Dean's Unacknowledged Contribution

[LuminousX]

No 'war' for Howard Dean

So far as I can tell, every major Democratic candidate (and public official) save Dean uses the phrase "war on terror." The phrase is ubiquitous in the media.

You see it in wall-to-wall graphics on TV news shows and hear it routinely from news anchors and pundits. Even top print outlets have made it their accepted shorthand for the unfolding fight against terror, which probably will now be a perpetual feature of American life.

Howard Dean begs to differ. In his big foreign policy address a few weeks ago, Dean called for a "global alliance to defeat terror"; he spoke of the "struggle," the "effort" and our "defense" against terror. He urged us to muster courage for the "fight" ahead.

Dean's omission of the word war in this lengthy speech was no more accidental than Rove's choice of it. If the indefinite struggle against terror is a "war," it delegitimizes an entire universe of questions about White House priorities and behavior as petty distractions.

As the attacks on Dean ratchet up to new, less-than-impressive levels, it is sometimes important to get back to the basics and think about which candidates are caving into Republican rhetoric and which ones are framing their own debate.

To paraphrase Dean, if they say race, he says jobs. They will always try to control the debate, but we have the power to not allow that to happen.

[dajabr]

1. Dean had a strategy from the get-go to beat B*sh...

SBNA of the others are focused on Primary tactics almost exclusively.

*cough* Gephardt
*cough* Lieberman

[Cheswick2.0]

2. I have thought the "war on terror" was a horrible propaganda ploy

right from the first time bush said it. This kind of stand against the Orwellian tactics on the right is what separates him from everyone else in the race.