Scott McClellan Says Helen Thomas Opposes 'War on Terrorism'

[Maus Magill]

From Editor & Publisher:

Really, I thought we moved past this. Have we gone really back to trying to cow journalists by accusing them of being unpatriotic?

As evidenced by Terry Morgan's follow up, it looks like the press is no longer afeared of being again' us.

[BobLibDem]

It sure is entertaining watching the White House implode. These guys couldn't organize a two float parade. Browbeating Helen Thomas isn't going to win any friends.

[Contrapuntal]

I'm opposed to the war on terrorism, in as much as it appears to be overseen by a squad of psychotic howler monkeys.

[furt]

It is the view of the administration that Iraq is part of "The War on Terror."

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; it's their terminology and they have a right to define thier own terms. They have repeatedly made it clear how they see the War in Iraq as addressing the issue of terrorism. Stomping one's feet and screaming that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 simply shows that one fails to grasp the claim the other person is making.

"The broader war on terrorism" (note the modifier) includes Iraq; Helen Thomas opposes that, just as I oppose the "War on Drugs" as an asinine idea. I don't worry that people will infer that I support giving children crack, and I don't think she should worry that people will infer that she supports terrorism.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by furt

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; it's their terminology and they have a right to define thier own terms.

IOW they can keep lying all they want to and you won't see anything wrong. The rest of us think being in the "reality based community" is actually important.

"The broader war on terrorism" (note the modifier) includes Iraq

Bollocks. You went back to the Kool-Aid table for seconds, didn't you?

I don't think she should worry that people will infer that she supports terrorism.

No, she shouldn't, but not because of a difference in terminology; she needn't worry about it's being believed because it's such a pathetic lie.

[Who_me?]

Originally Posted by furt

It is the view of the administration that Iraq is part of "The War on Terror."

Then the administration needs glasses.

[BobLibDem]

I wager it has been some time since Helen Thomas stomped her feet and I rather doubt she did this time either. The White House says they believe Iraq is part of The War Against Terror. They can say that but it doesn't make it true. Helen simply called them on a lie and he reacted like a second grader.

[NurseCarmen]

The White House has asserted that folks who question the war in Iraq are monkey fuckers. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; it's their terminology and they have a right to define thier own terms.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by furt

It is the view of the administration that Iraq is part of "The War on Terror."

Been following their advertising, have you, furt?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by furt

"The broader war on terrorism" (note the modifier) includes Iraq; Helen Thomas opposes that, just as I oppose the "War on Drugs" as an asinine idea.

Helen Thomas opposes the Iraq war. It's McClellan's extrapolation that this means she opposes "the broader war on terrorism." His job is not to tell anyone what she thinks; he's just taking a shot at her because Thomas and this administration have never gotten along. I'm glad the other reporter noted that the remark was "odd."

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by This Year's Model

Been following their advertising, have you, furt?

Kool Aid! Kool Aid! Tastes great!
Wish we had some! Can't wait!

[Debaser]

For a long time I didn't understand why Helen Thomas was tolerated by the Bush administration. Why don't they just refuse to answer her questions? Why not simply kick her out of the white house press pool and be done with her?

I've come to hold a theory on this. Having her ask questions of a Republican administration is akin to having Ann Coulter ask questions of a Democratic one. She's outright hostile and rude towards them. They obviously know this, yet they keep her around. I think it's because they feel she helps them. She spits out a question that's obviously baited and filled with hatred that another more reasonable reporter might have asked in a more sensible way. No reasonable, moderate viewer would ever side with her. She makes her side look bad.

A reporter asking simliar questions with similar intent would actually be much more effective than her if he just behaved properly. It's for this reason that I think they keep her around. Even in the transcript. She's being rude and argumentative with her interuptions of McClellan, yet he remains polite and civil to her. Having her on the attack makes him look good. She adds value for the administration in the same way that Al Sharpton added value to Kerry's run for the presidency.

