#Raw Feed Latest News The Blog Featured Posts IFRAME: http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/huffingtonpost/blog/politics;nickname=george-lakoff;entry_id=29181;911=1;iraq=1;radical-right=1;fox-news=1;supreme-court=1;saddam-hussein=1;george-w-bush=1;ptile=1;dcopt=ist;sz=728x90;ord='+ ord +'? October 18, 2006 The Huffington Post DELIVERING NEWS AND OPINION SINCE MAY 9, 2005 ____________________ Search * Home * The News * The Blog * Eat The Press * Contagious Festival * Becoming Fearless George Lakoff George Lakoff Bio Blog Index RSS 09.11.2006 Five Years After 9/11: Drop the War Metaphor (45 comments ) READ MORE: 9/11, Iraq, Radical Right, Fox News, Supreme Court, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush By George Lakoff and Evan Frisch -- Rockridge Institute Language matters, because it can determine how we think and act. For a few hours after the towers fell on 9/11, administration spokesmen referred to the event as a "crime." Indeed, Colin Powell argued within the administration that it be treated as a crime. IFRAME: http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/huffingtonpost/blog/politics;nickname=george-lakoff;entry_id=29181;911=1;iraq=1;radical-right=1;fox-news=1;supreme-court=1;saddam-hussein=1;george-w-bush=1;ptile=2;sz=300x250;ord='+ ord +'? This would have involved international crime-fighting techniques: checking banks accounts, wire-tapping, recruiting spies and informants, engaging in diplomacy, cooperating with intelligence agencies in other governments, and if necessary, engaging in limited "police actions" with military force. Indeed, such methods have been the most successful so far in dealing with terrorism. But the crime frame did not prevail in the Bush administration. Instead, a war metaphor was chosen: the "War on Terror." Literal --not metaphorical -- wars are conducted against armies of other nations. They end when the armies are defeated militarily and a peace treaty is signed. Terror is an emotional state. It is in us. It is not an army. And you can't defeat it militarily and you can't sign a peace treaty with it. The war metaphor was chosen for political reasons. First and foremost, it was chosen for the domestic political reasons. The war metaphor defined war as the only way to defend the nation. From within the war metaphor, being against war as a response was to be unpatriotic, to be against defending the nation. The war metaphor put progressives on the defensive. Once the war metaphor took hold, any refusal to grant the president full authority to conduct the war would open progressives in Congress to the charge of being unpatriotic, unwilling to defend America, defeatist. And once the military went into battle, the war metaphor created a new reality that reinforced the metaphor. Once adopted, the war metaphor allowed the president to assume war powers, which made him politically immune from serious criticism and gave him extraordinary domestic power to carry the agenda of the radical right: Power to shift money and resources away from social needs and to the military and related industries. Power to override environmental safeguards on the grounds of military need. Power to set up a domestic surveillance system to spy on our citizens and to intimidate political enemies. Power over political discussion, since war trumps all other topics. In short, power to reshape America to the vision of the radical right -- with no end date. In addition, the war metaphor was used as justification for the invasion of Iraq, which Bush had planned for since his first week in office. Frank Luntz, the right-wing language expert, recommended referring to the Iraq war as part of the "War on Terror" -- even when it was known that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and indeed saw Osama bin Laden as an enemy. Fox News used "War on Terror" as a headline when showing film clips from Iraq. Remember "Weapons of Mass Destruction?" They were invented by the Bush administration to strike terror into the hearts of Americans and to justify the invasion. Remember that the Iraq War was advocated before 9/11 and promoted as early as 1997 by the members of the Project for the New American Century, who later came to dominate in the Bush administration. Why? The right-wing strategy was to use the American military to achieve economic and strategic goals in the Middle East: to gain control of the second largest oil reserve in the world; to place military bases right in the heart of the Middle East for the sake of economic and political intimidation; to open up Middle East markets and economic opportunities for American corporations; and to place American culture and a controllable government in the heart of the Middle East. The justification was 9/11 -- to identify the Iraq invasion as part of the "War on Terror" and claim that it is necessary in order to protect America and spread democracy. What has been the