Yesterday, at Robert Gibbs' first press briefing, David Corn of Mother Jones magazine asked him if Obama was dropping the "war on terror" metaphor. Gibbs didn't give a direct yes or no, but between the lines the answer (both in Gibbs' words and Obama's early actions) is encouraging. Corn's take:
At Robert Gibbs' first briefing as White House press secretary on Thursday afternoon, I asked if the president had booted the war metaphor. Gibbs replied that Obama had used language that was consistent with his inaugural address. In that speech, Obama had indeed said that "our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." But he did not use the standard "war on terror" phrase. Instead he threw the word "war" against a specific target.
At the press conference, I followed up and inquired if Obama had decided not to deploy that phrase as president. "Not that I'm aware of," Gibbs answered.
De-emphasizing the war metaphor would be a significant change. But if it is a deliberate change, the White House does not want to acknowledge it.
Well, that's not the kind of thing pols or their spokespeople say outright, cuz it'll only make cable TV hyperventilate, but it seems pretty clear. Today in the Wash Post, Dana Priest, one of that paper's best reporters, files a piece under the headline, 'Bush's 'War' on Terror Comes to a Sudden End'.
Bravo. And of course it logically follows that if we're not in a perpetual state of war, the executive can't arrogate to itself limitless power for unspecified periods of time.
I live at the same address I always did, but I've moved back into the United States of America.
