. . . of the many remarks from Secretary of State Rice *not* mentioning "war on terror". . . you know, since there was an edict issued to change terminology . . . <br><br><blockquote>Condoleezza Rice, July 7, 2005<br><br>"Well, my reaction is similar to the reaction of people around the world, and that is outrage at an attack against innocent people, many of whom were simply trying to go to work. It is a reaction that I think is shared by the American people and I've heard of the leaders of the G-8 who are gathered in Gleneagles. This just demonstrates that while people sit in Gleneagles talking about trying to alleviate poverty or disease or to deal with the problems of our environment, you have cold-blooded killers who have nothing in mind but taking innocent life. And it just reminds us of the tough fight that we have in the war on terrorism, but that we are united as a civilized world against this kind of barbarity."<br><br>"But for Americans who have been through this kind of attack, it has an unfortunate familiar ring of the kind of outrage that one feels, the sympathy that we all feel for the families of the victims and for those who are injured. And our hearts just go out to the British people at this time. We have no better friend and ally than Britain in this war on terror and we're deeply saddened by what has happened in London today." <br><br>"And of course they are concerned and of course Iraq has become a central front in the war on terrorism."<br><br>"And when I saw again that picture at Gleneagles, I saw not just resolve in Prime Minster Blair, who has been a stalwart fighter in the war on terrorism; not just resolve in President Bush, of course, who has experienced this kind of agony; but on the faces of each and every leader there that the world is not going to be deterred from eventually defeating this scourge, recognizing that we have to fight each and every day to try to prevent attacks, but that we also have to provide an alternative to the places in the world where this kind of hatred is being bred. "<br><br>Condoleezza Rice, July 10, 2005<br><br>"But of course it strengthens our resolve, too, not to let these people terrorize us and to try to change our way of life. It's why we need to recognize that as much as we're trying to do to secure the homeland, we're doing a great deal, the Brits have done a great deal, it's a somewhat unfair fight because they only have to be right once; we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And it's why the President and, indeed, Prime Minister Blair have felt so strongly that we have to fight the War on Terror on the offense, that we have to go after them where they are and, ultimately, in the long run, change the very circumstances that brought this kind of extremism about."<br><br>Condoleezza Rice, June 9, 2005<br><br>"We hear variations of that argument, absolutely. But our answer is we believe that the kind of malignancy that led people to fly airplanes into our buildings on September 11th or that leads people to strap suicide bombs on themselves and blow up innocent people, shows that there is a deep problem in particularly the Middle East but in other places too, particularly in the broader Middle East, that can only be addressed through addressing the freedom deficit. So we see the war on terrorism and success in the war on terrorism and the drive for space for pluralism and for the democratic enterprise to be completely intertwined."<br><br>"President Musharraf has been a stalwart ally in the war on terrorism. But first of all, let me just say that one of the things that I think we've achieved is we've de-hyphenated the India-Pakistan relationship with a fine and growing relationship with India and we have a firm and growing relationship with Pakistan."<br><br>Condoleezza Rice, June 13, 2005<br><br>" Well, it's not clear, to this day, the degree to which this is the structure of the old army. There are clearly a number of old Baathists, people who want to return the Saddam Hussein-like forces to power. There's also a significant number of people who've come in as foreign terrorists, who recognize the importance of Iraq to the war on terrorism."</blockquote><br><br>. . . I'll have much more later from the administration "not mentioning War on Terror." as per LowerCaseSean.<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

Do you have anything from the second half of July? That seemed to be when the policy shift happened and it's moving back again. It was just a little language change in the White House like when they tried to create the term, "homicide bombers".<br><br>These things happen among politicians, pollsters, and political consultants. The White House was reacting to the fact that popular opinion no longer included Iraq in the umbrella "War on Terror," so they needed to create a new theme that would lump a popular war (Afghanistan) with a growingly unpopular war (Iraq) and exploit public outrage over the London bombings. I doubt they're going to stick with it if they haven't already though because 13-sylable, metaphysical abstractions don't really carry.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you have anything from the second half of July? That seemed to be when the policy shift happened and it's moving back again.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, and they're posted. <br><br>According to sean's salon.com article, it says "throughout July" ... So, in a tally we have Condoleezza Rice on July 7th and 10th . . . Rumsfeld on July 12th, 24th and 27th and President Bush on July 4th, 7th, 11th, and 20th.<br><br>I wonder what "throughout July" the salon.com article means, and what "the second half of July" you mean . . . What, a three and a half hour "policy shift"? STOP THE PRESSES!! <br><br>From what I've posted, no one has stopped using the term "War On Terror."<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>

... and so it seems also that the use of terror of war, does not cease.<br><br>