Imagine the chagrin of the Bush Administration that that darned uncontrollable liberal media has gone and started calling the civil war in Iraq a civil war. Hilarious was Tony Snow’s attempting to define exactly what a civil war was and, in doing so, described exactly what was happening in Iraq…only to try and backpedal moments later and explain why, no, no, that’s not it at all.
Ostensibly the administration is concerned that referring to it as a Civil War could further voter discontent and objection to the war. It’s hard to believe that discontent could be more profound than approval ratings in the 30s and an election that turned the government back over to the Democrats, so clearly the major worry is that the GOP candidate for president in 2008 is going to suffer from his predecessor’s actions having launched a civil war in another country.
Indeed, the only thing we’re waiting for now is assassination of the current Iraqi leaders and a military overthrow of the current Iraqi government, which seems to be on the very close horizon. Indeed, the *only* thing that may be preventing that is the presence of our troops, and I suspect even that isn’t going to hold matters in check forever.
In any event, with the current battering the Bush Administration is taking, this blog will try to display some sensitivity. We here will NOT be referring to the Iraqi situation as Civil War. Instead we will refer to the overall situation as the CW, and events that transpire there as CW Programming. That sonds a lot friendlier.
PAD
• 
Only appropriate, since the administration seems to be looking for some kind of supernatural way to get through this.
The CW? Isn’t that a new teen drama for the fox network?
CW Programming? The Iraq War is going to be part of that TV line up? Will it run alongside 7th Heaven or Smallville?
How much you wanna bet that they’ll try to blame those pesky Democrats for this?
“The Democrats won and civil war broke out in Iraq! Just goes to show you what happens when THEY get in charge.”
Sadly, the level that Bush is trusted has fallen considerably to the point that it is difficult to believe a single word he says…. especially when there is doubt. I’m not sad for him, but for the office of presidency as a whole.
When Iraq was invaded, anyone could guess that a Civi… I mean CW would happen…Figures.
My favorite episode is when Kalif Kent leaves the farm in Tirkut and goes to Bahgdad to fight the Green Phantom Zone villians.
And Veronica Makdi was great last night.
Isn’t a Civil War when Iron Man gets in cahoots with the US Congress to pass some bonehead registration bill that pìššëš øff both Captain America and SpiderMan?
At least the Bush Administration isn’t calling it “the Other”.
–Captain Naraht
Over the weekend, militant Shiites took over a state-run television station, inciting attacks on Sunni neighborhoods. The Daily Kos points out the same thing happened when Hutu radicals called for the massacre of Tutsis and any Hutu who didn’t support the massacre of the Tutsi.
The NYT also cited a government report from June concluding the $200 million that funds a day of the US occupation of Iraq can fund 1-3 years of all other current insurgent activity combined, and that there’s enough money floating around from oil smuggling, counterfeiting, and kidnappings “to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq.”
…but it’s a good thing there’s no civil war.
And did the militant Shiites decide to rename it the CW network? Sorry, I didn’t read it and have not had my coffee, yet it seemed to fit….
Well, this is just another reason to laugh at our ‘liberal’ media: they haven’t had the balls to call a spade a spade for quite awhile now.
They’ve been criticized for calling terrorists ‘insurgents’ and whatever other terms are out there.
But now, when they call the fighting in Iraq what it is, they’re criticized again.
Ðámņ those liberals…
I was watching CNN and a reporter stationed in Iraq — whose name escapes me at the moment — said the level of violence is actually worse than what is being officially reported. He said each night hundreds of bodies have been turning up throughout Iraq that are “unaccounted for” — in other words, we don’t know who attacked and killed them.
This reporter called the Iraqi government an “apparition,” and said if Iraq isn’t in the midst of a civil war already, he doesn’t want to know what a “real” civil war would look like.
I’ve stated my belief that we need to remain in Iraq to preven things from falling into utter chaos. But we’ve been unable to prevent things from deteriorating this far, and I question whether there’s any more we can do. I’m beginning to fear that pulling out and letting the chips fall where they may could well be our only viable option. God help us.
I would hope we as a nation would learn from this experience. But I tend to doubt it. We didn’t learn anything from Vietnam, obviously.
“I’ve stated my belief that we need to remain in Iraq to preven things from falling into utter chaos. But we’ve been unable to prevent things from deteriorating this far, and I question whether there’s any more we can do. I’m beginning to fear that pulling out and letting the chips fall where they may could well be our only viable option. God help us.”
