Bush didn't use the word "war" at all in his brief remarks

[dajoki]

WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/03/20/BL2006032000742.html?referrer=email

War Is Peace

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, March 20, 2006; 1:21 PM

Yesterday marked three years of war in Iraq -- but not to President Bush. To Bush, it was "the third anniversary of the beginning of the liberation of Iraq."

In fact, as Nedra Pickler noted for the Associated Press, Bush didn't use the word "war" at all in his brief remarks .

To hear Bush tell it, what's going on in Iraq -- whatever it is -- is fundamentally about progress, victory and peace. "We are implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq," he said. "And a victory in Iraq will make this country more secure, and will help lay the foundation of peace for generations to come."

Bush's avoidance of the word "war" in the context of Iraq is the rule, not the exception. In the carefully chosen lexicon of White House speeches, that particular word is almost exclusively reserved for the "global war on terror."

So there is no war, except for the war that never ends, and we're winning.

[Mz Pip]

1. Yeah, he did

and I've got the quote and also heard the words:

"And history has proven that democracies don't war."

It doesn't make a lot of sense but he did use the word "war." :eyes:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[redphish]

2. Just wait, next he'll call it a "police action".

[FloridaPat]

3. Gonzales when he was before the senate said it's not a war - it's a

military action. He was very adament about that. No war = no war crimes.

[dajoki]

4. what a bunch...

of cowardly assholes.