War on Semantics

There was a "terror" plot on Fort Dix that was broken up today. I am a semanitcal fool, so here goes the short version. First, let me say that, of course, I am glad that any violent plot to harm anyone was thwarted. The plot was to attack soldiers at a military base here in the US. Can this be called a "terror" plot? This highlights one of the many major mistakes of the Bush administration. Once they declared WAR on "terror" (a tactic utilized by any aggressor) all over the world, they inadvertantly legitimized the activities of disgruntled extremists as acts of war. Now, we could argue collateral damage and the terror that is perpetrated upon civilian populations, transportation networks, and production facitlities during all wars, but this is not the direction I am going. Basically, since the disrupted "terror" plot was directed against a military target, this is not a terrorist plot. It is a legitimate target as set forth by the Bush paradigm. Yes, this may be over semantic word play, but it becomes very important in global perceptions; and these phrases and words should be scrutinized by the American public.