Too late for that Bill, altho leaving them and their god to sort it out does have a poetic ring to it
I thought CW was delayed for a few months….
Bladestar, I am generally reluctant beyond all measure to discuss my spiritual beliefs, given how much conflict in this world stems from differences about religion. But I will say this much: the violence we perpetrate against each other is not the work of God. That’s all on us.
“God help us” is merely an expression meant to express my perception of how dire the situation is in Iraq.
“Too late for that Bill, altho leaving them and their god to sort it out does have a poetic ring to it”
My concern is that they get to Bush and cap him while he’s out in that general neck of the woods for a summit. That puts Cheney in charge, and I can easily see him deciding to wipe the lot of them off the face of the earth and literally let their god sort them out. I mean, the guy shot his best friend, for crying out loud. I doubt he’d hesitate to turn Iraq into a parking lot and be done with it.
PAD
I can easily see him deciding to wipe the lot of them off the face of the earth and literally let their god sort them out.
I dunno, PAD – that seems to Catholic for Cheney.
Saw this, thought you guys would appreciate it. It’s pretty bad when we have to resort to things like not letting the “bad guys” have and I-pod to get our way.
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/11/29/530680.html&cvqh=itn_ipods
“That puts Cheney in charge…”
Scare the heck out of me, why don’t you? I would almost say the extremists would rather HAVE Bush, than eliminate him, because they can use him as a symbol of THE GREAT EVIL. But, that would be applying Western logic and thinking to a situation that is messed up because of Western “logic” and “thinking.”
Peter, I had a dream last night that Bush was killed while travelling to Iraq, leading to the very result you’ve imagined it might. I believe myself to be neither psychic nor a prophet. When my dreams come true, it’s coincidence, not prophecy. Still, it’s a bit chilling to read what you’ve written after having that dream.
Would Cheney go nuts and do what you’ve speculated he would? I’m not certain. He might want to, but Congress and a large swath of the American public would have his head on a pike for it. And I think he knows that.
I have no respect for Cheney as a leader nor as a man. But I think the remark about having shot his friend is nevertheless an unecessarily low blow. We have no credible evidence that it was any more than a boneheaded hunting accident. Cheney has done enough despicable things that are well-documented and proven — better to focus on those than to reach for something like the hunting incident. Otherwise, you’re just giving his apologists ammunition (no pun intended).
I heard one commentator on MSNBC or CNN, can’t remember who or which, refer to the Iraq situation as two attempts at ‘ethnic clensing’.
After submitting my last post, it occurred to me that in a scenario such as the one Peter described, national anger over the assassination of our president — regardless of his unpopularity — could well drive the majority of us into a rage that would allow Cheney to commit such an unspeakable act.
Let’s hope we don’t have to find out if Peter’s right.
My concern is that they get to Bush and cap him while he’s out in that general neck of the woods for a summit. That puts Cheney in charge, and I can easily see him deciding to wipe the lot of them off the face of the earth and literally let their god sort them out.
And now I’m picturing Karl Rove kindly placing his hand on the President’s shoulder and remarking grimly as he tightens his grip: “I’m sorry, George; the only way we can get the American people behind this war now is if we make you a casuality of it.”
Ah, one last thing for the time being: after my, uhm, “performance” in the “A Smart Move” thread some of you might be wondering how I dare accuse others of committing low blows. Such a question would be valid.
I can only say that I’m sorry for what I did. No excuses, no attempts at giving reasons — I’m just sorry.
Let me just say that when I called the reference to Cheney’s hunting incident a “low blow,” I was speaking philosophically and not in any way criticizing your character, Peter. I’d be a fool to cast stones that could be thrown right back at my glass house.
Does this mean you’re adding Veronica Mars to Cowboy Pete’s Roundup?
refer to the Iraq situation as two attempts at ‘ethnic clensing’.
“Ethnic cleansing” is another of those ridiculously sanitized phrases that attempts to shield people from the horrors of what is really going on over there.
I’m sure Mike has a few more words to say about this particular phrase, so I’ll leave it up to him, should he so choose.
Spider-Man was on the Shiite side before he switched to the Sunni side 😉
Someone really needs to make a “Civil War: I’m with al-Sadr” banner.
This just in, Tony Snow has been let go as press secretary. The new press secretary is a guy named Mark Millar.
