The liberal media is up to their old tricks. NBC News has decided that they will now refer to the violence in Iraq as a civil war (although strangely enough, they are having their viewers vote on whether it really is), and is letting everyone know that over the weekend they have decided that it fits the definition- even though the Administration refuses to use the term.
The situation in Iraq pretty clearly is a civil war, but you can almost guarantee the next few weeks in the blogosphere will be spent discussing the liberal media and how they have decided to undermine the Republicans.
The Other Steve
This is just another example about how liberals are out of touch with the military!
srv
Keeping track of everyone who hates America is getting very hard to do.
grumpy realist
Well, of course it isn’t a Civil War. We don’t have one side dressed in blue and the other in grey.
(Whaddya want to bet the talking heads out there won’t use this?)
Zifnab
Intelligence has a well known liberal bias.
Bombadil
Nothing civil about it, really.
Jay
So has the LA Times. But what do you expect from California? Feh. Faux news on the other hand will give us the truth by telling us a day in Baghdad is no more deadly than a day in Washington, DC.
I think the liberal media also needs to be taken to task for failing to talk about how the very mention of Saddam Hussein causes cancer in lab rats; Osama bin Laden is best friends with Michael Moore and Hilary Clinton keeps a stable of male interns for purposes too icky to contemplate.
Mr Furious
Looks like a duck,,,quacks like a duck…
Zifnab
In all seriousness, it continues to amaze me at how the Republican lie machine has dragged the debate off course. Is this what the ISG is spending its time on? Defining civil war? Is this what we’re spending billions a month on in that country? Spin and press manipulation? No wonder we’re losing this damn debacle. We spend months at a time debating the rules of the debate. Every strategy, every commission, every report needs to have a catchy title or a three word slogan attatched. “Cut and Run”, “Stay the Course”, “Adapt and Win”, “Support Our Troops”, “Mission Accomplished”, “We Stand Up and They Stand Down”…
Fifteen years ago, Rose Perot ran for President promising to run this country less like a government and more like a business. Some people praised him for his vision of efficency. Others scorned him for his lack of humanitarianism. Now I look at our current government model and its being run like the freak’n Optimist’s Club. Every idea is a good idea if you can spruss it up with enough flashy catch phrases. We all slap you on the back after you propose some ludicristly naive plan to end war or solve world hunger, because everyone knows this isn’t going to get any more thought than a touch up on the grammar and the diction.
Half a god-damn year and our President can’t even admit we’re in a civil war. What a joke.
Barry
The country *is* being run more like a business – a badly run business. BS everybody and loot for the elites and their cronies. Perhaps people should have examined the business records of Bush and Cheney before asking them to run the US governement.
jcricket
They keep claiming this isn’t Vietnam, but why are their tactics at home the same? Right now the right wing bloggers are gearing up for the next big front on the GWOT/GSAVE – blaming the media + liberals for losing in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan soon thereafter). Clap harder, everyone.
I also find it sort-of ironic, dontcha think, that the right wing blog network named “Pajamas Media” (no offense John) is complaining that the media is only reporting from its “hotel rooms”.
Also related is this:
Josh Marshall pointed out that the war in Iraq (I’d add the entire set of Republican domestic policies as well) is being run the way Rev. Moon runs the Washington Times. The rich CEO will endlessly pour money into this obviously failed/money-losing business because he’s so rich he doesn’t care about the losses so he can avoid “admitting defeat”. Only for us, it’s not a paper, it’s a war. And the “losses” are real people and the American standing on the geo-political stage
And yes, we’re turning into a world-wide joke of a country if we’re going to spend time debating the right-wing loons over whether this is a civil war (it is). Similar to how we have to spend all this time debating the same loons about whether evolution + global warming are real.
Larry
I propose naming this debacle Bush’s War.
Hang that bloody albatross around W’s neck for all time.
ThymeZone
First, the War machine doesn’t want the CW moniker because it undermines the legal basis for the war. Once you call it CW, then the whole faux rationale for describing Iraq as “central to the GWOT” falls apart, as does the legal establishment of the war as set forth by Congress.
Second, the War machine doesn’t want the CW moniker because a civil war suggests either taking sides, or keeping the peace between the sides. The situation in Iraq lends itself to neither. We cannot put enough force there to keep the peace, and we are not ready or willing to choose sides. At the moment, it would be hard to clearly demark the sides and the nature or status of the struggle from hour to hour and day to day. The entire basis of political support in the US crumbles when Iraq is seen as being in a state of civil war.
