“Rightly so”? Based on what have you determined that it’s right that they not come out alive?
Where I come from, we have to have trials and charges and a bunch of shit before we can even put them in prison, much less ensure they never get out.
Fortunately for Bush the Lesses, the Constitution doesn’t require a Congressional declaration of Struggle.
Still, one wonders if the next SOTU will include a request that Congress pass and deliver for signature a “Struggle Powers Act”.
What are you, some sort of commie?
Why don’t you explain how the Roosevelt Administration erred when they set the precedent to deal with all of this that we’re using now.
I refer again to the case of Herbert Haupt, Edward Kerling, Herman Neubauer, Richard Quirin and Werner Thiel, who were tried as enemy combatants by a military commission appointed on July 8, 1942 and then executed one month later at the District of Columbia Jail.
The legality of this process was upheld at the time by the landmark case ex parte Quirin, and reaffirmed some weeks ago.
The word “war” carries implications of goals, rules, endpoints, defined enemies, and an expectation of victory. It was an effective rhetorical device for a while. It scared the sheep into thinking we were in some sort of danger, that we were defending ourselves and that we needed to get behind the leader. By now, though, the word has become more of a hindrance than a help. Those pesky implications that we should expect to “win,” or that this will ever be over are extremely inconvenient. The word “struggle” is open-ended and meaningless and carries no expectations. The word “extremist” is similarly vague and malleable. By changing the slogan, the White House has relieved itself of the burden of meeting expectations or following formal rules. I would like to know when the POTIS acquired the international authority to police the world for “extremists,” but that’s only because I hate America.
We’re not as lonely as we think.
I’m beginning to feel comfortable guessing that we’re a “silent majority.”
Some folks use a term “South Prk Republicans” or “South Park Conservatives”
I believe the correct phrase was “global stuggle against violent extremism”, or GSAVE.
So, you are a republican, and you don’t like Bush. I can understand how this can happen. However, I don’t understand where the term South Park Republicans comes into the picture. After all, the author South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias, seems to apply the term to young people who agree that Bush is always right, and that the “liberal media” is always wrong.
Now, this is not to say I don’t cheer for republicans who dislike Bush. However, I was wondering how the term escaped from the author is such a short period of time. 
This made my day.
Good Description. Does it including liking Penn & Tellers Bullshit even if you don’t always agree and yet at same time loving the Daily Show.
I like South Park because it blasts everything especially the overdose of PCism.
Ah, so. I guess they stopped short of "global waging struggle against violent extremism (US), which would have been “GW-SAVE (US)”.
If evidence exists, try them, if it doesn’t let them fucking go.
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out gitmo is a PR nightmare and working against us in this fight.
Happily. Not only did Roosevelt err in Japanese internment camps (unless saying, “it was WW-II, everything America did was great!” is now your debate strategy), this was another mistake in the efforts to wage WW-II. Basically, it was thrown off to the public as the FBI successfully interupting the German infiltration plans, but in reality, the individuals captured and executed virtually turned themselves in and weren’t going to be successfully pursuing any sabotage anyway. This is a perfect example of why due process shouldn’t be suspended for convenience in “war.”
Listen all about it here:
www.thislife.org
Go to the 3/12/03 show entitled, “The Facts Don’t Matter.”
The relevant section takes around 36 minutes and is well worth the time. It requires some sort of Real compatible player.
Anyway, back to Chefguy’s dumbass OP. This is a weak rant inspired by an even weaker episode of the Daily Show. I watched it last night, and although I usually enjoy the show, it immediately struck me that there wasn’t much news to make fun of that day. Basically, this “news item” started out with a clip from February of 2005. Then it goes on to prove the administration had a stead-fast policy of referring to, “the war on terror,” by providing six examples of officials using the phrase, and then goes to some random clip of how they are now “combining the two” that actually comes from September 2004. So, the damnable things that the administration has actually done is:
- Use the phrased, “War on Terror” more than six times
- Used the phrase, “Struggle against extremism”
The Daily Show even went off on a really stupid tangent of some general dismissing the army as being the automatic solution for terrorism. Well, duh, that’s what 95% of this Board has been arguing for the past two years, and yet the Daily Show plays it off as some sort of faux-paux of denigrating the work of soldiers in Iraq. Equally as idiotic as some beer-guzzling redneck demanding to know, “why do Liberals hate America?”
And this is pit-worthy, why, exactly? A struggle against terrorism is a more accurate phrase than war. We’re not engaged in armed combat with a foreign state, and an army isn’t the sollution. You people should be happy. Yet all this shows is that some stupid liberals will find fault with the Bush Administration no matter what is does and that they’ll sound like stupid, shrill hacks for it as well.
What threemae said. (Shodan, too, for that matter.) There’s nothing to see here. Many people will blast the Bush admin no matter what it does.
Remind me again, how many Guantanimo detainees have tried by a military commission?
Then you recognize how predictably unsavory the Bush administration has become?
Is it too late to make a Mein Kampf joke? Oh, it is. 
Silly geese, don’t you know that wars can have negative connotations while struggles are noble, especially if they fail?
Oh, absolutely. That doesn’t excuse intellectual laziness or crap OP’s such as this. Remember, he got elected for a second go-round, so a majority of this nation obviously feels as if Bush makes a good president. They’re asking, “What’s wrong with Bush?” Responding, “Bush is a fucking moron, QED, now what’s for lunch?” doesn’t cut it.
Tulips, canals, hot Dutch women, a royal family named Orange, clogs… Screw you guys, I’m moving to the Netherlands!