But if he went to war for oil what would be the sense of blowing it all up?
Ok, here’s MY crazed scenario–Bush is killed, Cheney takes over but is prevented from picking a vice president and immediately impeached, leading to Nancy Pelosi as president!
The only problem with this scenario being that it has zero chance of happening but let’s not let that stop us.
As to Iraq…Bill Meyers, I’m a firm believer that things can ALWAYS get worse but given the cost of the war and the fact that (whether we admit it or not) 1 American soldier’s life is worth more to us than a large number of Iraqi lives, there comes a point where it’s worth cutting our losses.
But any pull out or pull back has to provide protection for the Kurds. They have managed to keep their part of the country free from war and demonstrated more ability to govorn than most countries. They’ve earned the right to be protected from whatever chaos the rest of the country suffers.
which is maybe what we should have done in the first place–go in, break stuff, kill Saddam, leave. Tell the next dictator to shape up or the same thing will happen.
We can no longer plan on long wars. For a variety of reasons it’s just not possible. Had the Serbs managed to perform as well as AlQeada has Clinton would have suffered the same problems as Bush. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, it just doesn’t work out for us and looking to the future, with ever more deadly eapons available to small, loosely organized forces, the situation will only get worse. This is a reality tha we, and the world, will have to deal with
This is the funniest political commentary yet! CW: we could be talking Stark or Clark.
Just thinking, maybe the problem is that we tried to turn Iraq to a system like ours. Maybe what they need, since they have three groups in the country is a council of three with representatives from each that can try to get things done together. Under the current system over there, no matter who’s in charge, two groups feel unrepresented.
Bill Mulligan: Who is this Bill Meyers character you keep addressing? And why is he stealing lines written by me, Bill Myers?
🙂
I often wonder if this war really is another vietnam or if that’s just the way it’s being spin doctored.
Instinct would lead me to think politicians would know not to get into situations like that anymore, and that protestors like to protest. But my faith in humanity and logic is constantly at question lately.
Cheney wouldn’t nuke Iraq. He wouldn’t want to take the flack for Americans having to fuel thier cars with glowing radioactive gas.
Jeeze, I should get it right by now…
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 29, 2006 01:24 PM
Just thinking, maybe the problem is that we tried to turn Iraq to a system like ours. Maybe what they need, since they have three groups in the country is a council of three with representatives from each that can try to get things done together. Under the current system over there, no matter who’s in charge, two groups feel unrepresented.
It’s a nice thought, but a car can’t have three fully-functioning steering wheels operated by three separate people and drive very well. Nor can a government operate effectively, I believe, without a single chief executive.
In the U.S., we settled the dispute over proportionate representation with a bi-cameral legislature. States are represented in the House according to their population, but all states are represented equally in the Senate. There are checks and balances to keep either from gaining too much power over the other.
But the colonies were racially and ethnically homogenous (or at least those with power were — I’m aware that blacks in this country were primarily slaves in those days), eliminating ethnic hatred as a major factor in the discussions about how to create an independent nation.
Iraq is just chock full of ethnic hatred, however. Not being as schooled in history as I ought to be, I’m unaware of any historical precedent for creating a democracy under those circumstances. If there is one, we’d be well-served to study it for the lessons it might have to teach us as we attempt to salvage Iraq.
If it’s not already too late. And it may well be too late.
I still think Jon Stewart had the best name for the situation:
A çáŧášŧrøfûçk.
Isn’t it fun that we’re constantly reduced to playing semantics while our soldiers keep dying? Remember when Cheney said the insurgency was in its “last throes”? Then, when the reality based community had the temerity to point out that the insurgents were actually increasing their attacks rather than falling apart, the administration sent its minions out to get everyone a lesson int he meaning of the word “throes”, ignoring the fact that it was the word “last” that really screwed up Cheney.
Ah, fun.
And if Cheney were to somehow find himself in charge (like he isn’t already), assuming the shock of Bush’s death didn’t cause his tiny heart to explode, I suspect the first thing he’d do would be to order the White House removed from Google Earth.
After that, he’d announce the new strategy for victory, which of course is the same as the old strategy for victory, but with a new slogon.
Same old, same old.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 01:08 PM
As to Iraq…Bill Meyers (sic), I’m a firm believer that things can ALWAYS get worse…
Oh, believe me, I know. Things have not yet reached their nadir. That’s what really scares me. Not just how bad it is… but how much worse it could get.