result? Domestically, the "War on Terror" has been a major success for the radical right. Bush has been returned to office and the radical right controls all branches of our government. They are realizing their goals. Social programs are being gutted. Deregulation and privatization are thriving. Even highways are being privatized. Taxpayers' money is being transferred to the ultra-rich making them richer. Two right-wing justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court and right-wing judges are taking over courts all over America. The environment continues to be plundered. Domestic surveillance is in place. Corporate profits have doubled while wage levels have declined. Oil profits are astronomical. And the radical rights social agenda is taking hold. The "culture war" is being won on many fronts. And it is still widely accepted that we are fighting a "War on Terror." The metaphor is still in place. We are still taking off our shoes at the airports, and now we cannot take bottled water on the planes. Terror is being propped up. But while the radical right has done well on the domestic front, America and Americans have fared less well both at home and abroad. What was the moral of 9/11? To Osama bin Laden, the moral was simple: American power can be used against America itself. This moral has defined the post 9/11 world: the more America uses military force in the Middle East, the more damage is done to America and Americans. The more Americans kill and terrorize Muslims, the more we recruit Muslims to become terrorists and fight against us. The war in Iraq was over in 2003 when the US forces defeated Saddam's army. Then the American occupation began -- an occupation by insufficient troops ill-suited to be occupiers, especially in a country on the brink of a civil war, where neither side wants us there. The number of lives lost on 9/11 is currently listed as 2973. As of this writing 2662 Americans have been sent to their deaths in Iraq, a Muslim country that did not attack us. At the current rate, within months more Americans will have been sent to their deaths by Bush than were murdered at the hands of bin Laden. 9/11 was a crime -- a crime against humanity -- and terrorism is best dealt with as crime on an international level. It is time to toss the war metaphor into the garbage can. The war metaphor is still intimidating progressives. To come out against "staying the course" is to be called unpatriotic, weak, and defeatist. To say, "no, we're just as strong, but we're smarter" is to keep and reinforce the war metaphor, which the conservatives have a patent on. It is time for progressives to jettison the war metaphor itself. It is time to tell some truths that progressives have been holding back on. What has worked in stopping terrorism is just what has worked in stopping international crime -- like the recent police work in England. What has failed is the war approach, which just recruits more terrorists. In Iraq, the war was over when we defeated Saddam's army. Then the occupation began. Our troops are dying because they are not trained be occupiers in hostile territory on the cusp of a civil war. Bush is an occupation president, not a war president, and his war powers should be immediately rescinded. Rep. Lynn Woolsey's resolution to do just that (H.R. 5875) should be taken seriously and made the subject of national debate. I am suggesting a conscious discussion of the war metaphor as a metaphor. The very discussion would require the nation to think of it as a metaphor, and allow the nation to take seriously the truth of our presence in Iraq as an occupation that must be ended. You don't win or lose an occupation; you just exit as gracefully as possible. Openly discussing the war metaphor as a metaphor would allow the case to be made that terrorism is most effectively treated as a crime -- like wiping out a crime syndicate -- not as an occasion for sending over a hundred thousand troops and doing massive bombing that only recruits more terrorists. Finally, openly discussing the war metaphor as a metaphor would raise the question of the domestic effect of giving the president war powers, and the fact that the Bush administration has shamelessly exploited 9/11 to achieve the political goals of the radical right -- with all the disasters that has brought to our country. It would allow us to name right-wing ideology, to spell it out, look at its effects, and to see what awful things it has done, is doing, and threatens to keep on doing. The blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq, in New Orleans, in our economy, and throughout the country at large should be placed squarely where it belongs -- on right-wing ideology that calls itself "conservative" but mocks real American values. Metaphors cannot be seen or touched, but they create massive effects, and political intimidation is one such effect. It is time for political courage and political realism. It