Oh, and specifically regarding the OP: Thomas is against the war on terror and admits it in the article, so I hardly see what the fuss is to mention it.

[John Mace]

I can't get the link to work-- I get a "no data" message. Is there another link to the story?

[ElvisL1ves]

Works fine here, John. Ah, well, the words in the press conference are all public domain (I assume), so here's a cut'n'paste job:

THOMAS What does the President mean by "total victory" -- that we will never leave Iraq until we have "total victory"? What does that mean?

McCLELLAN: Free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, because a free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions --

THOMAS If they ask us to leave, then we'll leave?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm trying to respond. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the broader Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions of al Qaeda and their terrorist associates. They want to establish or impose their rule over the broader Middle East -- we saw that in the Zawahiri letter that was released earlier this week by the intelligence community.

THOMAS They also know we invaded Iraq.

McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, the President recognizes that we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. And when you're engaged in a war, it's not always pleasant, and it's certainly a last resort. But when you engage in a war, you take the fight to the enemy, you go on the offense. And that's exactly what we are doing. We are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here. September 11th taught us --

THOMAS It has nothing to do with -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

McCLELLAN: Well, you have a very different view of the war on terrorism, and I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism. The President recognizes this requires a comprehensive strategy, and that this is a broad war, that it is not a law enforcement matter.

Terry.

TERRY MORAN On what basis do you say Helen is opposed to the broader war on terrorism?

McCLELLAN: Well, she certainly expressed her concerns about Afghanistan and Iraq and going into those two countries. I think I can go back and pull up her comments over the course of the past couple of years.

MORAN And speak for her, which is odd.

McCLELLAN: No, I said she may be, because certainly if you look at her comments over the course of the past couple of years, she's expressed her concerns --

THOMAS I'm opposed to preemptive war, unprovoked preemptive war.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- she's expressed her concerns.

debaser, where do you get that she's opposed to the war on terror, not the war on Iraq? From the same cup of Kool-Aid?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by furt

I don't think she should worry that people will infer that she supports terrorism.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

No, she shouldn't, but not because of a difference in terminology; she needn't worry about it's being believed because it's such a pathetic lie.

A lie that no one has stated. Or did I miss it? What might the "it" in your statement refer to?

So, over the past few years we've moved from a lie being an an untruth spoken when it is known to be such, to an incorrect statement that is later proved to be false, and now, to a non statement that no one ever said.

Now I understand what they mean by a progressive agenda.

[furt]

Originally Posted by NurseCarmen

The White House has asserted that folks who question the war in Iraq are monkey fuckers. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; it's their terminology and they have a right to define thier own terms.

Lets posit that in the wake of a police-brutality case, there are massive race riots. The president creates a comprehensive race-relations plan and calls it "Healing America." A major part of that plan involves expanding affirmative action as a means of addressing what they see as the root causes of the riots. Let us further posit that I oppose that plan, in large part because I say the race riots had nothing to do with minorities not getting jobs.

The president, IMO, would be entirely correct to say that I oppose "Healing America."

Yes, there is a slight unfairness in the use of the language, in the way it makes it sound like I favor keeping America sick; but that's politics. It's the same as "pro-choice," "pro-life" and all the rest. Or, for that matter, claiming that only those with a specific political affiliation are "reality-based."

The admin has chosen to call their foreign policy a "War on Terror" -- the term is often put in capitals or quotes -- and Helen Thomas opposes it.

[Maus Magill]

The thing that gets me - and why I was moved to post a Pit OP - is that I thought we were through with this whole "if you dare question us, then you're with the terrorists" bullshit.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by magellan01

A lie that no one has stated. Or did I miss it? What might the "it" in your statement refer to?

McCLELLAN: Well, you have a very different view of the war on terrorism, and I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism. The President recognizes this requires a comprehensive strategy, and that this is a broad war, that it is not a law enforcement matter.

