In case it isn't obvious (and apparently it isn't...), you can't really fight a war against an abstract concept. We can have a war in Iraq; we can have a war in Afghanistan; we can (and, if Bush gets another term, we quite possibly WILL) have wars in any number of countries. But we CANNOT have a war in Terrorismland. Except, of course, in Bush's rhetoric.
I'm insulted by the whole War on Terror(ism) routine. I can't even begin to detail the flaws in reason. But here's a recent favorite:
Blindly Idiotic Bush Supporter: "I feel safer because George W. Bush is President."
Me: "Why, and how, exactly?"
B.I.B.S: "We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11."
Me: "Well, according to that logic, we should be safer without Bush as president."
Me: "The worst terrorist attack to ever occur on American soil, one of the most devistating single terrorist attacks ever, occurred while Bush was President. Shouldn't that scare you?"
B.I.B.S.: "Huh? That's ridiculous..."
Me: "Granted. Yes, it is ridiculous. It's also following the same post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning you're using when you give Bush some sort of credit for having kept us safe."
B.I.B.S.: "You think he hasn't made us safer?"
Me: "Not really, no. In truth, I feel less safe because of Bush. In terms of my human rights and American freedoms, I feel more threatened by the Patriot Act than by any possible terrorist actions."
I just can't figure out how -- much less why -- anyone would think this man ought to be in office for another four years.