is time to end the political intimidation of the war metaphor and the terror it has loosed on America. Comments for this post are now closed Send to a friend Print Post Read all posts by George Lakoff Related News Stories * AP: Bush Keeps Changing Reason For Iraq War... * O'Reilly: North Korea Testing Nuclear Weapons "To Influence November Election"... * GOP Sen Burns Debates Opponent: Bush And I Have An Iraq Plan And "We're Not Going To Tell You"... Related Blog Posts * Cenk Uygur: George Bush Will Live in Infamy for What He Has Done to Iraq * Charles Karel Bouley: We're Very Resolute * Jayne Lyn Stahl: Now That We Figured Out How to Go in Reverse... Comments ( Page 1 of 2 > » ): Right on, Mr. Lakoff. The War on Poverty was a failure, the War on Drugs was a failure, now the War on Terror is a failure. We do have one success, however--the War on Poor People Who Use Drugs is going swimmingly. http://www.prestoncoleman.com... By: dreadneck on September 11, 2006 at 12:36pm Flag: [abusive] Without calling it a war, Bush would not have been a "war president" and it would have been more difficult to push through their extremist agenda. Assimilated Press Read "ABC Gets Out Of News Business" at: http://assimilatedpress.blogspot.com/2006/09/abc-gets-out-of-news-b... By: Virt on September 11, 2006 at 12:40pm Flag: [abusive] I very much agree with you. The mass media, especially television, were once again governments little big helper here: soon after the towers fell, they had on-screen banners, such as "America under Attack" and "America's New War." This was very helpful for the Bush administration as it grabbed the war metaphor. You are also right in suggesting that responding to terrorism with "war" takes the focus away from the real means of fighting against terrorism: using intelligence and good, old law enforcement methods. reflectivepundit of reflectivepundit.com By: reflectivepundit on September 11, 2006 at 12:40pm Flag: [abusive] Yes. All true and I greatly appreciate you showing the root cause and the effects of the nazi fascist pig right wing of this country and administration and their use of this metaphore marketing tool that has pulled this country's mindless sheep's own wool over their own eyes. Thier stupidity has brought pain to many more than themselves. I just hope that Bob Bennett and Rahm Emmanuel and the triangulators wake the hell up and drop the war metaphore as well. They, and anybody else, otherwise support this evil administration by using it. IMPEACH and INDICT NOW! By: IndyLikeMe on September 11, 2006 at 12:46pm Flag: [abusive] A rebuttal- if you'll allow it. "Indeed, such [crime] methods have been the most successful so far in dealing with terrorism." Not a chance. During the 90s, we tried to "prosecute" them. But that didn't stop WTC1, USS Cole, etc. Rather it emboldened our enemies. "And you can't defeat it [terrorism]militarily and you can't sign a peace treaty with it." You can't sign a peace treaty, but you can defeat it. Ask Zarqawi how we defeated him. "Bush is an occupation president, not a war president, and his war powers should be immediately rescinded." I think you mean- Bush is a war president and since the War in Iraq is over and the occupation has begun, he should have his war powers rescinded. I have no argument with THAT statement. "9/11 was a crime -- a crime against humanity -- and terrorism is best dealt with as crime on an international level." The last crime against humanity I can think if was the war in the Balkans, which involved the US military. Before that, Sudan, which should have involved the US military. Before that, WWII, which did involve the US military. Are you seeing a pattern here with regards to "crimes against humanity"? "The blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq, in New Orleans, in our economy, and throughout the country at large should be placed squarely where it belongs -- on right-wing ideology that calls itself 'conservative' but mocks real American values." Real American values--- a quenchless thirst for something better, a healthy admiration for those who beat the odds, a generous hand to those in need. Hmm. If this isn't real to you, I am not sure I want to live in your AmeriKKKa! By: MichaelL on September 11, 2006 at 12:49pm Flag: [abusive] It's time to consider that the "incompetance" may be intentional failure. A "win" in Afghanistan plus a "win" in Iraq equals no more wartime president. