Context: Because the actions involved in the "war on terrorism" are diffuse, and the criteria for inclusion are unclear, political theorist Richard Jackson has argued that "the 'war on terrorism' therefore, is simultaneously a set of actual practices—wars, covert operations, agencies, and institutions—and an accompanying series of assumptions, beliefs, justifications, and narratives—it is an entire language or discourse." Jackson cites among many examples a statement by John Ashcroft that "the attacks of September 11 drew a bright line of demarcation between the civil and the savage". Administration officials also described "terrorists" as hateful, treacherous, barbarous, mad, twisted, perverted, without faith, parasitical, inhuman, and, most commonly, evil. Americans, in contrast, were described as brave, loving, generous, strong, resourceful, heroic, and respectful of human rights.

Question: Who said the 'war on terrorism' is 'an entire language of discourse'?
Answer: Richard Jackson

Question: Who said that 9/11 drew a line between 'the civil and the savage'?
Answer: John Ashcroft

Question: What did the Bush administration describe as parasitical?
Answer: terrorists

Question: What did the Bush administration describe as heroic?
Answer: Americans

Question: What job title does Richard Ashcroft hold?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What statement did John Jackson give?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What has Richard Ashcroft argued about the "war on terrorism?"
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: Of whom does Richard Jackson cite many examples?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: Who said the actions involved in war on terrorism are diffuse?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What is John Ashcroft's job?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: Who did Jackson say was treacherous?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: Who did Ashcroft say was brave?
Answer: Unanswerable

Question: What has clear criteria?
Answer: Unanswerable