COMMENTS: 30
Iraq Is a Civil War: Media Dominoes Falling
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.
The Los Angeles Times was one of the first newspapers to flatly describe the conflict as a "civil war" -- without the usual qualifiers of "approaching" or "near" -- and did again in the first paragraph of a news report on Saturday. The Christian Science Monitor today refers to a "deepening civil war."
But the main Washington Post story today continued to use "sectarian strife." A widely published Reuters dispatch today adopted "sectarian conflict," and McClatchy, in a report from Baghdad, relied on "sectarian violence." Other papers declared that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, but has not gotten there yet, with an Associated Press story calling Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's visit to Iran an effort to prevent "Iraq's sectarian violence from sliding into an all-out civil war."
In a bombshell, however, Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning revealed that NBC had studied and perhaps debated the issue anew, and then decided that it will now use "civil war" freely. "For months the White House rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war," he said. "For the most part news organizations like NBC hesitated to characterize it as such. After careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted, and what is going on in Iraq can now be characterized as civil war."
He explained: "We should mention we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say let's call this a civil war. This took careful deliberation. We consulted with a lot of people." One of them was retired Gen. Barry McCaffery, a longtime NBC consultant, who told Lauer he had been using the expression "civil war" for quite some time, with the qualifier "low grade."
Lauer added: "The White House objects to the terminology that NBC News is now using, and here is part of the statement that they've released: 'While the situation on the ground is very serious, neither Prime Minister Maliki nor we believe that Iraq is in a civil war.' It goes on to say that 'the violence is largely centered around Baghdad, and Baghdad security and the increased training of Iraqi security forces is at the top of the agenda when President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki meet later this week in Jordan.'"
Asked about the civil war tag, CNN's Michael Ware said on Friday from Baghdad: "Well, firstly, let me say, perhaps it's easier to deny that this is a civil war, when essentially you live in the most heavily fortified place in the country within the Green Zone, which is true of both the prime minister, the national security adviser for Iraq and, of course, the top U.S. military commanders. However, for the people living on the streets, for Iraqis in their homes, if this is not civil war, or a form of it, then they do not want to see what one really looks like."
In his column in this week's Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria pulls no punches: "We're in the middle of a civil war and are being shot at by both sides. There can be no more doubt that Iraq is in a civil war, in which leaders of both its main communities, Sunnis and Shiites, are fomenting violence."
The Los Angeles Times story by Solomon Moore had opened: "Iraq's civil war worsened Friday as Shiite and Sunni Arabs engaged in retaliatory attacks after coordinated car bombings that killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood the day before. A main Shiite political faction threatened to quit the government, a move that probably would cause its collapse and plunge the nation deeper into disarray."
The Los Angeles Times since October has been calling it a civil war, Marjorie Miller, the newspaper's foreign editor, told the Associated Press today. "It's a very simple calculation," she said. "It's a country that's tearing itself apart, one group against another group or several groups against several groups. What country even admits that it is in the midst of a civil war?"
Editors at the Associated Press have discussed the issue and haven't reached a definitive stance, said John Daniszewski, international editor. Most often, the conflict is called "the war in Iraq" or identified with descriptive terms such as sectarian fighting, anti-government attacks or ethnic clashes, he said.
He pointed to the different definitions experts have for civil wars. "From a historical point of view, not every civil war is called by that name, and wars by their very nature are not always neatly categorized," he said, in an AP report. "For instance, the American Revolutionary War, the Vietnam War and the more recent wars in Bosnia and Kosovo were all civil wars according to the broader definition, yet we do not normally think or speak of them that way."
Officials at both ABC News and CBS News said that they discuss the situation all the time, but that there's no network policy to use the term civil war, AP added. "We are not there yet," said Paul Slavin, ABC News senior vice president, noting differing definitions.
But MSNBC's Contessa Brewer said this morning on the air: "Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war -- a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We'll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase 'civil war.'"