I’m beginning to fear that pulling out and letting the chips fall where they may could well be our only viable option. God help us.
Yeah man, and that’s not easy to think about because of the level of brutality these two sides are capable of inflicting on one another (BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE!!!! Ðámņ.) But if we’re just bailing water out of a sinking ship that’s eventually gonna go under no matter what we do, is there any point?
If we do leave, there is one thing I think should be done before it happens: use that idea about divvying up the country into Sunni, Shiite and Kurd areas. Screw what Tony Snow said (“Partition, non-starter”), although he said it back in October before the Dems won the election and got a little leverage to MAKE it a starter (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15334267/ ), it’s better than nothing and should at least lessen the amount of death and suffering when we leave.
Michael Moore’s thoughts on the subject, if anybody is interested (I think on this he makes a pretty good case):
http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=202
Heard on a Buffalo radio station earlier this month: “You’d think ‘pullout’ would be part of his vocabulary considering how anti-abortion they all are.” :p
I mean, the guy shot his best friend, for crying out loud.
That was an accident–but Cheney not going to the hospital with the guy immediately afterwards was his choice and a choice that made me pretty disgusted with him. What the hëll was he thinking? If somebody sprays me with buckshot and isn’t even considerate enough to show up at the hospital right after I’m treated and apologize and ask me if I’m feeling any better, I denounce that person as a friend that very day. So for that matter, what the was the guy Cheney SHOT thinking? Not to mention that this wasn’t a hunting trip, it was “hey, you know what’d be fun? If we got somebody to put cages of domesticated birds all over the place, then had him lead us to the birds, then had him poke the birds until they try to fly away, and then we could shoot them since they’ve never flown before and would make real easy targets. Or maybe we could buy some kittens and shoot them instead…nah, let’s do the bird thing. Just as long as I get to kill something.”
I have no respect for Cheney as a leader nor as a man.
I find him pretty despicable too. But read this quote from 1991 when he was Secretary of Defense. It really is amazing…
CHENEY (explaining why the first Gulf War ended with Saddam still in power): “I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we’re going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.”
Talk about flip-flopping. Also, the fact that he was able to see all of that coming makes it even more inexcusable for him to have been involved in the invasion 12 years later.
“Let me just say that when I called the reference to Cheney’s hunting incident a “low blow,” I was speaking philosophically and not in any way criticizing your character, Peter. I’d be a fool to cast stones that could be thrown right back at my glass house.”
Don’t worry about it, although I didn’t think of my comment about Cheney as being a low blow. I was thinking of it more as a cheap shot…
No, wait. Wait, this just in. NBC News has declared that it was, indeed, a low blow. I, however, will continue to maintain that it was a cheap shot, no matter the evidence to the contrary.
“Oh, believe me, I know. Things have not yet reached their nadir.”
It’s really all his fault, you know. If that dámņëd Nadir hadn’t run, Gore would have been elected and we wouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place…
PAD
Bill Mulligan –
They have managed to keep their part of the country free from war and demonstrated more ability to govorn than most countries.
Only because they apparently have nothing the Sunnis or Shiites want and don’t have many Sunnis or Shiites living among them.
As you can see in the rest of the major cities of Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites live together. And now they’re trying to tear each other apart. It’s like the Hatfield & McCoys x 100,000.
Unfortunately, after the promises we made during the Gulf War to the Kurds, only to ignore them, they’d be well within their right to also tell us to shove off.
>Would Cheney go nuts and do what you’ve speculated he would? I’m not certain. He might want to, but Congress and a large swath of the American public would have his head on a pike for it. And I think he knows that.
More to the point, would the generals go along? There’s rumours Stalin’s aides/generals were responsible for his ‘departure from office’ because the loon wanted to start a nuclear war. We could well see the same thing with U.S. military telling the president to sod off if he tried the same thing for an unacceptable reason. Which however devastating to the U.S. the assassination of the president would be, certainly doesn’t warrant that sort of response.
>It’s a nice thought, but a car can’t have three fully-functioning steering wheels operated by three separate people and drive very well. Nor can a government operate effectively, I believe, without a single chief executive.
Hey the Minbari managed it! Oh, but wait, wait, they were actually intelligent, weren’t they? And fictional, let’s not forget that.
