When is a "bomber" a "terrorist"?

Why is Eric Rudolph a "bomber," according to the press, and not a terrorist? He bombed the Olympics, as well as women's health clinics--and these were acts of terrorism. He's a home-grown, European-American terrorist, like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols--all of them are terrorists who tried to influence policy-makers by harming or terrorizing third parties.

We need a working definition of the terms, terrorist and terrorist act. Our president has never explained what a terrorist is, in terms of criteria, even though he has declared war against them. And this bleeds over into the treatment of prisoners of war. If the government isn't clear about what a terrorist is, they can't really explain who the Geneva conventions don't apply to.

What is the difference, in terms of criteria, between the enemy combatants, insurgents, and terrorists who kill our troops in Iraq? The press seems to use the terms as if they know the difference--and as if I do, and I don't.

Back in the 70s we identified the hegemony of the military-industrial complex and pinned the conspiracy on the leadership cartel that controlled the choices we, as voters, were presented with. Now we have to factor in the media cartel that controls language, and thus how we think about events.