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. By: altohone on September 11, 2006 at 12:55pm Flag: [abusive] Bravo. Thank you for an intelligent and insightful (and well-written) commentary. Sadly, if the media weren't so in thrall to the right-wing spin machine, it would be easy to eliminate the war metaphor. But it's infested our culture. The facts -- that law enforcement techniques, not 'war techniques', helped us capture the London plane-plot crew -- don't stand a chance against the coordinated, disciplined and utterly unprincipled PR machine of Rove, Luntz and the rest. Kerry was lambasted for suggesting that we needed to reduce terrorism to the point where it was only a "nuisance level" -- but since Bush can never claim to have eliminated all terrorism everywhere, he can't actually explain how his goals differ from Kerry's. It's all just spin and BS... and the Republicans, being less interested in actual governance, are better at adhering to spin dogma. By: Clavis on September 11, 2006 at 12:56pm Flag: [abusive] I remember the Carter administration and the assault on inflation. (I also remember the Ford "WIN" buttons whip inflation now that were not issued because the policy put us into recession) Carter wanted the "moral equivalent of war" (meow) to involve the citizenry in the pain required for victory. Inflation, like terrorism, cannot be eradicated by violence, however, the marketing to a population droned into a semi-awake state of awareness by hollywood can stroke the appropriate buttons honed by a reality that is more square with myth drilled by movies. John Wayne did not win WWII, it was a 100000 John Smiths that noone ever heard of. By: Henry on September 11, 2006 at 01:16pm Flag: [abusive] Her is a conservative who hopes you are successful in convincing Democrats to immediately adopt your recommendations. Democrats: immediaetly stop talking about "war" and start explaining to Americans that don't know any better that a "crime" has been committed, and we need Democrats back in control of Congress because they are tough on "crime". Please Lord, let it start now . . . By: brent4truth on September 11, 2006 at 01:21pm Flag: [abusive] Excellent post. When Bush's "War on Terror" was first announced, it was a conceptual sham. Still is. Wars are declared against enemies, not nebulous concepts. The public was fooled. So was Congress. Millions have suffered, tens of thousands have died. The War on Terror is as futile as the war on drugs, another conceptual masterpiece drummed up by the right-wing to further their political and ideological agendas..forever. The war on terror has perpetrated the worst war and disaster profiteering that the world has ever seen. Yes, it is time to drop the war metaphor. Which Democrat will stand up to this insult to American and worldwide intelligence? By: nc06 on September 11, 2006 at 01:34pm Flag: [abusive] Dear Mr. Lakoff, I applaud this post. The words the right wing chooses are extremely precise. The idea that Bush is fighting a "War on Terror" includes the subliminal message that Bush is warring on fear. That is one reason why those who still believe in Bush do so: it's because they believe he will protect them from their own fear. I am a New Yorker and was here on 9/11. I had friends that were running from the cloud, friends that were stuck in their office buildings as the towers came down and had to walk the 7 miles home, friends that had to escape via the Staten Island Ferry and stay with strangers overnight. These were the lucky ones. And yet, despite their fear and trauma at actually being involved in the events of 9/11, they all had one thing in common: They all voted Democrat in 2004 (although they hadn't all done so in 2000). We all need to follow Mr. Lakoff's advice and stop thinking that terror can be defeated by war. The only way to fight terror is to look within ourselves, and to find our inner strength against our own demons of fear. Otherwise, we will continue to be easily manipulated by unscrupulous, power-hungry war criminals like the Bush administration. By: madamab on September 11, 2006 at 01:44pm Flag: [abusive] Finally someone comes out and says this in plain language. It's maddening to hear so-called "progressives" and "liberals" bandying about the term "War on Terror" in much the same way they adopted "pro-life". Thanks for saying what (hopefully) many of us have been thinking for the past five years. There is no war, on a premise or otherwise. http://travislosangeles.blogspot.com... By: TravisLA on September 11, 2006 at 02:23pm Flag: [abusive] At each step -- from the invasion of Iraq, to the unsupervised surveillance of American citizens, to the torture of prisoners of war -- the methods by which the Bush administration has prosecuted the war on terror have been controversial and contentious. The question must now be fairly asked whether these methods have been chosen for precisely that reason. There are many reasons to challenge the legality, constitutionality and effectiveness of the measures George W. Bush has chosen to confront Islamic extremism. But there is no doubt that the very extremism of these methods, by provoking outrage among liberal and Democratic critics, feeds the powerful central narrative that Republicans have used to win the last two elections, and are using again to contest this one: That Republicans are strong on terror and Democrats are weak. And in time of war, that