November 27th, 2006
While some still debate whether the daily massacres taking place in Iraq can or should be referred to as a "civil war," Michael Ware, based in Iraq, laid it out for Wolf Blitzer (via CrooksandLiars.com):
Ware: If this is not a civil war, Wolf, I don’t want to see one when it comes.
Sheepishly, CNN is still using the non-declaratory question mark on its on-air images, CNN: Iraq: Civil War? Hell yes! Just listen to your own correspondent in Iraq.
November 27th, 2006
This sums it up:
After nearly four years of letting the Bush Administration set the terms of the national debate over Iraq, some major news organizations are finally calling the conflict there what it is: a civil war. The White House is howling in protest.
The Bush administration’s "howling protest" is in response to this, from the same article:
Here’s what Matt Lauer announced on NBC’s Today Show this morning: "As you know, 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." Here’s some video of Lauer discussing the decision with retired general Barry McCaffrey.
Predictably, the "howling protest" from the Bush administration disputed the notion that Iraq is in civil war:
"The White House is objecting this morning to descriptions of the Iraq conflict as a civil war. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, ‘The violence is primarily centered around Baghdad and Baghdad security and the increased training of Iraqi Security Forces is at the top of the agenda when [Bush and Maliki] meet later this week.’"
UPDATE: Some in the so-called liberal media are still debating on whether Iraq is in "civil war" or not (via ThinkProgress.com):
Fox News:
WARD: In response to today’s attacks and snowballing sectarian violence, a curfew has been imposed in Baghdad and the international airport closed to all commercial flights. [11/23/06]
Washington Post:
But fear ran high that the fighting would not end, as clashes in Ghazaliya and elsewhere illustrated the inability of Iraqi security forces to rein in the violence that has propelled the country closer to full-blown civil war. [11/27/06]
USA Today:
Abizaid didn’t have much to offer besides faith, hope and the familiar but elusive objectives of stabilizing the country, reining in sectarian violence and preparing Iraq to manage on its own. [USA Today, 11/16/06]
Boston Globe:
It was one of the largest mass abductions since the US-led invasion in 2003, startling even by the standards of a nation reeling from sectarian strife, daily bombings, and death squads. [11/15/06]
San Francisco Chronicle:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki faces intense pressure from the United States to eliminate the militias and their death squads, which are deeply involved in the country’s sectarian slaughter and are believed to have thoroughly infiltrated the police and security forces. [11/15/06]
Chicago Tribune:
As the prospect of civil war in Iraq festers, the U.S. military has identified three options – add more troops, start a graduated retreat or embrace a speedy one – according to a Washington Post account that quoted sources familiar with the written Pentagon options. [11/26/06]
New York Times:
The two [Bush and Maliki] are expected to talk about the widening sectarian war in Iraq and to try to reach agreement on ways to stop it. [11/27/06]
CNN:
FRANKEN: But President Bush is focused on what can be done in Iraq without leaving behind a country consumed by sectarian war. [11/27/06]
November 27th, 2006
Whenever the issue of reinstituting the military draft comes up strong dissenting opinions soon surface. That said, my immediate reaction to renewed calls for reinstating the military draft is to support it. However, I certainly understand the many rational, reasonable and emotional reasons to oppose the reintroduction of the military draft.
While I understand why one would oppose the draft, when I read items like this, I can only say, My god, no wonder we’re not on the streets trying to stop Bush’s war of choice; since the country is not bearing the consequences of Bush’s Iraq war.
With no obvious personal stake in the war in Iraq, most Americans are indifferent to its consequences. In an interview last week, Alex Racheotes, a 19-year-old history major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said: "I definitely don’t know anyone who would want to fight in Iraq. But beyond that, I get the feeling that most people at school don’t even think about the war. They’re more concerned with what grade they got on yesterday’s test."
His thoughts were echoed by other students, including John Cafarelli, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of New Hampshire, who was asked if he had any friends who would be willing to join the Army. "No, definitely not," he said. "None of my friends even really care about what’s going on in Iraq."
While shoppers here are scrambling to put the perfect touch to their holidays with the purchase of a giant flat-screen TV or a PlayStation 3, the news out of Baghdad is of a society in the midst of a meltdown.
November 26th, 2006
This is just ridiculous:
DENVER — A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.
Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.
“Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up,” he said in a telephone interview Sunday.
Lisa Jensen said she wasn’t thinking of the war when she hung the wreath. She said, “Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing.”
Jensen, a past association president, calculates the fines will cost her about $1,000, and doubts they will be able to make her pay. But she said she’s not going to take it down until after Christmas.
“Now that it has come to this I feel I can’t get bullied,” she said. “What if they don’t like my Santa Claus.”
The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board “will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive.”
The subdivision’s rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.
Now here’s the kicker, from the same AP article:
Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn’t say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.
UPDATE: The homeowners association backs down:
The directors of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association apologized Monday to Lisa Jensen and Bill Trimarco for threatening to fine the couple $25 a day if they didn’t remove their lighted wreath.
[..]
Jensen and Trimarco said they have had hundreds of e-mails and phone calls since the wreath flap garnered headlines around the world.
Most have been supportive of their simple message of peace, they said – a message they did not intend to be a statement against the war in Iraq.
November 26th, 2006
Right after the Democratic party regained control of the House and Senate after twelve years of abysmal Republican domination, many mainstream media types pushed the idea that conservatives had won the election for Democrats. However, as noted here, that is just one more myth about the 2006 elections.
Additionally, even though the mainstream media and establishment insiders in DC refuse to acknowledge that, in fact, the Democratic party, with a generally liberal agenda, won the election; it is encouraging to read that one of the old DC insiders, the Dean, as some call him, is coming around to the reality that what we saw this past November 7th, 2006, was nothing more than a Democratic tsunami. The Dean, David Broder, writes:
Buried in the news of the national Democratic midterm election victory was an even more dramatic power shift in the state that has become famous as the site of the first presidential primary in each cycle.
In the words of veteran New Hampshire Republican leader Tom Rath, it was "beyond historic" when the Democrats took complete control of the handsome state capitol in Concord for the first time since 1874.
[...]
New Hampshire was not alone. Iowa, whose presidential caucuses come even earlier than the New Hampshire primary, also elected a Democrat as governor and saw both houses of its legislature flip to the Democrats.
Democrats now control both houses in 24 states; Republicans do so in 16; and nine states have split control. (Nebraska has a nonpartisan unicameral legislature.)
These numbers become more important as we approach 2010 and another census, which will provide the raw material for the next round of line-drawing for congressional and legislative districts. If Democrats can maintain their legislative advantage along with their new 28-22 lead in governorships, they will be in the driver’s seat on that redistricting.
[...]
The force of the movement spared no one. Peter Spaulding, a longtime member of the Executive Council and a leader in John McCain’s victorious 2000 New Hampshire primary campaign, lost his seat to a 71-year-old opponent who barely made any effort and who was vacationing in Belgium when the election returns came in. Dozens of longtime citizen-legislators, serving part time for $200 a term and rarely having to bother to campaign, found themselves voted out of office.
"The only successful Republicans were the ones who were not on the ballot in 2006," such as Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu, Rath said.