>As to Iraq…Bill Meyers, I’m a firm believer that things can ALWAYS get worse but given the cost of the war and the fact that (whether we admit it or not) 1 American soldier’s life is worth more to us than a large number of Iraqi lives, there comes a point where it’s worth cutting our losses.
Maybe it’s worth hoping things get worse … and ironically become better for it?
What If? issue #621 …
What if things got a lot worse in Iraq, wherefor Iran decided to take advantage of the situation and indulged in some payback for the little fracas Saddam had with them back in the 80s? Hey, that’d give a tailor-made excuse to do something about those nuclear plans of theirs. 😉
Posted by: Peter David at November 29, 2006 02:32 PM
Don’t worry about it, although I didn’t think of my comment about Cheney as being a low blow. I was thinking of it more as a cheap shot…
From Cheney’s standpoint, there was nothing cheap about it. Those were perfectly good birdshot pellets.
Posted by: Peter David at November 29, 2006 02:32 PM
No, wait. Wait, this just in. NBC News has declared that it was, indeed, a low blow. I, however, will continue to maintain that it was a cheap shot, no matter the evidence to the contrary.
Spare us your snowjob.
Posted by: Peter David at November 29, 2006 02:32 PM
It’s really all his fault, you know. If that dámņëd Nadir hadn’t run, Gore would have been elected and we wouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place…
Hmmm… perhaps the gun Cheney was using failed to come with adequate warnings about what would happen if one shoots one’s friend in the face with it. Maybe he should get in touch with Ralph. I’m sure Ralph’s got spare time, not being president and all.
Just as a FYI, well known liberal agitator Colin Powell has now said that Iraq is in Civil War and the Bush administration needs to face up to it.
And if Cheney were to somehow find himself in charge (like he isn’t already),
If Cheney were in charge Rumsfeldt would still have his job.
Only because they apparently have nothing the Sunnis or Shiites want and don’t have many Sunnis or Shiites living among them.
I was under the impression that the Kurds DO have oil reserves. You are correct that they are far more monoethnic, which seems to make it easier to spot the terrorists.
What if things got a lot worse in Iraq, wherefor Iran decided to take advantage of the situation and indulged in some payback for the little fracas Saddam had with them back in the 80s? Hey, that’d give a tailor-made excuse to do something about those nuclear plans of theirs. 😉
I can’t believe they would not first target Israel–and if they use atom bombs on anyone, even fellow Muslims, the Israelis would probably take the opportunity to make sure they weren’t the next target.
I wish someone in the press would ask the president one simple question: “Mr President, what is your definition of a civil war?”
All across the blogs and news websites is talk of this civil war. It’s a game of semantics at this point.
I’d start measuring out an ounce of faith in this presidency if we they would stop putting a positive or denying spin on things. The irreality of life as they know it is doing nothing to garner trust, faith or support from the rest of the world.
“All across the blogs and news websites is talk of this civil war.”
No WONDER the President hasn’t heard about it.
“Hmmm… perhaps the gun Cheney was using failed to come with adequate warnings about what would happen if one shoots one’s friend in the face with it.”
I can see it now. “According to studies by the Surgeon General, discharging this weapon in the direction of someone’s face, who is not a bird, will make you the target of jokes for years to come.” Engrave that right on the barrel.
If Cheney were in charge Rumsfeldt would still have his job.
Nah. Cheney and Rummy may be friends, but they are also politicians, which means if he needed to tell his friend to fall on his sword for him, he’d do it in an irregular heartbeat.
I was under the impression that the Kurds DO have oil reserves.
They do, it’s the Sunnis that are oil-deficient. The Kurds, however, seem to be less interested in payback as the Shi’ites or the Sunnis are. Maybe it’s because they’ve been semi-autonomous for years before Saddam was toppled. They’ve simply got their act together more.
I can’t believe they would not first target Israel–and if they use atom bombs on anyone, even fellow Muslims, the Israelis would probably take the opportunity to make sure they weren’t the next target.
Absolutely, keeping in mind that Israel is a nuclear power, Iran would make sure to hit them first if they were to get the bomb. Not only would it eliminate their biggest regional nuclear threat, it would also increase their stature in the Muslim world.
Not only would it eliminate their biggest regional nuclear threat, it would also increase their stature in the Muslim world.
I think the Iranian leaders mat believe that but in reality, if they bomb Israel they will have to change the name of their country to “The steaming pile of radioactive sand formally known as Iran”