The inference is that one who is opposed to the "broader war on terrorism" indeed supports terrorism. This from an administration that says "you're either on our side or the terrorists' side."

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

debaser, where do you get that she's opposed to the war on terror, not the war on Iraq? From the same cup of Kool-Aid?

The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

It's funny that some of you guys still don't get this.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

It's funny that some of you guys still don't get this.

It is NOW. But it was only, at most, marginally related to the WoT before we invaded. And I'm being very generous for saying "marginally". I strong case could be made that it wasn't the least bit a part of the WoT.

Bush needs to get rid of Scotty. That guy reminds me of the dumb guy we all had in class who was always trying to bullshit his way thru things. He just isn't very bright, and it show.

[Syntropy]

More like "don't swallow it." Iraq is not part of the war on terror and never was. 9/11 was a horrible thing, but it sure helped sell the load of goods that Iraq=terrorists. How I'm not sure. I guess some people will believe anything if you repeat it often enough.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

It's funny that some of you guys still don't get this.

The war in Iraq has nothing at all to do with TWAT. It's staggering that some of you guys still don't get that.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by John Mace

It is NOW. But it was only, at most, marginally related to the WoT before we invaded.

Yes, but so what?

This is like saying the US wasn't related to the second world war until we declared war on Germany and Japan. Technically, it's true. But, it's an empty and meaningless statement because we certainly were involved after that so it's moot what the situation was before.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Maus Magill

The thing that gets me - and why I was moved to post a Pit OP - is that I thought we were through with this whole "if you dare question us, then you're with the terrorists" bullshit.

Dude, that's politics. If I oppose abotion, I can expect that it will be said or implied that I want to control women's bodies. If I oppose nationalized healthcare, I can expect that it will be said or implied that I am uncaring about sick children. If you oppose the admins' policy, you can expect it to be implied that you are "soft on terror."

None of it is really fair or honest, but it's the way the game is played by both parties. This is an utterly unremarkable incident.

[NurseCarmen]

Scotty didn't say Helen was against the "War on Terror^TM". He said "I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism". Is this a copywrited catch phrase for the administration as well? Or a clear slam against Helen?

It's petty fucking play with words that this administration keeps on pulling.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's not a question of nuance. Claiming that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with eradicating terrorism is just a flat lie, It's factually false- especially when the implication is made that iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Aggravating the problem of Islamic terrorism is not the same thing as fighting it.

[Debaser]

Diogenes and Maureen: I know you guys don't like the war in Iraq. That's fine. We can disagree about such things. However, it just sounds crazy to be in denial about the very existance of it.

It's simply a fact that the US under the current administration is engaging in a global war against terrorism, and that this effort is focused around our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To deny this just makes you look like loons.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

The inference is that one who is opposed to the "broader war on terrorism" indeed supports terrorism. This from an administration that says "you're either on our side or the terrorists' side."

So a "lie" was not uttered, but it was "infered"? Now, that's even more progress! And just how did you think the "lie" was infered? I thought that anyone who attempted to equate opposition to the war with support for terrorists was being unfair. Yet, this is precisely what you have done. It is illogical. It is assumptive. And. yes, unfair. But, no matter. As long as it manages to throw some stank toward The White House all is good.

Makes me yearn for the good old days when the left knew what a lie was but claimed it didn't matter when a perjurious statement was about sex.

[Syntropy]

To whom? People who unquestioningly swallow everything that comes out of the mouth of a coke head who believes God talks to him? I'm willing to take that risk.

The fact of the matter is, our involvement in Iraq is increasing terrorist activity. But, hey. Job security for the lucky military, huh?

[furt]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not a question of nuance. Claiming that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with eradicating terrorism is just a flat lie, It's factually false- ....

And what you are apparently incapable of grasping is that that is an opinion, not a fact.

