The idiots in the White House are still arguing over a cool name. (Free registration to Washington Post required.)
Hmm… One line and a link (and a quote, but that’s part of the link). An inflamatory title that slams the administration and makes an absurd implication that no reasonable person would draw from the article. Didn’t we ban Reeder? 
I’m not accusing JonScribe of being Reeder. Just of sounding like him.
Well, someone associated with the White House said it. That proves it’s wrong and evil. And very, very wrong. Not sure how, but it just is.
So, brevity’s a bannable offense?
Here’s how:
You’re either with him or agin him. 
It all seems very Orwellian to me. (to put it succinctly)
Yes, clearly the big difficulty we’re having in this War on Terror is marketing it.
At least we’re concerning ourselves with the biggest problem in the hunt. The naming of it. Forget about the soldiers risking life and limb hunting him down.
It’s marketing. Marketing is key these days in selling people on anything. Some of us understand that Osama needs to go, others like the OP haven’t been sold. Hence, the need for catchphrases to get them to put down the PS2 controller long enough to pay attention to what is going on in the world. I’m not talking about idealogical differences in politics. I’m talking about a man who has dedicated his life and fortune for decades to kill us. Plain and simple. ObL said it, the killings made me believe it.
Sadly, the OP seems to think Osama’s actions are legitimate fodder for bashing the current administration. Bash away if you need to. Just keep in mind ObL was around trying to kill of the West long before Bush took office.
Marley23, that wasn’t, whatever you think of it, supposed to be directed to you. Happened to be positioned there in sequence. 
I didn’t think it was.
I find the Susan Glasser quote a little disturbing. She says the name change is required because
That would take into account the changed nature of the battle against international terrorism.
Changed nature? When did this change occur? I trust we are still battling against it aren’t we?
And given our leadership’s massive fuck-up in Afghanistan, it appears he’ll be around trying to kill off the West long after Bush leaves office.
I think the change occurred when people started thinking “Shit, this is really hard, and Iraq isn’t going so great.”
Marley23
If that’s the case then GWOT is the perfect name - just change the words - Globally Wishy-Washy On Terrorism.
Gee…you think maybe if Osama was so important to this administration they’d…you know…try to GET him? Instead of sidetracking the entire military arm of the anti-terrorism effort to take out the head of a country who hadn’t even been capable of doing much more than plucking the whiskers off of kittens for the past 10 years?
The fact that the supporters of this administration can still claim, with a straight face, that Bush thinks it’s important to get bin Laden proves that that Kool-Aid is DAMN tasty!
I still prefer TWAT - The War Against Terrorism. It describes both the concept itself and those who promulgate it perfectly.
It’s not being Wishy-Washy exactly. It’s what the Pentagon might call ‘a lateral adjustment of large goosenecked endzone alloy segments.’ Or in English, “moving the goalposts.” Common sense, politically. The mission has turned into a tough sell, so you make your goals sound more modest and make the original idea sound like less of a promise.
When I heard about this name change, I wondered if that was the end of TWAT, but now I’m convinced that TWAT springs eternal.
It’s not being Wishy-Washy exactly. It’s what the Pentagon might call ‘a lateral adjustment of large goosenecked endzone alloy segments.’ Or in English, “moving the goalposts.” Common sense, politically. The mission has turned into a tough sell, so you make your goals sound more modest and make the original idea sound like less of a promise.
When I heard about this name change, I wondered if that was the end of TWAT, but now I’m convinced that TWAT springs eternal.
Fuck off, and stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that Osama doesn’t need to be stopped, killed and ground into a fine paste.
I call bullshit on these little games of naming our response to terrorism. Jesus, I know Republicans get a hard-on for “running government like a business,” but we’re talking about a response to terrorism here, not selling the latest models from Detroit.
It’s not about marketing. Everybody gets that al-Qaida is evil and has to be stopped. Everybody understands we’re in a fight here. A clever acronym isn’t going to protect me from a suicide bomber. I want to know what the fuck we’re doing, what we’re not doing and what they’re doing. This bullshit about whether it’s a struggle or a war is just a silly distraction.
Or can’t you understand that without a gripping slogan?
When he pulls crap like that, Duffer doesn’t seem very compliant with the “four strategic pillars” of US anti-terror diplomacy, namely: engagement, exchanges, education and empowerment. Maybe he thinks thermonuclear exchanges count? Maybe he really wants Osama to win?