President Bush has been doing everything possible to keep the war on terror front and center--as it should be. But has he been able to portray the war in Iraq as part of the greater war on terror? That's not quite decided as of yet.

It's widely known that the war in Iraq is a very partisan issue with 56% or so no longer supporting the war. That said, the overall war on terror is still front and center in voters minds. If they believe that Bush has prosecuted the war in an effective manner, the GOP candidates will win. If not, the GOP will get slaughtered.

We're about to find out.

"The Terror," that catchy little phrase coined during the French Revolution, referred to the systematic campaign to crush all "internal enemies of France." Thousands of suspected dissenters were fed to the guillotine, and, well, you've probably seen the musical by now.

Today's wordier reprise, "The War on Terror," doesn't make for as catchy a name for a rock band . Yet embedded in its construction is an eerily similar reductionist view of dissent. Who, after all, doesn't want to defeat terror? And when we finish with terror, I say we move on to horror. Just a matter of a few quick keystrokes in order to change that alarmist television banner at the bottom of the screen.

Yet, as the campaign season nears its end, candidates have returned to local themes in favor of the grander Bushian delusions visions. It's that damned cliche about all politics being local. Even, it would appear, when there's terror in the air. Cue music...

Here's a question that must be asked on occasion: Are we winning the War on Terror?

Liberals will immediately say no and supporters of the WOT will say yes, but what are the facts?

Let's examine how President Bush described the Global War on Terror in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Based on those words as a benchmark, have we been successful?

Very quietly, Britain has stopped using George Bush's favorite phrase: "The war on terror." Apparently, Tony Blair's cabinet has decided that such grandiose language only serves to embolden terrorists.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn, a rising star of the governing Labour Party, said the phrase strengthens terrorists by making them feel part of a bigger struggle. "In the U.K., we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set ob objectives."

Still awaiting comment from Dick Cheney on this one. Me, I've always hated the phrase. Unlike the British, however, my qualms have to do with the definitions of the words themselves. Webster's Dictionary defines terror as, "Fear that agitates the body and mind." Whereas terrorism is, "A system of government by terror, intimidation." While neither word exactly presents a concrete, easily identifiable enemy, I'd rather fight a war against a governmental philosophy than something as intangible as an emotion. No, terror won't be vanquished anytime soon, nor will horror, or fright, or anxiousness. Perhaps the best we can do is follow the British Government's lead, and stamp out overblown catch-phrases.

For the last three-plus years, the Democrats have done everything possible to separate the Iraq war with the greater war on terror. They've carped that by going into Iraq we've let Afghanistan slip and allowed the Taliban to re-emerge as well as other falsehoods.

It seems the American people aren't buying it:

57% believe "The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism."

57% "support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.

50% want our troops should stay and "do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country" while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal

56% believe "Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war."

53% believe "The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq."

That first bullet point and last are quite telling. I, and to a large extent many Republicans, have held the belief from the beginning that winning in Iraq is integral to the course of the WOT. I've also slammed the Democrats repeatedly for pushing too hard to end that war as it would be counter productive to our goals.

The Democrats will use funding as a means to steer the war in Iraq:

Mr. Spratt, who along with Mr. Conrad is examining how the Democratic Congress should funnel the war spending requests through the House and Senate, said, "We need to have a better breakout of the costs - period." He is planning hearings for early next year on the subject even as the White House readies a new request for $120 billion or more to pay for the war through Sept. 30, in addition to the more than $70 billion in emergency appropriations already spent this year.

[...] Congressional control over the money for the war is one of the most powerful weapons Democrats will have in trying to influence administration policy toward Iraq. They can use both the budget and subsequent spending bills to impose restrictions on how the money is spent and demand more information from the White House.

They've taken away our ability to track and eavesdrop on suspected terrorists. They've impugned our troops repeatedly and now they want to take away the money for us to fight. The Democrats will do anything in their power to lose the greater war on terror for no other reason than to say to President Bush "I told you so" on Iraq.

Today, two of our bloggers posted items on recent electoral polls. Scott cited the numbers that show a drop in support for the Democrats in Congress. Of course, the main reason behind the precipitous tumble of approval is the fact that the Democrats have thus far failed to stop the war in Iraq. While Scott thinks that the Democratic party is listening too much to its liberal wing, it might be more accurate to say that the Dems are not hearing the message the country is sending clearly enough.