Just as, in my example above, some might argue that affirmative action addresses the "root causes" of a race riot, so this admin has argued that regime change in the Middle East addressses the root causes of terrorism. It's fine to disagree; but it's pathetic to act as if you don't even comprehend the opposing argument and are intellectually incapable of moving the discussion beyond the differing presuppositions.

[Syntropy]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So a "lie" was not uttered, but it was "infered"? Now, that's even more progress! And just how did you think the "lie" was infered? I thought that anyone who attempted to equate opposition to the war with support for terrorists was being unfair. Yet, this is precisely what you have done. It is illogical. It is assumptive. And. yes, unfair. But, no matter. As long as it manages to throw some stank toward The White House all is good.

Even better if it manages to stop a few of our troops from dying for that lie. I love the irony of people who loftily lecture against mud slinging while taking as many shots as they can at people who disagree with them.

Makes me yearn for the good old days when the left knew what a lie was but claimed it didn't matter when a perjurious statement was about sex.

Thank you so much for proving my point. So tell me. Would you not agree that lying to Congress and getting 2,000 members of the U.S. military is a far more serious lie than whether or not you got blown in the office? And if so, when will we see your outraged letter to your congressman demanding Bush's impeachment?

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So a "lie" was not uttered, but it was "infered"? Now, that's even more progress! And just how did you think the "lie" was infered? I thought that anyone who attempted to equate opposition to the war with support for terrorists was being unfair. Yet, this is precisely what you have done. It is illogical. It is assumptive. And. yes, unfair. But, no matter. As long as it manages to throw some stank toward The White House all is good.

Makes me yearn for the good old days when the left knew what a lie was but claimed it didn't matter when a perjurious statement was about sex.

Good heavens. Helen Thomas does not support the Iraq War. She is told that this means that she is against the war on terror. This is a lie since there is no connection between the two. An additional lie is inferred in melding this statement with previous administration statements that you're either on their side or that of the terrorists. If you don't think that the White House likes to have people infer things from what they say, look at how little they have done to dispel the notion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Maus Magill

The thing that gets me - and why I was moved to post a Pit OP - is that I thought we were through with this whole "if you dare question us, then you're with the terrorists" bullshit.

You must be kidding.

As with "the media is controlled by liberal elites," "the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility," and "George W. Bush is an intelligent and competent leader," there is no bullshit line that the right won't keep touting even long after it's been proven as accurate as Colin Powell's UN presentation.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Tt's simply a fact that the US under the current administration is engaging in a global war against terrorism, and that this effort is focused around our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, except not in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al Qaeda and nothing to do with any terrorism directed against the US. I also haven't seen much evidence that the insurgency is being directed by aQ or by "terrorists" (unless you're going to simply define the insurgents themselves as "terrorists" which is completely self-serving and disingenuous. They were neither insurgents nor "terrorists" until we attacked them.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Debaser

It's simply a fact that the US under the current administration is engaging in a global war against terrorism, and that this effort is focused around our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Leaving out for the moment that the image of something being focused around something else is a bit, uh, murky, if our operatiions in Iraq and Afghanistan are our best efforts to combat global terrorism, we should quit while we are way behind.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by furt

And what you are apparently incapable of grasping is that that is an opinion, not a fact.

All the evidence points the other way, Bubba. If I said "The Sun is blue", would you consider that just an opinion, too? Or does evidence matter at all to those of you wandering around Fantasyland?

What the meaning of "is" is depends on the party affiliation of who's saying it, huh? "Character matters" indeed.

[George Kaplin]

Originally Posted by Debaser

It's simply a fact that the US under the current administration is engaging in a global war against terrorism, and that this effort is focused around our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah, but it shouldn't be. Afghanistan, sure. But not Iraq. There was scant terrorist activity in Iraq before the invasion. Why make them the focal point of a war on terror? Your argument would apply just as well if the US had decided to attack Luxembourg.