On Sunday, the New York Times reported that some scholars are calling the Iraq conflict a "civil war. " A civil war, it explained, is commonly defined by two criteria: two warring groups fighting for control over political power, and at least 1,000 deaths with at least 100 from each side. Criteria that Iraq meets, easily.
For videos of The Daily Show's take on the civil war language game, go HERE. For Keith Olbermann's comparison to Cronkite's shift on Vietnam, go HERE.
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SteveB on Nov 28, 2006 10:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: apologizing for telling the truth
Posted by: Plexius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Nov 28, 2006 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It also explains why the Bushies are blissfully unconcerned about how the American public feels about the situation. Acting alone, the Saudis and Israelis are enormously powerful in Washington, D.C.; acting together they virtually own the place.
The upshot is that we can forget about any early troop withdrawal. And even if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008 you can bet that person will immediately take a "realistic" and "moderate" position, ensuring U.S. troops will be in harm's way in Iraq indefinitely. Such is the price we pay for driving our SUVS.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That helps explain why the Saudis supported the Israeli assault on Lebanon
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Oil billions behind U.S. involvement
Posted by: rwa
» RE: Oil billions behind U.S. involvement
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Such Is Indeed The Price We Pay For Driving Our Cars and SUVs and Our Petroleum Based Lifestyle!!
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Such Is Indeed The Price We Pay For Driving Our Cars and SUVs and Our Petroleum Based Lifestyle!
Posted by: blitzmesser
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Plexius on Nov 28, 2006 11:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And who's got the biggest gang?
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: And who's got the biggest gang?
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Nov 28, 2006 1:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are in a unique position to influence events NBC. The greatest gift you could possible give comatose America is something they generally crave anyway - graphic violence. Let them see what it is to be burned alive, bloodcurdling screams and all. I'm sure you could change a few pro-war minds with footage of parents gathering the remains of their children after a deadly blast. What do you say NBC?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 28, 2006 3:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they call it a 'civil war' they can then claim that the whole disaster was due to age-old Sunni/Shia rivalries and the US had nothing to do with it - it's just those crazy Arabs having another civil war. This is pretty obvious.
However, the argument is likely over whether the 'civil war' will then be blamed on the US intervention; NBC is probably betting that it won't be while the other corporate media outlets disagree.
You can never forget that the same people who control Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell also control TimeWarner (CNN), Disney (ABC), Viacom (CBS), General Electric (MSNBC) and the rest of the media corporations, as well as Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumann, Boeing and the other defense-Pentagon contractors - as well as the major pharma companies like Pfizer, BMS and GSK. (Note: they seem to be trying to move out of the public spotlight and into private equity and hedge funds).
This whole thing is just an argument about how to spin the war in order to keep the domestic American population pacified and deceived about the real reasons for the Iraq invasion and occupation - which were entirely economic and had nothing to do whatsoever with justice or democracy.
It was an oil grab, and the corporate media were the cheerleaders. Now they're trying to hide their complicity in the war crimes.
Contrast this article on media propaganda in the Nazi era with what's going on today:
"Goebbels' core philosophy, based on a tabloid-style populist approach, was said to have been partly inspired by the ideas of the first Lord Northcliffe. "It was a mistake", Goebbels once said, "to conduct propaganda in such a way that it will stand up to critical examination of intellectuals".
He was not unduly worried about winning over his more thoughtful audience because he believed that "intellectuals always yield to strength, and this will be the ordinary man in the street". In dealing with mass audiences, said Goebbels, "tbe most primitive arguments are the most effective".
Goebbels was certainly not primitive. He was an evil but highly intelligent figure with a genuine interest in mass psychology and an undisguised contempt for the critical faculties of public opinion. He was not the inventor of censorship, lies and dirty tricks, but he was one of the first politicians in the age of mass media to make systematic use of psychology in the pursuit of power. In that sense, he was indeed a pioneer."
