From: "Mark" 


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:44ecfa70{at}w3.nls.net...
> I'm not the only one calling it a civil war.  Nor do I pine for the
> incompetence of the Bush Administration whose actions were instrumental in
> creating the conditions for those deaths

Not you, but the Dems in office that continually carp and whine and
intimate that they'll cut and run at the earliest opportunity (hell, it's
not intimation, it's fact) are the ones causing greater death for our
troops, for Iraqi citizens, and greater sectarian violence in general,
because the average Iraqi watches their BS on TV at night and wonders if he
should stand up for his new government, if the US is going to cut and run
if the Dems take majorities. I can't say as I blame them. Let us pray the
Dems don't get control, cause that's gonna cause one hell of a sea of glass
in the middle-east. Bush has been trying to avoid that, the Dems are trying
to ensure it.

> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/20/hagel-iraq-civil-war/
> Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said that Iraq is in a
> "very defined civil war" and that the Middle East is
"the most unstable
> we've seen since 1948."

Exactly. The status-quo was BS, instability was the goal.


> It appears that commanders need permission from the White House to even
> use the term 'civil war'. If one is not going on why would the term be
> banned?

If you'd followed the link I provided to the interview with the top Brit in
Iraq in the previous message, you'd have read this:

"I think it's very important that we talk -- we don't talk about civil
war, because of itself it is -- it's inflammatory language. It is implying
that the situation is worse than it is. It therefore encourages, amongst
other things, adventurous media reporting. It could encourage a certain
degree of despondency in the political constituencies of both of our
countries.

But above all, I simply don't think it is an accurate statement of the
situation that we're currently involved in. And I'm sorry to sound as
though I'm being sort of rather didactic in a military way, but I think
it's important that we use the proper language to define the situations
that we find ourselves in."

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR20060821007
98.html
> Former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, Ned Walker, said if military
> commanders were talking about civil war they must have been given
> permission from the White House to do so and Bush was testing public
> opinion by uttering the phrase.

He wasn't testing "public opinion," is that all this is to you
guys 24/7? Bush doesn't give a shit about public opinion, he ain't running
for anything --- Damn why is that so hard to swallow? He was allowing them
to breach the subject because so many dimbulbs have been uttering it
non-stop for so long.

> Of course now the term 'miniature civil war' has now been offered
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Aug22/0,4670,IraqBritishCommander,00.html
> WASHINGTON - The British deputy to the top U.S. commander in Iraq said
> Tuesday the country's sectarian conflict is not a full-blown civil war but
> could be described as a"civil war in miniature."

Again, *if* you'd read my previous link maybe you'd see some frigging
context to that point; not just parrot some more distortions.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5