As regards Helen Thomas, she is only demonstrably against the war on terror insofar as she opposes its nonsensical expansion into Iraq. Of course, that's not the implication and was never meant to be. The term 'Broader war on terrorism' is deliberately vague, suggesting that Thomas is opposed to any and all expansion of the war on terror irrespective of the reasons given for doing so. It was a shitty, sleazy thing to say.

[HPL]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Diogenes and Maureen: I know you guys don't like the war in Iraq. That's fine. We can disagree about such things. However, it just sounds crazy to be in denial about the very existance of it.

I'm confused. When did they said that the war in Iraq doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by Debaser

It's simply a fact that the US under the current administration is engaging in a global war against terrorism, and that this effort is focused around our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To deny this just makes you look like loons.

Iraq is part of the War againest Terrorism by the virtue of Bush overthrowing Saddam(who had little or nothing to do with AQ), for reasons that turned out to be untrue. Even worse, the adminstration has not only done a horrible job trying to salvage something out of Iraq, Afganistan hasn't been getting the attention it should either and the country is still in turmoil.

And before you paint me as a leftist, I supported Bush and gave him the benefit of the doubt for 4 years. On the WMD thing, on the way the war was run, etc. However, it's become abundtly clear to me that Bush has no frakken idea what he's doing over there and doesn't seem to care either. Anyone who questions that is accused of being unpatriotic or aiding the terrorists. And it sickens me.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

It's funny that some of you guys still don't get this.

I'm rather surprised anyone's saying it, too. When we invaded Iraq, it was related to the War on Terror only in the sense that that War provided an excuse, but since Al Qaeda is there now, it's part of that effort.
Be that as it may, "against the war in Iraq" /= "against the war on terror." That's not even a rhetorical ploy at this point, it's a clumsy attempt at Two-Concept Monty.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by furt

None of it is really fair or honest, but it's the way the game is played by both parties. This is an utterly unremarkable incident.

Well it's a stupid fucking game, and one we need to eradicate. This "game" of polar absolute views is literally sending the country down the shitter.

Btw, good comment Mace. I was about to say "it is now", but you beat me to the punch.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

It's funny that some of you guys still don't get this.

It's only a center of terrorism because we made it that way; by your logic, we should invade ourselves.

Originally Posted by Debaser

It's simply a fact that the US under the current administration is engaging in a global war against terrorism, and that this effort is focused around our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No it's not. Bush and friends have never treated the "War on Terror" as anything other than a political tool; they have not hesitated to ignore or sabotage it when politically convenient. They obviously aren't seriously trying to stop terrorism. Given how they use it ( especially 9-11 ) as a political prop, I expect the Bushites are actually rooting for Al-Quaeda to manage another dramatic strike in America.

[Syntropy]

Originally Posted by HPL

I'm confused. When did they said that the war in Iraq doesn't exist?

We didn't. But he's on a roll.

Anyone who questions that is accused of being unpatriotic or aiding the terrorists. And it sickens me.

Including Helen Thomas, which is just laughable. She loves this country more than quite a few of the morons she interviews.

[Ravenman]

Oh, come on now. The White House spokesman said Helen Thomas is opposed to the broader war on terrorism. He didn't say that she supports Osama bin Laden, he didn't say she hates America, he didn't say she's a nutjob reporter far past her prime. Helen Thomas has been asking tough questions of the White House -- there's some questions that are probably more on the lines of harassment of a White House flak than of trying to pry news out of him -- and good on her.

But the idea that a spinmeister in Washington DC can't ever lay gloves on a reporter in a little verbal repartee is pretty fucking stupid. As far as politics goes, this barb doesn't even rate a bloody nose. In other news, various press secretaries in the White House have been openly making fun of nutjob journalist Les Kinsolving for many years, and yet there's no pit threads about that "unfair" treatment of another journalist.