The response of the war machine, therefore, is to do what it always does: Deflect, obfuscate, blur lines, create the sound of dynamite in the distance. A well dressed and coifed little blonde sociopath has been deployed to appear on MSNBC today to explain why, without defined lines of battle and defined agendas, the stuff happening in Iraq doesn’t “look like” civil war …. so, we can’t call it that.
Get it? That’s your “Heckuva Job Brownie” “Mission Accomplished” government in action today. Don’t be fooled by your lying eyes, and for heaven’s sake, don’t call this a civil war.
When we’ve had enough, will we then march on Washington and put and end to this continual fuckup called the Bush Administration?
I’m ready. Hands?
Zifnab
Whoa, whoa. I’m all for political dissodence so long as it requires a minimum of physical exersion. What’s all this talk of “march” and “raising my hand”? I’m an American. I shouldn’t have to expand calories for my civil liberties.
Jay
The upper end of this Admin. is just beginning to twig to the fact that there are sides. Sunni? Shia? Aren’t they all jest A-rabs? This Admin. tries to equate criticism of its conduct with hatred of America and U.S. soldiers. This Admin. doesn’t like it when people use words like “Chaos” to describe the situation in Iraq. This Admin still shies away from the idea that they’ve stranded U.S. soldiers smack in the middle of guerrilla war. (I suppose the answer to that would be guerrilla wars are fought in the jungles of Vietnam, not the streets of Basra.) This Admin. wants us to shut our eyes until it is out of office and then blame the slob left holding the bag once they’re gone. If people start using words like “Civil War” and “Chaos” and “Huge fricking disaster” while they’re still in charge, it becomes harder to shift the blame.
Ya’ll are welcome to crash at my place.
Sherard
Man, I do dig the smug, smarmy, cynical self-righteousness here. It must be nice to gather in a place with so many people that are such legends in their own minds. With all the smarty pants in here, we should be able to solve world hunger, like no problem.
Call it whatever you want. Do any of you smart guys really think the solution is different whether you call it “violence” or “civil war”. Sure seems a convenient dodge to get all in a huff over what to call it, instead of, you know, coming up with all those complicated solutions and whatnot.
yet another jeff
I agree with the “nothing civil about it” post…and to that end, I propose the name “War Between the Failed State.”
Jon H
Neither the Sunnis nor the Shiites posess even a single steam-powered ironclad, so I don’t see how this can be called a civil war.
Zifnab
It’s finally good to see we’re all on the same page here, Sherad. Now, perhaps, we can just call a duck a duck and perhaps get the hell out while we’ve still got troops to withdraw.
I’m sure you’re not the type of person who would dicker over a definition in order to prolong the debate and remain in the disaster of a military engagement indefinitely. Right?
ThymeZone
Yeah, that would be the Republican approach.
Mine would be “call it what it is.”
Just a style difference, really.
Jon H
Larry writes: “I propose naming this debacle Bush’s War.”
No, it’s Bush’s Folly.
Calling it a war gives it too much dignity, and should only be used in the context of military personnel.
ThymeZone
Thanks, I may take you up on it.
Jay
That would be a great question to put to the Administration. After all, they’re the ones getting knotty-pants when someone suggests Iraq is being racked by civil war rather than the birth pangs of democracy.
Actually, I can’t wait to see if Snow has to spin this.
But personally, I think at the very least it is a matter of wanting to be accurate when one speaks. Violence can cover anything from a brief bar fight to all out mayhem over the release of the Nintendo Wii. Civil war can (and should) only be used when appropriate.
Ryan S.
As anyone who has gone through the AA 12 steps can tell you. Before you can solve a problem you first have to admit you have one. As far as a solution goes, there is no simple solution for a civil war, in this case you have two sides Sunnis and Shiites who hate eace other to the point where they slaughter each other in the streets, first you have to stop the killing, either through overwhelming force or with negotiations/reparations. Since “Stay the course” seems to be devoid of either of these options, is it any wonder we’re where we are at. The President seems to be completly ignorant of this. So there’s your solution, and in order to acomplish this your going to need a bipartisan aproach, since the Republicans seem to lack the necessary wherewithall for negotiations, and overwhelming force will need major congressional backing.
ThymeZone
If it’s not important, why are all the Bushmonkey talking heads out in force trying to convince people not to call it a civil war?
Are they only in control when they can manipulate which words we use to describe the thing?
Of course the solution rests in what it’s called. The closer the name is to reality, the closer the resulting solution will be to being congruent with reality.
