I've stopped at IraqSlogger a few times and actually was getting ready to post a little graphic of a flying pig because, well, I was kind of impressed.
Until this morning. It's one of those things that can't be summed up in a few words, just go take a look for yourself. Maybe it's too early to make a judgment one way or the other, but here's one example:
In this unattributed post the title promises: "Rumsfeld: Iraq Not 'War on Terror'." The post then goes on to explain how in an interview with Cal Thomas this exchange occurred:
"CT: With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq?
DR: I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. I don't mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word 'war' conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn't going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a 'war on terror.' Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So 'war on terror' is a problem for me."
To this day, when writing about the conflict in which we are involved, I'll often refer to it as: "the war on terror, or whatever you want to call it."
The point of Rumsfeld's remarks was that the title: "the war on terror" is too vague. He wasn't saying that Iraq is not central to the fight, although you wouldn't know it from the post's title.