distinction quickly turns into the very definition of patriotism. A standard Republican talking point is that America should elect Republicans because it needs leaders who "understand that we are fighting a war." Yet, the irony is that for these very same Republicans, the conflict against Iraq and "terrorism" generally, is no longer a "real war" but a metaphor. Instead of a genuine conflict that demands accurate threat assessments, a sophisticated understanding of our adversaries and their aims and capabilities, or realistic strategies for defeating well-defined dangers, Republicans have made the war on terror a proxy for Republican vigor and Democratic feebleness. That this cynical misuse of the war on terror for political gain may ultimately weaken America's ability to combat genuine terrorism is, from the GOP's partisan point of view, just another casualty of war. When he resigned in disgust after just six months as head of President Bush's faith-based initiative, John Dilulio delivered what may become history's final word on the Bush Presidency when he said there was "no precedent in the modern White House for the complete lack of a policy apparatus" that prevailed within the Bush Administration. "Everything, and I mean everything [is] being run by the political arm," said Dilulio. "It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. [They] consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible." Few, he said, even cared about policy substance and analysis; and what was "breathtaking," said Dilulio, was the "near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy." Subordinating sound policy to political profit may be harmless when applied to something as essentially innocuous as federal aid to church-basement day care centers. But this indulgence has dangerous life and death consequences when it overtakes the conduct of a great power in time of war. Let's look at specifics: The Department of Homeland Security. The creation of a central DHS enjoyed broad bi-partisan support and was, in fact, first proposed by Democrats over the objections of the Bush administration. Not until there was overwhelming public support for the new department did the White House do an about face and pretend it took the lead on the measure all along. Yet, bi-partisan support for the measure made it worthless as a Republican wedge issue in 2002. And so the poison pill of union protection for federal workers had to be induced to allow the GOP to campaign on Republican stoutness and Democratic perfidy. The War in Afghanistan. Launched with broad bi-partisan support, this war was the logical and legitimate response to the terrorist attacks in 2001 and did real damage to the actual enemy that attacked us on 9/11. But consensus between Republicans and Democrats made the war in Afghanistan useless as an issue that could draw distinctions between the two parties on national security. The War in Iraq. The bitter debate the invasion has provoked on whether Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, or distraction from it, has obvious political advantages for the hard-line Right that defines patriotism as support for the war and the administration that fights it. Torture. Experts are dubious about the effectiveness of using torture (in violation of long-standing American traditions and international conventions) as an effective means for extracting reliable intelligence from terrorists, enemy combatants or those innocent detainees captured indiscriminately on the battlefield. The military high command is also strongly opposed because they fear retribution against our own troops should they be captured by the enemy. But there is no denying that torture, as a tough-on-terror response is a useful weapon for bludgeoning Democrats as weak on defense. Domestic Surveillance. This is an entirely artificial controversy since no mainstream figure disputes the right of the government to use electronic surveillance as a legitimate law enforcement or counter-terrorism tool. The Bush administration could easily have avoided the political firestorm that it knew its secret spying program would ignite by getting warrants through the FISA courts specifically created by Congress to balance legitimate law enforcement with the protection of American civil liberties. Yet, by going behind the back of Congress and the courts, the Bush administration is now able to frame principled outrage over its secret program as just another example of Democratic support for criminal rights over victim rights. The same dynamic exists with the administration's detention of individuals in this country and its confinement of suspected terrorists in secret camps overseas. Likewise, the special tribunals that Bush is now trying to establish in the face of opposition from civil libertarians, the military's judge advocate general corps, and the Supreme Court create another exploitable wedge issue for an administration that