For the past couple of years, the Los Angeles Times has referred to the activities of the Bush administration as “the so-called ‘war on terror.’”  In other words, the Times did not believe it was a real war, and even the use of quotation marks was not enough.  Rather, it also had to be “so-called.”  

Now it turns out that Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice for Solicitor General, agrees with Obama’s A.G. that enemy combatants can be held without trial for the duration of the war on terror.  Both of them responded in the affirmative to the question, "If our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing Al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield?"

In other words, even if someone is not captured in a battle, even someone in civilian clothes, maybe picked up on the street of a city, with no weapons on him, can be an enemy combatant.

She was asked if she believes we are at war, and she answered that she did.  

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-solicitor-general11-2009feb11,0,7158432.story

The differences between the Obama administration views on this subject and Bush’s views seem to be incredibly minor and would be differences in degree and detail, rather than differences in kind.

Do you think that the Times will now drop the “so-called” and the quotation marks, now that the new administration has joined the fight in the “so-called war?”  

Will anyone who negated the nature of the war now say that maybe it is a war?  Or will you say that Obama has become a fascist?

For those who hated Bush so much and sought change with such passion, doesn’t this really bother you that his policies are being adopted so firmly by The Great One? Especially since this was one of the main complaints about Bush's "trashing of the constitution."  

I guess Obama justs wants to keep trashing it.