The US corporate media has become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the military-industrial-academic complex, as this whole issue clearly demonstrates.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hedge fund lifeboats
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 28, 2006 3:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Gift to Iran
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: A Gift to Iran
Posted by: pedex
» RE: A Gift to Iran
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Iran isn't to blame - Bush and Bliar are
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opeluboy on Nov 28, 2006 5:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 28, 2006 6:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Nov 28, 2006 8:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People will argue that such staments (i.e. the truth) would amount to libel or slander...however, the media (liberal media included) take it for granted that Saddamin Hussain commited crimes against humanity without refernce to facts (esp. those that aslo implicate the US in the alleged crimes) and happily call Osama Binladen a terrorist -- the facts implicating the US and particular individuals are uncontroversial, whereas this is not the case either with Saddam or Binladen; one wonders what this ethical relativism means. That the media function to apologize for crimes of state, perhaps?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 29, 2006 3:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can this be a Civil War???
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Baryy Lando on Nov 29, 2006 3:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://barrylando.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thehousedog on Nov 29, 2006 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Nov 29, 2006 11:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: amacd on Nov 29, 2006 12:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This 'civil war' debate is getting as unexciting, unproductive, and perhaps as distractive as watching paint dry.
Today has been a real 'pillow fight' within the media regarding whether or not to call the Iraq civil war something it clearly has become.
In all of the reporting and media circus today there has been no serious analysis ---- but only debate about the semantics and politics of whether the Whitehouse should agree.
Yes, of course, there is a real civil war in Iraq now, but the real issue, and the more significant story, is that before there was a civil war, there was a war of empire ---- which unleashed the civil war!
And the real question is whether smarter minds than Bush in the administration (or advising the administration) are quite happy with the increased talk and flutter about ‘civil war’ in the media and the general population, because this facilitates a face-saving exit from Iraq without first having to acknowledge and learn from the fact that an imperial oil-war was the precipitating cause of this entire disaster.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Nov 29, 2006 12:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a journalist and I'm glad (along with the L.A. Times) we called it the way it is: a civil war. We're paid to tell the truth and to inform people. The fighters aren't "terrorists" or "insurgents" whatever mumbo-jumbo label spews from the Pentagon Propaganda Machine.
Now that we cleared the air, let's work on a method on how to get us out of there.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: amacd on Nov 30, 2006 8:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This 'civil war' focus of the last few days was initiated by Baker as a convenient and believable way of 'covering over' and disguising for the American public why the 'pull back' is reasonable and trumps GHW Bush's boy's stuborness.
Baker is a master of disguise and the language of deceit since Iraq oil-war I --- he is the 'wise man' behind the surprisingly recent focus of the term 'civil war' through media plants to bring this 'civil war' reasoning to the front of the American peoples' mind as the cover term for selective withdrawal in Iraq.
As I have said before, "smarter minds than Bush in the administration (or advising the administration) are quite happy with the increased talk and flutter about ‘civil war’ in the media and the general population, because this facilitates a face-saving exit from Iraq without first having to acknowledge and learn from the fact that an imperial oil-war was the precipitating cause of this entire disaster."
Yes, Baker and the ISG (along with their friends in the MSM) are 'playing' the public with the term 'civil war' in order to use popular support for withdrawal from Iraq to support their goal of 'partial withdrawal' --- and, most importantly, to focus US public, congressional and media attention AWAY from the real and continuing reason for a reduced and focused military presence in Iraq ----- OIL!!!
Baker, GHW Bush and the oily elite crowd actually controlling the US will outsmart the Bush baby and his string-pulling mentor, Dick (and the departed neocons) ---- no contest here.