What is the correct response to a civil war in which the sides can’t be easily told apart, neither side particularly represents our best long term interests, and both sides want to shoot at us?
I think the solution begins with the words “stand back.”
It’s their 1300-year-old blood feud, let them settle it.
That’s obviously what they are going to do one way or the other. The only question is how much we want to be in the line of fire while they are doing it.
Ryan S.
Furthermore, since I don’t see this administration wanting to change their, “If Republicans can’t do it then it can’t be done.” approach( See the contractor scandals, rampant cronyism, and media denial) Until that changes don’t blame us for your failure to listen.
grumpy realist
Plus, from all the stuff I’ve read, it’s hard to tell whether this is an actual two-sided war or an N-sided dogfight where the Sunni-Shia split is only one of the variations.
In either case, I don’t think we want to be in the middle.
Ryan S.
I think its a little bit too late for that./snark
Notice, that I didn’t mention an immediate withdrawl, as I don’t consider that a solution as it is basically ignoring the problem.
Did anyone catch that interview with Gen. Abizade on 60 Mins. last night. I particularly liked the part when the interviewer mentioned the term ‘failure’. He can’t seem to admit thats things are going badly.
Jon H
“Notice, that I didn’t mention an immediate withdrawl, as I don’t consider that a solution as it is basically ignoring the problem.”
Given that we can’t practically do anything about the problem, it’s not really ignoring it. Just accepting reality.
After all, doctors know when to give up trying to resuscitate a patient. They don’t sit there all day trying to revive someone beyond help, and when they leave they don’t consider it “ignoring the problem”.
Faux News
I feel the love here on Balloon Juice! Many thanks. I do try my best. Darrell and scs (Vixen News)are my two co-anchors on this site.
TenguPhule
*Snark*We must treat this like any other mild birthpang from the Womb of Bush Democracy.
Lots of deep breathing and prayer.*/Snark*
-And yes, I’ve just bought some shares in bleach and scrubber companies. ^_^
Krista
I agree completely. So why IS it that the Bush administration has been all in a huff over whether or not it’s to be called a civil war, rather than coming up with all those complicated solutions and whatnot?
Last time I checked, that WAS their job, no?
Richard 23
That’s what Thanksgiving was for.
Now I understand why you’re here. ;-)
Cyrus
Yeah, I’d be laughing my ass off at this if I wasn’t, you know, an American, and seeing family members re-enlist and stuff. Even living here, sometimes I can’t resist.
The president can’t announce that we’re leaving Iraq for a dozen reasons, most of which boil down to “Vietnam.” Even a responsible and honest man would find it almost impossible to do that, and if Bush ever shook hands with such a person there would be an explosion on contact. We can’t support the Shi’a. It would have been hard after Iran was included in the “Axis of Evil”, and became impossible over the past year or so since paranoia about Iran really kicked in. We really can’t support the Sunnis — um, you mean Saddam’s side? And maybe we could have kept peace between them at one point, but I don’t see how now.
srv
Jeff, lay off the smarmy. It’s too obvious.
SeesThroughIt
Yeah, it’s easier to keep track of who doesn’t hate America: That 30 percent of America’s population that will be Bushbots ’til they die–the folks Colbert so astutely referred to as “the backwash.” Everybody else in the world? Oh, you better believe they (we) hate America!
Zifnab
I appreciated Ned Lamont’s response to the Iraq Debacle. He suggested we pull our troops out of Bagdad and the other more hostile regions, while providing relief to refugees fleeing combat. Pull back to Kurdistan and Kuwait, refortify, let the Iraq Government sort itself out or die trying, and do our best to keep Syria and Iran out of the conflict in the meantime.
Frankly, this seems like the safest, smartest, and most humanitarian path.
ThymeZone
Dick Cheney just called and said that for precisely those three reasons, there is no fucking way we are going to do that.
And anyone who advocates that kind of pussy-whipped cut and run strategy is aiding and abetting the terrorists.
TenguPhule
Post of the Day.
John Redworth
I have been calling it the ‘War Between the Sects’ but your alternative to CW works as well…
ThymeZone
But remember, no same-sects marriage. Jesus wouldn’t like that.
Darrell
That is funny. I’ll be sure to footnote you TZ if I ever use that line in future.
Bruce Moomaw
At this point, I don’t really think anyone CARES whether Bush’s remaining blog defenders think the Liberal Media are Trying to Undermine the Republicans — all the conversation in the remaining pro-Bush blogsites at this point just resembles the Mad Tea Party.
ThymeZone
Thanks, Big D.