seems intent to craft each part of its war-fighting strategy with an eye toward how it will play in the next election. At some point the American people need to ask themselves: "Just whose side is George W. Bush and the Republican Party on, anyway?" Do they care more about the future security of The United States or the future political prospects of the Republican Party? How can George W. Bush expect to defeat an enemy he cannot even define? Are we trying to win a war or an election? Shoving together al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Sunni insurgents, Shia insurgents, Iran, Syria, and God knows who else, under the all-embracing umbrella of "terrorists who hate freedom," may help the President distract attention from the chaos he has unleashed in Iraq. It may even create the myth that we are fighting a monolithic foe on par with the Nazis or Soviets of the past. But the logic of a lunatic formulation that lumps together such widely disparate groups, with such different motivations and capabilities, is that we must fight them all as one enemy, with identical weapons and strategies, and with the same grim kill-or-be-killed mentality that leads to real - not metaphorical - world wars. You decide who is really giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Dragging along a divided and dispirited country, its proudest traditions and most cherished ideals held up to the world for mockery, is no way to win a war. Especially a war, as the President likes to say, that is largely a war of ideas. By: tjf on September 11, 2006 at 03:04pm Flag: [abusive] Amen, Brother. When we allowed Bush to frame the response to 9/11 as the "War on Terror" we lost all ability to oppose his subsequent stupidity. The "liberal" media all adopted his "War on Terror" framework. Getting the debate re-framed now will be next to impossible. But we must do it. By: larryk on September 11, 2006 at 03:09pm Flag: [abusive] "The more Americans kill and terrorize Muslims, the more we recruit Muslims to become terrorists and fight against us." -------------- We weren't killing or terrorizing Muslims in the years preceding 9/11. Your "it's our fault" perspective is trite, worn-out, overplayed and obscene. By: MISTERWHITE on September 11, 2006 at 03:11pm Flag: [abusive] "It is time for progressives to jettison the war metaphor itself. It is time to tell some truths that progressives have been holding back on." You're absolutely correct, but progressives also should have never accepted it from the beginning. It was phoney then and it's phoney now. Usually Lakoff's prescriptions annoy me because they tend to call for having the Democrats merely change their language without really asking them to change their ways. This one though, is worth adopting. By: DrPaulProteus on September 11, 2006 at 03:26pm Flag: [abusive] George Lakoff is probably the most insightful man in America today, and expresses himself with the eloquence of simple, straightforward speech. It is interesting to me to see how his wise words are received and twisted into hate language by people such as MichaelL. It seems to me that we face the same battle against ignorance here in America that we do around the world. The question for me is: How do wise and compassionate people reach the ignorant haters? Language is the foremost sine qua non, but it is not enough. These people's brains appear to be hard-wired, and no amount of reality can budge them. By: blablabla on September 11, 2006 at 03:26pm Flag: [abusive] Excellent post, Mr. Lakoff. Unfortunately the "war on terror" metaphor cat is well out of the bag. Any attempt to have a valid discussion on this topic would brand progressives as white flag waving defeatests. It's very likely that the recent administration media scare blitz on terrorism will succeed. It's inconceivable, but it seems that the American public still responds like Pavlov's dog to the evildoer rhetoric. By: proudcalib on September 11, 2006 at 03:28pm Flag: [abusive] Great post! Another reason for the "war" travesty is that it gives WEAPONS INDUSTRY, closely aligned with the Bush dynasty and the Cheney mafia, unlimited blank checks. It's The MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, stupid! Corruption on a staggering scale in its vilest, most immoral form: WAR PROFITEERING. Impeach BushCo '07 Gore-Feingold '08 By: wonder6789 on September 11, 2006 at 03:44pm Flag: [abusive] It's not in the best interest of the MSM to abandon the War frame. If it bleeds it leads. It's exciting. They love scaring people as much as The Bush Crime Family. They aren't going to give up their nifty logos and other graphics. By: tommo on September 11, 2006 at 04:24pm Flag: [abusive] Mr. Lakoff, As a "Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics" I have quite a bit of trouble understanding how you bridge the gap between that and History or Political Science. Pardon me sir, but Cognitive Science & Linguistics