If there is any 'civil war' it has been a civil war within the ruling-elite in the US/global empire --- and daddy's team just won, and pulled their oil out of the fire. But Bush Jr. won't escape the fire.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Dec 6, 2006 1:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
al qaeda in iraq website (note the extreme number of terror attacks in iraq by this terrorist group)
investigative evidence confirms significant iranian support for shia insurgents in iraq:
liberals go nuts when they are confronted with facts like these conclusively disproving that iraq is a homegrown civil war
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SteveB on Nov 28, 2006 10:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: apologizing for telling the truth
Posted by: Plexius
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Nov 28, 2006 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It also explains why the Bushies are blissfully unconcerned about how the American public feels about the situation. Acting alone, the Saudis and Israelis are enormously powerful in Washington, D.C.; acting together they virtually own the place.
The upshot is that we can forget about any early troop withdrawal. And even if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008 you can bet that person will immediately take a "realistic" and "moderate" position, ensuring U.S. troops will be in harm's way in Iraq indefinitely. Such is the price we pay for driving our SUVS.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That helps explain why the Saudis supported the Israeli assault on Lebanon
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Oil billions behind U.S. involvement
Posted by: rwa
» RE: Oil billions behind U.S. involvement
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Such Is Indeed The Price We Pay For Driving Our Cars and SUVs and Our Petroleum Based Lifestyle!!
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Such Is Indeed The Price We Pay For Driving Our Cars and SUVs and Our Petroleum Based Lifestyle!
Posted by: blitzmesser
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Plexius on Nov 28, 2006 11:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And who's got the biggest gang?
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: And who's got the biggest gang?
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Nov 28, 2006 1:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are in a unique position to influence events NBC. The greatest gift you could possible give comatose America is something they generally crave anyway - graphic violence. Let them see what it is to be burned alive, bloodcurdling screams and all. I'm sure you could change a few pro-war minds with footage of parents gathering the remains of their children after a deadly blast. What do you say NBC?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 28, 2006 3:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they call it a 'civil war' they can then claim that the whole disaster was due to age-old Sunni/Shia rivalries and the US had nothing to do with it - it's just those crazy Arabs having another civil war. This is pretty obvious.
However, the argument is likely over whether the 'civil war' will then be blamed on the US intervention; NBC is probably betting that it won't be while the other corporate media outlets disagree.
You can never forget that the same people who control Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell also control TimeWarner (CNN), Disney (ABC), Viacom (CBS), General Electric (MSNBC) and the rest of the media corporations, as well as Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumann, Boeing and the other defense-Pentagon contractors - as well as the major pharma companies like Pfizer, BMS and GSK. (Note: they seem to be trying to move out of the public spotlight and into private equity and hedge funds).
This whole thing is just an argument about how to spin the war in order to keep the domestic American population pacified and deceived about the real reasons for the Iraq invasion and occupation - which were entirely economic and had nothing to do whatsoever with justice or democracy.
It was an oil grab, and the corporate media were the cheerleaders. Now they're trying to hide their complicity in the war crimes.
Contrast this article on media propaganda in the Nazi era with what's going on today:
"Goebbels' core philosophy, based on a tabloid-style populist approach, was said to have been partly inspired by the ideas of the first Lord Northcliffe. "It was a mistake", Goebbels once said, "to conduct propaganda in such a way that it will stand up to critical examination of intellectuals".
He was not unduly worried about winning over his more thoughtful audience because he believed that "intellectuals always yield to strength, and this will be the ordinary man in the street". In dealing with mass audiences, said Goebbels, "tbe most primitive arguments are the most effective".
Goebbels was certainly not primitive. He was an evil but highly intelligent figure with a genuine interest in mass psychology and an undisguised contempt for the critical faculties of public opinion. He was not the inventor of censorship, lies and dirty tricks, but he was one of the first politicians in the age of mass media to make systematic use of psychology in the pursuit of power. In that sense, he was indeed a pioneer."
