With a protracted, currently unpopular war in Iraq lingering on, President George W. Bush and his cabinet, those with the most power in the United States, continue using language to "shape" reality as best they can. In its "Iraq talk", the Bush administration, especially when pressed by the media, insists "we are making progress in Iraq" and "we are winning the war on terror" (implicitly relating the two, also, when no clear relationship exists). .

             Bush and his representatives have managed in the past and continue trying now to create artificial distinctions between "patriotic" Americans (e.g., those who favored/favor the war in Iraq) and "unpatriotic" ones (e.g., those who did/do not). .

             This language-twisting tactic (at least three years ago) succeeded in squelching criticism of war with Iraq. Bush still calls it "unpatriotic" to oppose or even question the war. By squelching criticism at the outset, through manipulative use of words like "patriotic", Bush made it seem, at the start of the war, that opposition was both rare and wrong, e.g., "freedom-loving people should (and, at least in their minds, do) continue support war efforts in Iraq, despite no actual connection between being "freedom-loving" and supporting a war against a government (and now insurgency) that never threatened anyone's freedom, except arguably its own. .

             In today's political parlance, terrorists themselves are often described by American (and since the London subway and bus bombings, British, e.g., Tony Blair) politicians as "weak" or "cowards". By implication, then, to oppose the Iraq war (which has been rhetorically melded in the minds of many, to the "War on Terrorism") ("The Bush Language Program of Mass Distraction") is to be other than a "freedom loving person", and by association "weak" and a "coward": like terrorists. Further, according to Keefer (June 12, 2003):.

             Bush is strategically connecting Iraq to the September 11 attacks with his .