Jay
“Sects maniacs!”
-T. Pratchett
Krista
Is it Civility Thursday already?
mrmobi
Ummm, that would only matter if this administration was looking for a “solution.” What they want is victory. Since they are too stupid to see that that train left the station long ago, the only thing they can do is call the people who want to stop digging the hole deeper “cut and runners” or worse. It’s a brilliant gambit, part of Mr. McFlightSuit’s strategery.
Put simply, this administration has been wrong about virtually every aspect of the Iraq war after the statue of Saddam fell. They failed to implement years of carefully crafted military planning. There was no shortage of good military ideas about the Iraq invasion and the aftermath, but they knew it would be a cakewalk, so they ignored it all.
Let me ask you, Sherard, where the hell is your anger about what is happening? These idiots continue to demonstrate no ability to reason or plan, and are among the most corrupt and un-democratic bunch of war profiteers ever to grace the halls of power. Are you down with that?
As my Senator, Barack Obama said this week, “there are no good solutions left in Iraq.” Hopefully, we can quit talking about some bullshit victory and avoid having another last minute evacuation a la Viet Nam.
I thought after Dems won control of both houses of Congress I would be able to quiet my anger at these criminals, but as time goes on I find that I want retribution against them. Let’s just start with some oversight, and see what comes next.
Chuck Butcher
As long as there are no uniforms and no set battles between opposing forces (murder squads don’t count) the BushCo isn’t going to call it a Civil War. There is, even, some small justification for that stand. Frankly, I think “grumpy’s” description of it as an N-sided dogfight is most accurate.
It would probably be more ammenable to solutions if it were a Civil War, you could at least pick a side and kick the other’s ass. BushCo’s creation is considerably messier and more dangerous, despite their conception of it. Standing in the middle of an N-sided dispute guarantees that most participants won’t like or appreciate you. I don’t think leaving this afternoon would make a gnat’s ass’ bit of difference to the ultimate outcome, except a few less Americans would die for Bush’s Folly.
Screw Cut ‘n Run, Shit ‘n Git works for me.
ThymeZone
Sherard is probably a coughspoofcough.
Round up the usual suspects.
jake
The latest White House Buzz Phrase to describe Iraq is:
1. Multilateral disunity.
2. Entering a new phase.
3. Civil war.
4. Increasingly complicated violence.
5. A pony-deficit situation.
6. Oh shit!
Survey says…
srv
But they are wearing uniforms. They’re just wearing the same ones as the Army.
I think the NextHurrah had a good one for the current policy: Stay and Die.
TenguPhule
Fixed for Accuracy.
CaseyL
Those worthless shitheels in the White House might not get their wish to hand the mess off to the next Administration.
Bush is defining “not losing” as “troops still in Iraq when he leaves office”? How’s he gonna define “troops trying to leave Iraq through a gantlet of IEDs, mortar fire, and ambushes, towards a border they can’t reach”?
At this rate, we’ll need those (mythical) “20,000 more troops” just to secure the lines of withdrawal.
SeesThroughIt
It can’t be–we haven’t had Non-Sequitur Wednesday yet. (At one of my old summer jobs, we actually implemented Non-Sequitur Wednesday. Needless to say, madcap tomfoolery and hijinks ensued.)
jcricket
Fixed again. Details matter, TenguPhule.
Tulkinghorn
Since W would not let any Democrats within a mile of the intelligence that supposedly justified the war, and would not let anyone with a risk of political disloyalty within a mile of the planning and execution of the war, there is no one around to point to with any responsibility other than W.
He broke this war. He has to buy it.
demomondian
I have some other proposals for names for the current strategery: “Wait as bait”, “Try and die”, “Bleed and plead”, or (my personal favorite) “Let’s play country-wide civil war!”
Pooh
Fixed your fixing of the fixes,
GrasshopperCricketThymeZone
Traditionally, Non Sequitur Wednesday is observed on Thursday. The standard dialogue is
“Is today windy?”
“No, it’s Thursday.”
“So am I, let’s get a drink.”
etc.
Krista
Sounds like fun. I’ll remind you of that on Wednesday. So what does Tuesday involve, then? I vote for foreign-language insult day.
SeesThroughIt
I heartily endorse this event or product!
I used to speak pretty fluent Spanish. Now, my Spanish vocabulary has atrophied and pretty much all I remember is how to curse people out. Which some would argue constitutes fluency in Spanish! *rimshot*
jake
Can we include fake foreign language insults, a la Monty Python? Otherwise I’m good for French, a little German and a touch of Swedish (if I can remember how to spell the words).
demomondian
Nah, Foreign language insults Tuesday wouldn’t work — Krista, like all Canadians, speaks both French and English as foreign languages, so she gets an unfair advantage.
