The "War on Terror," the "War on Drugs," the "War on Poverty," and you might want to add, "No Child Left Behind."

Now you have a good listing of meaningless rhetoric that fit well on bumper stickers and are linked by irrelevance.

As a matter of semantics, I fail to understand how one can war "on" something. When we enter into a physical fight we fight against someone or something. When we join in a fight we can fight with someone. And we can also bring the fight to someone.

How can we fight, war, or battle on either someone or something- unless we are engaging in mounted combat- in which case we certainly don't want to engage our own mount.

When you address the War on Terror, look to our success rate on the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty and assess how these obvious failures impact our society.

Ponder on how the average price of a California house is now $ 525,000. and only 16% of California's population can qualify for a loan on the purchase of this average house. When 84% of the US population is only eligible for a below average residence, this does not reflect a successful governmental leadership.

When drug use is increasing along with co-occurring disorders it fails to speak well for the mental health of our country. Today the drug discussion is focused on whether drug use is the result of self medication for mental problems, or the cause. Among 18-25 youth alcohol, marijuana, and prescription pain killers are the drugs of choice--in that decending order. Please note that two the the substances are manufactured and legal, and a preponderance of the public favor the legalization of the third.

The education policy is a joke the federal government should stay our of. Last week I listened to Bill Bennett pontificate up in Aspen and the large part of his solution was to double the salary of school principals. Amazing how administration loves more administration?

Pray tell, what should we expect from the "War on Terror?"

Publius