"For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war. And for the most part, news organizations, like NBC, have hesitated to characterize it as such, but after careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted -- that the situation in Iraq, with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as civil war."
The announcement was termed "a bombshell" by industry magazine Editor & Publisher. However, NBC reportedly took quite some time thinking about the issue, and according to a Boston Globe article, many other news organizations are doing the same:
A few other media outlets with reporters in Baghdad have slowly begun to refer to the conflict as a civil war and still more said yesterday they were debating the issue after the NBC announcement.
"We talk about it every day," said Sandy Genelius , a CBS News spokeswoman. "But there is no edict here. Each producer and correspondent tries to put on the air what seems accurate and appropriate in the context of each story."
Bill Keller , executive editor of The New York Times, said in a statement yesterday that "after consulting with our reporters in the field and the editors who directly oversee this coverage," the paper has decided that the term "civil war" is now appropriate.
According to the Editor and Publisher column, Lauer acknowledged that the White House disagreed with NBC's decision, and even read the press release from the White House regarding the matter:
"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.'"
Please, you've got to be kidding me. Like many others have said, the White House is clearly splitting hairs to avoid acknowledging the truth about the situation.
In his nightly "Talking Points Memo" Tuesday night, Republican lapdog Bill O'reilly, called the situation "Violent, out-of-control chaos GÇö not civil war," according to a News Hounds column. O'reilly went on to say that the Bush administration needs to consider breaking Iraq into three autonomous regions, or allowing the Iraqi military to run the country. Oh wait, wasn't one of the reasons George Bush illegally invaded Iraq was to put "freedom on the march?" Wouldn't that sort of defeat the purpose? Of course, not having anything intelligent to say, O'reilly went on to blame the "liberal media," saying that the American media is rooting for an American loss in Iraq, and that NBC is "anti-Bush."
You know, the same thing he does every night for one reason or another. We've heard it all a million times O'reilly, come up with an argument that actually MAKES SENSE!
A column published by Reuters quoted Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution as saying:
"It's getting silly for the administration or anyone else to deny there's a civil war."
...And I agree. Webster's dictionary defines "civil war" as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country," so please tell me how it is wrong to characterize what's happening in Iraq as anything BUT a civil war?
What do YOU think? Can you make a case against calling it a civil war? Or do you agree with the decision by many to classify Iraq as such?