The Washington Post/ABC poll, for instance, found that 6 in 10 Americans don't think the surge is going to work. In addition, 53% of those questioned now believe that the Iraq war has not made us safer from terrorism. In other words, while beating the "fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" drum may still work when it comes to mustering support in the GOP primary, it's now a losing issue in the general election.

John Edwards has taken heat from many on the right (our own Nixguy among them) for decrying the "War on Terror" as nothing more than a bumper sticker rallying cry. In the former Senator's words:

"The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan."

Of course, it's only one poll, but the Post/ABC findings suggest most Americans agree with Edwards. And with the likes of Newt Gingrich declaring that we are losing what he terms our "global war with Islamic extremists," perhaps the other Republican candidates would do well to identify another catch-phrase altogether.

The ultimate example of just how unserious the Democrats are in fighting the global War on Terror? They have added $10-billion on to the war spending bill that has absolutely nothing to do with the war:

While Democrats try to restrict how President Bush can spend the $100 billion he wants for Iraq, they also hope to load his measure up with $10 billion in add-ons - from aid for avocado growers to help for children lacking health insurance.

Lawmakers also hope to add money for drought relief in the Great Plains, better levees in New Orleans and development of military bases that are closing down.

In essence what the Dems are doing is throwing pork into a bill they know the President would have a hard time vetoing. Smart politics, horrible policy.

President Bush and his GOP PR flacks have all said or "buzzworded" that those who oppose his war are disloyal -- unpatriotic -- and do not "support the troops." I want to clarify MY position on the Iraq War and my position on the use of American citizens in uniform to execute the losing Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war of occupation and regime implementation in Iraq and Afghanistan:

I opposed the war as Bush planned it (prior to his presidency). 9/11 was a terror attack by an extreme Islamic militia organized under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden represents an Islamic strain that is at perpetual war in behalf of "the state of Islam" without geographic boundaries.

Bin Laden had been a CIA ally used to fight the USSR occupation in Afghanistan and this government knows far more about him and his ties to the dictatorial Saudi family than they will ever admit. As long as bin Laden (like Saddam and Noriega in Panama) was working FOR the CIA their apparent secondary agendas were tolerated, if not supported by our secret government.

Several good things and some bad occurred this week.

Afghanistan:

• We offed the commander of Taliban forces in the south in what could only be described as a serious blow to Mullah Omar. The promised Taliban "spring offensive" has been beaten back decisively by NATO forces.
• Our main ally in the region, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, is battling some internal strife for his removal of a popular judge. If Musharraf were to be toppled, we'd have one huge problem. I would suspect that there would be some talk of U.S. forces securing the Pakistani nuclear arsenal to keep it out of the hands of pro-al-Qaida militants.
• Generally unreported by the media, President Bush is reinforcing troops in Afghanistan.
• President Hamid Karzai continues to lead a working, yet dysfunctional government.

Iraq

• Al-Qaida's tactics continue to harm their cause as the tribal elders are continuing to work with US and Iraq forces to expel the terror group.
• Three US Soldiers were allegedly kidnapped by al-Qaida. A massive manhunt is on as I write. More thoughts on this here. This could backfire on AQ in many ways, the least of which is the sure response of U.S. forces should these men be killed.
• al-Maliki will share some more power with Sunni's in a concessionary move.
• Civil war? What civil war? Interesting words from someone who is there.

Worldwide

• The U.S. and Philippines forces are having a serious impact on al-Qaeda offshoot Abu Sayyaf in Mindanao.
• Of course the media dropped the story on the Albanian terror cell busted here in NJ. It was a highly successful operation by the FBI and they deserve great credit for catching these guys before anyone was killed.
• The U.S. is sending a contingent of Air Marshals to Germany and Britain due to increased chatter and a higher threat level. Word is that as many as six FAM's will be on each flight from the continent to the US.
• John Edwards is confusing honoring our troops with dishonoring them.
• The War on Terror may be closer than we think. Why is a Canadian alt-paper reporting this and not a mainstream U.S. paper?