John Redworth
As long as you remember that Sect Sells…
grumpy realist
Russian’s pretty good to insult in. German as well, because you can come out with Teutonic phrases such as “Donnerwetter!” which sounds magnificent and means basically, “oh heck.”
And no one has yet surpassed the litany of insults Kent produces in King Lear.
Chuck Butcher
I’d vote for Chinese, if I could remember where I left that keyboard.
jaime
I wonder where all the idiots went that thought calling the resistance an “insurgency” was liberal media treason?
Krista
Mange la merde, s’il vous plait….
demomondian
S’il vous plait? Vraiment, tu es Canadienne!
Bombadil
Ah, Kent!
Compare that to:
Or perhaps:
T’was such a lovely language at one time.
ThymeZone
So, there’s a motion on the table to turn BJ into a renaissance festival thing?
Is there a second?
{ twig snaps }
{ cricket stops chirping }
{ leaves rustle }
{ distant train whistle }
{ faraway dog barks }
demomondian
I was thinking more on the order of Burning Man with intertubes (innertubes?), attitude, and, of course, trolls, TZ.
ThymeZone
Yes, Burning Man is always in need of more attitude.
Here’s a shot of Darrell at last year’s event.
Bombadil
Forsooth, sirrah, the faire’s the thing! Odds bodkins, shalt we not bring forth the turkey legs and pie, and partake thereof until the churlish rapscallions do cease their useless flinging of codswallop upon these fair boards?
Krista
Vraiment.
By the way, when did you become demomondian? Are you only the demo version of yourself right now? Do we have to pay a subscription fee to get the full version?
Zifnab
I disbelieve. No way Darrel has that much style.
demomondian
Yes! For only the low, low price of { thud }, you can have access to the full wit of the half-wit himself! Why, imagine, reading immortal witticisms like { splat }, all in the comfort of *your* *own* *browser*!
Don’t wait! Don’t be late! Operators are standing by!
Jay
[Racking of sawed-off shot gun]
Stop this now. I beg thee. Shit, I mean you. I beg you. Alack, and woe this crap ’tis like a pox.
Bombadil
demomondian
How do you tell an Arkansas intelectual?
He’s the guy with the umbrella in the gun rack.
Jay
Prithee dude, like, takez vous un grand chill pill, toute suite.
demomondian
That’s tout de suite, mister-fake-frog-lover. (Or, perhaps, monsieur-faux-amateur-des-grenouilles, for you.)
Krista
You sound like a lot of the people from around here…
“Eh, j’aime ton skirt, mais je n’aime pas la way que ça hang!”
Tim in SF
I went to Burning Man this past year with my friend Patrick He wrote a review which I think is pretty funny (it’s funny as long as you understand that the review itself is a piece of art and not to be taken too seriously—think tongue-in-cheek). Achtung hippie.
Jay
Heh, je think que tout mes profs de français have grand cauchemars about such places.
I must stop before I start throwing Swedish into the mix.
Krista
Brains would short-circuit just trying to pronounce the three languages in one sentence.
Where I’m from, Frenglish isn’t quite as pervasive. Instead, you tend to get English with a VERY heavy French accent — I was just home for a visit, and the place is getting more and more Francophone all the time.
demimondian
In Frenglish, are most verbs French, and nouns English? That would actually be the sign of an emerging creole, which would eventually become a new language…
Krista
demi – I don’t think it’s quite that structured. It’s basically just the result of people being so fluent in both languages that they cross over from one to the other, within the same sentence, without putting any real conscious thought into it. When my fluency was better than it is now, (to the point where I was thinking in French), it was easy enough to fall into the habit.
demimondian
How do genders work? For instance, what’s the grammatical gender of “skirt” in Frenglish? (That’s linguisticese for “Does it behave like a masculine or feminine noun?”) Does “hang” have a past participle?
Krista
You, sir, are overanalyzing this. It all depends on what you decide to say. Some might use “the skirt”, some might use “la skirt”. “Frenglish” in itself doesn’t have any particular grammatical rules. You’re just combining French and English within one sentence, but the sentence structure and linguistically-based gender rules still apply.
You’re just yanking my chain at this point, aren’t you?
Bombadil
Look’s like this thread is going to devolve into an argument between Pepe Le Pew and the Swedish chef.