Suppose for instance that Bin Laden was the president of a country, and instead of hijacking airplanes, he sent fighter jets to attack the WTC and Pentagon with missiles. Instead of an act of terrorism, this would be considered an act of war. Should we then declare a war on war?

Defining our enemy is a good idea. This way, Bin Laden can't convince other people who we aren't fighting currently to join in his cause. Currently, he is able to demagogue the war on terror and make it seems like a war on Islam. This encourages jihadists from around the world to join in his cause, even if they normally wouldn't.

Talk about arrogance and delusion. The mad mullahs, their tentacles (hezz and hamas are just the biggest, most well known), and almost every other muslim terrorist group are waging a hot war on us. They won’t stop until dar al haarb is overrun and the world is dar al islam.

The tactic of terrorism is a finite and tangible tactic – either one deliberately targets civilians or one does not. Neither AQ, nor any other terrorist group is tangible or finite. They have freelancers, walk-ons, associates, splinters, and independents calling themselves aq. They trade specialists, personnel, and equipment, and coordinate with other terrorist groups and governments (shia and sunni). They are just one big unhappy inbred family, if you don’t target them all, you’re just wasting your time.

We are "energenitcally conducting politically scoped kinetic and nonkinetic military operations against non-specific hostile entities with close affiliations with radical fundamentalist Muslim ideologies, intent on killing innocent noncombatants"

We are not, and never were at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islamo-Fascism. We just weren't willing to call it what it was. We were at war well before 9-11. We just weren't willing to admit it. We could have made great strides in the war (capturing Bin-Ladin, securing the border)early on, we just weren't willing to act like it. Democrats have been at best, useless, and at worst a roadblock. Republicans haven't been much better. A Reagen, Schwartchkoff leadership is what is desperately needed, and I don't see that happening any time soon. Cling to your guns and religion, and God help us all.

Being at war with terror is like being at war with poverty or bad skin... there will never be an end to it.

Good on the administration to say we are at war with al qaeda, but we do need to define the war against the taliban as well.

In a way I agree with you, but it seems that America is yet to declare that is actually at war with a tangible enemy. Right now technically America is in resolution with a tactic. If America is at war, then Congress should do their job and vote to actually declare war.I think the last time America was officially and actually at war was probably World War 2

It's like saying "visually challenged" instead of "blind", regardless of the fact that blind people don't consider "blind" to be offensive. And who is Obama trying not to offend? Suicidal 7th century throwbacks? If that's his intention, maybe he should pull our troops out of the Middle East (his campaign mantra), rather than expanding there. In other words, walk the walk or STFU.

If we are only at war with al Qaeda, why did we just kill (not confirmed) the Taliban chief in Pakistan?

Why then are we hunting Taliban, Jaysh al Mehdi, Ansar al Sunna, Jaysh al Islami, 1920 Revolutionary Bde, Hezbolah in Iraq, Badr Corp, etc. I think we have a few more enemies than just AQ.

Bush himself was never engaged in a war on terror by any means.The American people have been deceived. Bush was not engaged in a war against jihadists/islamic fascists either. If Bush had been, then he would have never supported the amnesty bill. Just think, if the amnesty bill had gone into effect before 9/11 it would have put the 9/11 terrorists here illegally in America on the path to citizenship, remember Komrad Bailouts Mccain was for this also. In accordance with logic, secured border = believable war on islamic radicals not one thing less.Until we see a secured border and entitlements taken away from illegal aliens, this 'war on terror' stuff is nonsense. What Bush was engaged in was pretty much the expansion of the federal govt. Just like what Obama is engaged in now. But Neal allows his mind to be clouded by failed neo-con mysticism foreign policy rather than embracing traditional conservative non-interventionist foreign policy. Remember no nation building? What Bush was and Obama is doing is guaranteeing that America will have endless enemies with which to justify the expansion of control of the federal govt. Unless of course you believe that Islamic people should be able to come over here and try to force shari'a law onto Americans, redraw the geographic boundaries of America force an islamic lifestyle on Americans and then expect Americans to not be angry about it. Logic and conservatism people, lets wake up and get with it. American failed middle east foreign policy is helping to radicalize muslims, and make them pay more attention to the violent parts of the Koran. American military presence in the middle east is aiding islamic fascists in their recruitment efforts. Members of the CIA can attest to it(look up Michael Scheuer).Current American foreign policy is making the world less safe. Just the truth.