It's time for the American people to ask the question: is the terror from the "terrorists" or Bush and Cheney?

Continuing to use fear as their primary weapon, Bush-Cheney are drawing another line in the sand of the Middle East: get out and "lose the war against terrorism" in Iraq. In the magazine, The Week, they asked the question "Five Years Later: Why No Attack?"

"So with gas masks and duct tape and foreboding deepened by numerous terror "alerts," we waited and waited... for nothing. Terrorists have struck in London, Bali, and elsewhere, and another attack on the U.S. could certainly occur at any time. Still, you'd think the fanatics would have found some way to "slaughter Americans on their home soil" by now, said Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune. The question is, Why haven't they?

And so it begins. Today the Democrats, joined by 17 spaghetti-spined Republicans, passed the Resolution That Means Nothing. Many of us on the right-side of this issue knew full-well that if they could get this meaningless resolution passed, they'd aim higher and attempt to defund the war. It turns out we were spot on:

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182, and within minutes, Democrats said their next move would be to challenge Bush's request for $93 billion in new funds for the Pentagon.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," she vowed.

They're feeling their collective oats and today emboldened them. Is this just the same empty rhetoric we've come to expect from this true "do-nothing" congress? Maybe not. The liberals are in charge and they want nothing more than to end the Iraq war and the greater war on terror, of which Iraq is an integral part.

Last week Rosie O'Donnell berated the use of the phrase "Global War on Terror", claiming that it divides the world into good and evil.

Why yes Rosie, it does. And it's also accurate. That's because terror, in this case, is defined as creating a sense of fear and panic by indiscriminately murdering as many innocent civilians as possible in the name of Islam. And per their world view, either all apostates (non-believers in their form of Islam) convert or they die. That means us, people. The war is being fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the rest of the Middle East, Indonesia, Europe, Latin America, the United States, Russia - you know, the whole world. That is evil, just as it would be evil if the Vatican were doing the same thing today under the guise of Roman Catholicism. Personally, I would prefer the term "Global War on Islamic Fundamentalism", thus identifying the enemy by name as opposed to tactic, and separating the enemy from the majority of Muslims who are neither terrorists nor our enemy. But Global War on Terror will do just fine, thank you. And I don't have to spell-check it.

"Mission Accomplished." "Bring em on." These made-for-electioneering sound bites helped George Bush get re-elected but it hasn't helped him win the war. Karl Rove can win elections but not wars.

It seems that the Iraqis have their own Karl Rove. Al-Zawahri said the U.S. strategy for Iraq, outlined by Bush in a Jan. 9 speech, was doomed to fail. The number two man of al-Qaida was seen on videotape making the following statement:

"I ask him, why send 20,000 (troops) only, why not send 50 or 100 thousand? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies?" said al-Zawahri in the footage released by SITE, an independent group that researches and analyzes terror-related intelligence.

The new line being tossed out by those straining to defend President Bush's Iraq war is: "What is the alternative?" They also do not allow total withdrawal as an acceptable alternative. The problem is that there will never be a good time to leave Iraq. The government is weak and its supporters are bent on revenge. The Sunnis will continue to battle the Shi'tes long after we are gone. The Middle East is an Arab world. Let them come up with the solution.

We found out recently that a group of terrorists plotted an attack on Fort Dix in New Jersey. Over the weekend we learned that more Muslim radicals planned to blow up a jet fuel pipeline near John F. Kennedy International:

But had the terror cell succeeded, they would have caused "unfathomable damage, death and destruction", US Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said.

Retired JFK cargo handler Russell Defreitas, charged over the plot, says in a recording made by the FBI that "even the Twin Towers can't touch it", a reference to the September 11, 2001 al-Qaida terror attack on New York's World Trade Centre.

"This can destroy the economy of America for some time," Defreitas, 63, is heard to say.

The main terrorist, Defreitas, also stated that it would blow up half of Queens. I don't know if that's true or not, but we have on record a stated intention to kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. And it was foiled like all the other attacks since 9/11 because of vigilance of American citizens and focus by the federal government and law enforcement agencies on preventing these kinds of attacks.

Which brings us back to John Edwards.