For the record, I view the war on terrorism as being the war on Al Qaeda. If the Administration wants to say that the "broader war on terrorism" includes things like the war in Iraq; unprovoked, preventive war; or interrogation techniques that cross the line into torture, then sign me up right below Helen Thomas on those that oppose the broader war on terrorism. It seems quite evident to me that the phrase "broader war on terrorism" as Scott McClellan used it encompasses all of these damned fool things that have nothing to do with actually making our country safer, and I'll damned well be proud of wearing that opposition on my sleeve.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Maureen

Even better if it manages to stop a few of our troops from dying for that lie.

And what would that lie be? Please be specific.

Originally Posted by Maureen

Thank you so much for proving my point.

You know, I knew as I ws hitting the submit button that someone would cry "foul". But there was a larger point being made. It was not about what Clinton did, but about the libs' reaction to it. Surely, you can see the difference.

Then again, probably not.

Originally Posted by Maureen

So tell me. Would you not agree that lying to Congress and getting 2,000 members of the U.S. military is a far more serious lie than whether or not you got blown in the office? And if so, when will we see your outraged letter to your congressman demanding Bush's impeachment?

Again, what would the lies be? Specifically.

And not that it matters, I have complained to congressmern—and The White House—about Bush (who I am no fan of and never voted for). Just not about imaginary lies.

You might want to read furt's posts in this thread over again. He has it exactly right. It is completely possible to be against the war, hate Bush, and for his posts to be 100% correct. Can you not see that? Seriously.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

It's funny that some of you guys still don't get this.

So if we withdraw from Iraq, are we running from the terrorists? Does this mean that the majority of Americans want to run from the terrorists? Does this mean that the majority of Americans think it was a bad idea to fight the war on terror?

Why do the majority of Americans hate America?

[Scott Plaid]

Originally Posted by furt

It is the view of the administration that Iraq is part of "The War on Terror."

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant; it's their terminology and they have a right to define thier own terms.

"It is the view of SCO that Unix is part of Linux."

"It is the view of the Catholic Church that homosexual behavior is sinful"

Do I smell cows? Is there a farm nearby?

[ElvisL1ves]

You can't even think of one lie? There are so many to choose from the hard part is starting. Read 'n' learn. A broader list. Horse, meet water. This is good, too, but this is more succinct.

This is all news to you? What planet have you been living on?
Get a brain, moran.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Bush and friends have never treated the "War on Terror" as anything other than a political tool; they have not hesitated to ignore or sabotage it when politically convenient. They obviously aren't seriously trying to stop terrorism. Given how they use it ( especially 9-11 ) as a political prop, I expect the Bushites are actually rooting for Al-Quaeda to manage another dramatic strike in America.

WOW! Cindy, you better step it up, you've got competition.

[Syntropy]

Oh, my. Where to start? Do you want them by term, alphabetically, or in order of importance?

1. We never had any proof that Saddam had WMD. That was a lie. The "yellow cake uranium letter" was a fabrication. Cheney lied to congress. Bush lied the country.

2. Saddam didn't have WMD. No. He really, really didn't. He wasn't hiding them in milk factories, and to date we have found precisely 6 rusted shell casings that may, at one time, have contained biological weapons that we sold him.

3. Bush never gave a good god damn about OBL. No, really. He doesn't. He even came out and said so after we were committed to that drain called Afghanistan. Christ, do you honestly think the Soviet Union couldn't have spent all their money and time and resources there if they really wanted to? They just weren't that stupid.

4. He lied to the country about nailling the assholes responsible for 9/11. He hasn't run them to the ground, and I for one want them nailed. It was one of the few things I supported his silly ass on.

5. He lied when he said that he would fire anyone who would give up a government operative in the field.

6. He lied about his service record.


....really, how long have you got?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Oh, come on now. The White House spokesman said Helen Thomas is opposed to the broader war on terrorism.

I answered this, but if you disagree, it ought to be easy to resolve. Tell me this: what does "the broader war on terrorism" mean, exactly?