We should really strike the word 'war' from discussions of our involvement in Iraq

I've tried to be careful in the last four years, not to refer to the occupation of Iraq as a war. It plays into the Administration's fantasy that evildoers have raised a mighty army against us and placed it inconveniently far away, a challenge to which we bravely rose, even though chasing down Osama bin Laden, on whom there's consensus that the immediate responsibility for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers lies, is not worth the money. But, I've been slacking off, and slipping into staying 'war' more and more.

Josh Marshall makes the point that it's an important distinction we should hold on to. We're really just poorly managed and erratically violent foreign overlords.

Now, to the bin Laden point. I know there are two viewpoints on 9/11 -- the LIHOPs, like myself, who believe that the Bush administration's being asleep at the wheel vis a vis terrorism was an intentional policy to allow a major terrorist attack on the United States to create pretext for all sorts of corrupt wrong-doing, and the MIHOPs, who believe that people affiliated with the Bush League had an active role in planning the attacks. I know there's a swath of other viewpoints on what happened, but they all strike me as somewhat deluded. I think that MIHOPs generally believe that Osama bin Laden had a central coordinating role in the event. And, irrespective, I'm sure they'd like him compelled to speak clearly about what he knows. But, if you doubt OBL had any involvement, please post a comment and let me know.