doesn't spell either History or Political Science. That being as it may, I know of no one who could call the hijacking of 3 American Airlines and subsequent bombing of the WTC not an "Act of War". I may not be a professor sir, but I do have a B.A. in Political Science, have worked on many political campaigns and have run for office and am in the process, of preparing to run for Congress. Given my credentials, I therefore have to conclude that you are one of those Academics that the title PhD stands NOT for doctor of philosophy but ... Piled higher and deeper. That is sir, if you do really have a PhD. If you don't then I figure that you are just another sad academic, hailing from California, that wants to give the state a bad name. Of course, being from California, you cannot say that you were even close to NYC. Pardon me sir, but 17 people from my Township, including the Pilot of one of the planes and the son of one of our Township Supervisors, currently reside 6 feet under. Ask THEIR families if this was not an act of war! By: eddiestardust on September 11, 2006 at 04:31pm Flag: [abusive] Well put. Coincidentally, I had this same discussion today with a colleague who had to admit that they had never heard the "war" discussed this way. What a shame. It was an unprovoked invasion of a soverign nation that did us no harm with a subsequent occupation, plain and simple. By: sammy1 on September 11, 2006 at 04:34pm Flag: [abusive] I agree with your comments. I have been against this war from the start because it served no purpose. If Iraq wanted democracy then they should have fought for it themselves. However, I do see the threat of Iran. Thinking ahead, I see Iran promoting an Islamic government in Iraq which is not good for us. So as much as I wish we had never invaded Iraq I think we are stuck. I believe Powell said if you break it you own it. The balance of power in the middle east was better served with Saddam in power. At least we had him contained. I wonder how the number of Iraqi insurgents killed by Saddam stacks up against the thousands killed in the invasion and occupation. Does it matter how someone is killed or who killed them? Dead is dead. By: surflocalm on September 11, 2006 at 04:37pm Flag: [abusive] Brilliantly done! Everyone, please forward George's post to everyone you know. By: itsallwaybeyondbelief on September 11, 2006 at 04:42pm Flag: [abusive] Amazing post, Mr Lakoff! Please keep up your great work. It's so important at this time. By: Julia06 on September 11, 2006 at 04:56pm Flag: [abusive] Page 1 of 2 > » Send to a friend Print Post Read all posts by George Lakoff IFRAME: http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/huffingtonpost/blog/politics;nickname=george-lakoff;entry_id=29181;911=1;iraq=1;radical-right=1;fox-news=1;supreme-court=1;saddam-hussein=1;george-w-bush=1;ptile=3;sz=160x600;ord='+ ord +'? Top Posts * Bob Cesca: The President Gets His Wish: He's The Dictator * Angela Bonavoglia: Of Bare Breasts and Burkas * Blake Fleetwood: Poor Little Greece Has Better Health Care than the U.S.? Top News * CHAOS IN IRAQ... * Report: Anti-Gay Rights GOP Sen. Larry Craig Has Sex With Men... * Fmr. Page: Foley "Didn't Reel Me In Until He Showed Up At My College"... * Fmr. Soviet President Gorbachev Compares Proposed US Border-Wall To Berlin Wall... * 74% of Americans Say Congress Is Out Of Touch... How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Solutions from George Lakoff How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Solutions from George Lakoff Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision by George Lakoff Sources * Breaking News + Agence France-Press + Associated Press + Dow Jones + Itar-Tass + Kyodo + Reuters + UPI + Xinhua * U.S. Newspapers + Atlanta Journal-Constitution + Boston Globe + Chicago Sun-Times + Chicago Tribune + The Christian Science Monitor + Chronicle of Higher Education + Denver Post + Los Angeles Times + Miami Herald + New York Daily News + New York Times + San Francisco Chronicle + Seattle Post-Intelligencer + St. Petersburg Times + USA Today + Wall Street Journal + Washington Post * Intl. Newspapers + Daily Standard (UK) + Financial Times (UK) + The Globe and Mail (Canada) + Guardian (UK) + Hindustan Times (India) + Independent (UK) + International Herald Tribune + Irish Times + The Scotsman + Telegraph (UK) + Times (UK) + Times of India * Television News + ABC + CBS + CNN + C-SPAN + FOX + PBS NewsHour + MSNBC * Intl. News Networks + ABC (Australia) + Al Jazeera + BBC + CBC (Canada) + Deutsche Welle (EU) + Sky News (UK) * News Search Engines + AOL + AltaVista + Google + Newsbot + Topix + Yahoo! * Full Blogroll ____________________ Search Login to Huffington Post | Make Huff Post your Home Page | RSS/XML | Sitemap | Jobs Copyright 2006 © HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. | User Agreement | Privacy | Comment Policy | Powered by MovableType [tracker.gif?84954944] Site Meter