The news media's hesitancy to call Iraq mess a "civil war"?

[kentuck]

What a bunch of wusses! Now they don't know what to call the war in Iraq? They could have told the truth from the beginning and maybe they would have had a little more credibility? They could have told the truth about the election of 2000. They could have told the truth about the invasion and the WMDs. They could have informed the people about the laws this President was breaking. So now, they are debating amongst themselves whether or not to call the mess in Iraq a "civil war". Do we really need further proof of how much they have been manipulated by this Administration?

[tuvor]

1. FWIW, Jimmy Carter's not sure it's a civil war yet, either.

Carter also added his voice to the semantic debate on how to describe the fighting, saying he did not think it amounted to the kind of civil war in which his Carter Center human rights foundation had intervened.

"I think a civil war is a more serious circumstance than exists in Iraq," he said, but added that it was not really important how the conflict was described.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqunrestpolitics

[kentuck]

2. I love Jimmy Carter but...

in this instance, I think his reference to "civil wars" are more like those on the African continent, which are more like "ethnic cleansing" than "civil wars". One group simple annihilates another. And the weaker group has no way of defending itself. That, in my opinion, is not a "civil war". But, i am loathe to disagree with JC... :)

[BrewAz]

3. Debating the semantics...

causes everyone to focus on the words...rather than on the mess the administration is perpetuating.

Call it slight of hand if you want, but it is brilliant as a move to keep the discussion off the issues.

BrewAz