It depends on what the meaning of "terror" is.

There is no "War on Terror."

There is, however, a "war" on the U. S. Constitution.

After September 11, 2001, we’ve learned that we can take a punch and move on. We’ve faced far worse threats to our national survival in our history - the Civil War, the War of 1812, World War II to name a few - but we never abandoned our Constitution. Until now.

Terror is an emotion. Emotions are part of human nature and cannot be eradicated. A "War on Terror" is therefore a war on humanity. The Bush administration has exploited the fear and shock of a nation in the wake of a surprising and dramatic act of violence to whip national fear and paranoia into a constant boil. Why?

The evidence suggests the whole point has been to seize power and steal money. We are witnessing a creeping coup in the United States, the overthrow of the idea, promulgated by our founders and by writers like Tom Paine, that the "Law is King..."

Unfortunately to many Dear Leader's word is Law.

Whatever the latest word happens to be.

It's been a long Memorial Day weekend, mostly spent around people whose worldview is somewhat skewed. But what else should I expect from a soccer tournament in S.E. Michigan?

It stared at me in the New York Pravda today, as an amazing fountain of bullshit from a Darth Rumsfeld toady as I've ever read, and the crime is the number of people that will suck it right up:

...We are at the outset of a long war, and not just in Iraq. Yet it is being led politically by the short-sighted, from both sides of the aisle. The deterioration of American support for the mission in Iraq is indicative not so much of our military conduct there, where real gains are coming slowly but steadily, but of chaotic leadership.

Somehow Operation Iraqi Freedom, not a large war by America's historical standards, has blossomed into a crisis of expectations that threatens our ability to react to future threats with a fist instead of five fingers.

Obviously this individual expect Queensbury rules.

...Instead of rallying we are squabbling, even as the slow fuse burns.

I might agree but suspect we differ on the nature of the coming explosion.

One party is overly sanguine, unwilling to acknowledge its errors. The other is overly maudlin, unable to forgive the same...

Main Entry: maud·lin
Pronunciation: 'mod-l&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of Mary Magdalene; from her depiction as a weeping penitent
1 : drunk enough to be emotionally silly
2 : weakly and effusively sentimental

...The Bush administration seeks to insulate the public from the reality of war, placing its burden on the few. The press has tried to fill that gap by exposing the raw brutality of the insurgency; but it has often done so without context, leaving a clear implication that we can never win...

Win what? You've actually got an objective?

...In the past, the American public could turn to its sons for martial perspective...

Okay, I qualify. I'm a son of America. You aren't going to listen to me?

... Soldiers have historically been perhaps the country's truest reflection, a socio-economic cross-section borne from common ideals. The problem is, this war is not being fought by World War II's citizen-soldiers. Nor is it fought by Vietnam's draftees. Its wages are paid by a small cadre of volunteers that composes about one-tenth of 1 percent of the population — America's warrior class.

You know. The Uber-mensch.

The insular nature of this group — and a war that has spiraled into politicization — has left the Americans disconnected and confused.

Spiraled? It landed in the political arena on 9-11, when Darth Rumsfeld decided to let the bin Ladens leave and move against Saddam.

...It's as if they have been invited into the owner's box to settle a first-quarter disagreement on the coach's play-calling. Not only are they unprepared to talk play selection, most have never even seen a football game.

And those who've seen this game played regularly for the last 50 years- well, who cares what you think anyway!

This confusion, in turn, affects our warriors, who are frustrated by the country's lack of cohesion and the depiction of their war. Iraq hasn't been easy on the military, either. But the strength of our warriors is their ability to adapt.

First, in battle you move forward from where you are, not where you want to be. No one was more surprised that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction than the soldiers who rolled into Iraq in full chemical protective gear.

No doubt the soldiers were surprised. But the Administration and the Pentagon weren't.

But it is time for the rest of the country to do what the military was forced to: get over it.

Exactly why?

If we can put 2003's debates behind us, there is a swath of common ground on which to focus. Both Republicans and Democrats agree we cannot lose Iraq.

The Democrats I know- as opposed to the DINOcrats supported by iron triangle money- suggest the loss was inevitable and has already occurred.

... The general insurgency in Iraq imperils our national interest and the hardcore insurgents are our mortal enemies. Talking of troop reductions is to lose sight of the goal.

Goal being: how do you define win? Genocide as an answer to the "general insurgency"?

Second, America's conscience is one of its greatest strengths. But self-flagellation, especially in the early stages of a war against an enemy whose worldview is uncompromising, is absolutely hazardous. Three years gone and Iraq's most famous soldiers are Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England, a victim and a criminal, respectively.

No, two victims of Chancellor Rumsfeld's policies and orders

...Abu Ghraib remains the most famous battle of the war.

Soldiers are sick of apologizing for a sliver of malcontents who are not at all representative of the new breed.

Those Uber-mensch, again, the few, the proud, the religiously genocidal.

But they are also sick of being pitied. Our warriors are the hunters, not the hunted, and we should celebrate them as we did in the past, for while our tastes have changed, warfare — and the need to cultivate national guardians — has not. As Kipling wrote, "The strength of the pack is the wolf."

Strangely, most of us don't regard ourselves as wolves. Perhaps you belong in a wildlife reserve. Or better yet, behind bars.

Finally, today's debates are not high-spirited so much as mean-spirited. To allow polarizing forces to dominate the argument by insinuating false motives on one side or a lack of patriotism on the other is to obscure long-term security decisions that have to be made now.

On the contrary, I'd like to state for the record here you have both false motives and a lack of patritism. The America you want to create is nothing like a republican democracy.

We are clashing with an enemy who has been at war with us in one form or another for two decades. Our military response may take decades more...

And there we have it. Either it's the enemy we created he's talking about, or the enemy who's been fighting the iron triangle for the last 20 years.

I like Krugman's take today much better: they're swift-boating the planet, and the war, too.

The war on terror is a real war, alas. The Constitution is terrifying to the criminals who make war on it.