The US corporate media has become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the military-industrial-academic complex, as this whole issue clearly demonstrates.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hedge fund lifeboats
Posted by: eddie torres
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 28, 2006 3:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Gift to Iran
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: A Gift to Iran
Posted by: pedex
» RE: A Gift to Iran
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Iran isn't to blame - Bush and Bliar are
Posted by: moflard
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opeluboy on Nov 28, 2006 5:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 28, 2006 6:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Nov 28, 2006 8:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People will argue that such staments (i.e. the truth) would amount to libel or slander...however, the media (liberal media included) take it for granted that Saddamin Hussain commited crimes against humanity without refernce to facts (esp. those that aslo implicate the US in the alleged crimes) and happily call Osama Binladen a terrorist -- the facts implicating the US and particular individuals are uncontroversial, whereas this is not the case either with Saddam or Binladen; one wonders what this ethical relativism means. That the media function to apologize for crimes of state, perhaps?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 29, 2006 3:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can this be a Civil War???
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Baryy Lando on Nov 29, 2006 3:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://barrylando.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thehousedog on Nov 29, 2006 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Nov 29, 2006 11:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: amacd on Nov 29, 2006 12:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This 'civil war' debate is getting as unexciting, unproductive, and perhaps as distractive as watching paint dry.
Today has been a real 'pillow fight' within the media regarding whether or not to call the Iraq civil war something it clearly has become.
In all of the reporting and media circus today there has been no serious analysis ---- but only debate about the semantics and politics of whether the Whitehouse should agree.
Yes, of course, there is a real civil war in Iraq now, but the real issue, and the more significant story, is that before there was a civil war, there was a war of empire ---- which unleashed the civil war!
And the real question is whether smarter minds than Bush in the administration (or advising the administration) are quite happy with the increased talk and flutter about ‘civil war’ in the media and the general population, because this facilitates a face-saving exit from Iraq without first having to acknowledge and learn from the fact that an imperial oil-war was the precipitating cause of this entire disaster.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Nov 29, 2006 12:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a journalist and I'm glad (along with the L.A. Times) we called it the way it is: a civil war. We're paid to tell the truth and to inform people. The fighters aren't "terrorists" or "insurgents" whatever mumbo-jumbo label spews from the Pentagon Propaganda Machine.
Now that we cleared the air, let's work on a method on how to get us out of there.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: amacd on Nov 30, 2006 8:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This 'civil war' focus of the last few days was initiated by Baker as a convenient and believable way of 'covering over' and disguising for the American public why the 'pull back' is reasonable and trumps GHW Bush's boy's stuborness.
Baker is a master of disguise and the language of deceit since Iraq oil-war I --- he is the 'wise man' behind the surprisingly recent focus of the term 'civil war' through media plants to bring this 'civil war' reasoning to the front of the American peoples' mind as the cover term for selective withdrawal in Iraq.
As I have said before, "smarter minds than Bush in the administration (or advising the administration) are quite happy with the increased talk and flutter about ‘civil war’ in the media and the general population, because this facilitates a face-saving exit from Iraq without first having to acknowledge and learn from the fact that an imperial oil-war was the precipitating cause of this entire disaster."
Yes, Baker and the ISG (along with their friends in the MSM) are 'playing' the public with the term 'civil war' in order to use popular support for withdrawal from Iraq to support their goal of 'partial withdrawal' --- and, most importantly, to focus US public, congressional and media attention AWAY from the real and continuing reason for a reduced and focused military presence in Iraq ----- OIL!!!
Baker, GHW Bush and the oily elite crowd actually controlling the US will outsmart the Bush baby and his string-pulling mentor, Dick (and the departed neocons) ---- no contest here.
If there is any 'civil war' it has been a civil war within the ruling-elite in the US/global empire --- and daddy's team just won, and pulled their oil out of the fire. But Bush Jr. won't escape the fire.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Dec 6, 2006 1:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
al qaeda in iraq website (note the extreme number of terror attacks in iraq by this terrorist group)
investigative evidence confirms significant iranian support for shia insurgents in iraq:
liberals go nuts when they are confronted with facts like these conclusively disproving that iraq is a homegrown civil war
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Beer Battles: Workers in Belgium Take on Brewing Giant
White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
Don't Call It a "Defense" Budget




