergence of a broad new approach to defining and attacking the problem of Islamic extremism through diplomacy and efforts to build closer ties to moderate Muslims, as well as through military action.<p><hr></blockquote><p>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.

thanks for clarifying<br><br><br>but where will we be when the future comes?

Houston Chronical<br>Aug. 2, 2005<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Over the last few months, the Bush administration has labored determinedly, if not too overtly, to trade out "the global war on terror"(GWOT) in favor of the "struggle (or strategy) against violent extremism" (SAVE).<p><hr></blockquote><p>LowerCaseSean<br>August 4, 2005<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>many officials in the admin had been using language shifting away from the, "war on terror" language.<p><hr></blockquote><p><blockquote><br><br>President Bush, July 20, 2005<br><br>"We want them to be a part of the preventative aspect of this war on terror, too."<br><br>"Listen, finding our enemies in the war on terror is tough enough. Law enforcement should not be denied vital information their own colleagues already have."<br><br>"I appreciate you letting me come by to talk to you about the war on terror. This is going to be a long war. But freedom is going to prevail. This nation of ours has always handled duties brought to us -- history has always brought us challenges and problems. We've always handled them; we'll handle this one, too."<br><br>President Bush, July 11, 2005<br><br>"Today we are fighting a global war on terror, and here at Quantico you're training and retraining for a critical mission, and that's to defend our homeland. (Applause.)"<br><br>"In the war on terror, the Marines are serving with valor and distinction. You helped liberate 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq."<br><br>"The FBI is in the fight. The FBI has deployed its personnel across the world, in Iraq and Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terror."<br><br>"The FBI efforts are central to our success in the war on terror."<br><br>"In the war on terror, Iraq is now a central front."<br><br>"We are standing up, and the sacrifice is worth it. By helping Iraq's -- the Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror, we are advancing the cause of freedom and the cause of peace. (Applause.)"<br><br>President Bush, July 7, 2005<br><br>"The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve."<br><br>President Bush, July 4, 2005<br><br>"We are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to win the war on terror. We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."<br><br>"Iraq is the latest battlefield in the war on terror. Our work there is difficult and dangerous because terrorists from across the region are converging on Iraq to fight the rise of democracy. "<br><br>"By helping Iraqis build a free and democratic nation, we will give strength to an ally in the war on terror, and we'll make America more secure."<br><br>"West Virginians are serving with skill and honor in the war on terror."<br><br>"Some of America's finest men and women have given their lives in the war on terror, and we remember them on Independence Day."<br><br>President Bush, June 30, 2005<br><br>"We fight the war on terror with our power; we will win the war on terror with freedom and justice and hope. (Applause.)<br><br>President Bush, June 28, 2005<br><br>"The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror."<br><br>"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror."<br><br>"Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate."<br><br>"a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform."</blockquote><br><br>Huh! You're right. The voice of the Administration has decidedly shifted away from using "the War On Terror." I'll be damned. <br><br>You also quoted this from the New York Times article . . . <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In introducing the new language, administration officials had suggested that the change reflected an evolution in the president's thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks and had been adopted after discussions among Mr. Bush's senior advisers that began in January.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>And then made this observation of your own . . .<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>bush was left with no choice but to reign them in even if he approved of their shift because it would be politically damaging to him to make the shift and get called on it.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Suggesting that Bush approved a shift away from the "War on Terror" language in January, as the New York Times claims. And that only recently has Bush "reigned them in."<br><br>So let's look at the language from January forward, after the Bush approved shift away from "War On Terror" . . .<br><br><blockquote><br><br>President Bush, January 23, 2005<br><br>We also talked about the war on terror. We're constantly reviewing our strategy as to how to defeat the enemy -- fully recognize that the war on terror will require a coordinated effort within our own government, as well as a coordinated effort with the countries around the world which understand the stakes of this war.<br><br>President Bush, January 18, 2005<br><br>"Through your service and sacrifice in the war on terror, you are making America safer." <br><br>President Bush, January 26, 2005<br><br>"After all, I've always felt the Iraqi theater is a part of the war on terror."<br><br>President Bush, February 2, 2005<br><br>"Pursuing our enemies is a vital commitment of the war on terror -- and I thank the Congress for providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed."<br><br>"Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq. That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. "<br><br>"And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren."</blockquote><br><br>*WHEW* That's all I have time for now, Sean. But yeah, I can see where, after discussions in January, the Administration did a wholesale change on calling it "The War On Terror." <br><br>Thanks for the info . . . <br><br>BWWWAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!<br><br><br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

That's the point. the quote "administration officials had suggested that the change reflected an evolution in the president's thinking" is media analysis not the truth.<br><br>Rumsfeld and a couple of other people say something other than "war on terror" and the media lay their own template on it and then present it as fact.<br><br>

beware the burning bush..it's in the same bible..<br><br><br>but where will we be when the future comes?

Awwwww, isn't that sweet. You and CelanTripe are holding hands<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

All of those quotes relate to a certain bush.. not to the administration. Now don't start telling me that bush administers. <br><br><br>but where will we be when the future comes?