Would a GWOT by any other name not spell defeat?

Kevin Drum has a good post summarizing the chain of events in the GSAVE vs. GWOT rhetorical smackdown.

Short story shorter: There were noises coming from the administration a couple of months ago indicating a possible change in strategy towards international terrorism. Then, silence for two months. Then, last week a New York Times article suggested that the administration would no longer be using the phrase "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) and would be replacing it with "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" (GSAVE). We were left to wonder whether this change in language reflected a real change in policy, or was a cynical rhetorical shift intended to put Republicans in a better position for mid-term elections (The political logic behind this second theory escapes me a bit.)

And wonder, and wonder and wonder.

So, where are we now? Well, yesterday Bush made it clear that he will have none of this "struggle" business. To paraphrase: We're at war against terror in the war on terror, fighting terror in a war against terrorism and those who would wage war with terror. Terrorism. War. War on Terrorism.

Again we're left to wonder, does this change in language, even if now retracted, reflect a change in the administration's thinking? And, how much was the President himself involved in the change (in language or thinking)?

This Times article answers those questions (again, I'm paraphrasing): We have no effing clue.