Fox's Wilson falsely suggested NBC alone in characterizing Iraq situation as "civil war"
SUMMARY: In his report on whether it is "accurate to
call what is happening [in Iraq] a civil war," as NBC News recently
decided to do, Fox
News' Brian Wilson featured several people who say that Iraq is not experiencing a civil war, while noting only the announcement by NBC News explaining of its decision.
Wilson did not mention
any of the numerous scholars, journalists, and retired military officers who
have described Iraq as being in the midst of a civil war.
During a report on the November 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News host Brian Wilson falsely suggested that there is little or no basis for describing the current conflict in Iraq as a "civil war," as NBC News announced on November 27 that it would now do. In his report on whether it is "accurate to call what is happening [in Iraq] a civil war," Wilson featured several people who opposed using that description but noted only NBC News' announcement in support, without noting the numerous scholars, journalists, and retired military officers who have described Iraq as being in the midst of a civil war.
For example, while Wilson noted that CNN has not officially "followed NBC's lead," he did not mention that CNN international correspondent Michael Ware has stated unequivocally that Iraq is embroiled in a civil war. As Media Matters for America noted, on November 21, Ware stated that "anyone who still remains in doubt about whether this is civil war or not is suffering from the luxury of distance." Also, as Media Matters has documented, a number of retired generals have declared Iraq to be in the midst of a civil war, including Gen. Barry McCaffrey (also an NBC News military analyst), Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr., and Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, as well as Col. Jack Jacobs, an NBC military analyst and and former faculty member of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
Wilson reported that "[m]ilitary historians insist civil wars are generally fought over differences in political ideology and point out that much of the fighting in Iraq is fueled by sectarian or ethnic hatred," airing a clip of retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales backing up this statement. But a November 26 New York Times article reported that "American commanders [now] acknowledge that political dominance is at the heart of this conflict [in Iraq]." The article also suggested that, contrary to Wilson's suggestion, the Iraq conflict's sectarian nature does not disqualify it from being a "civil war," reporting that, according to "scholars ... the Iraq civil war has elements of both an insurgency ... and a sectarian war -- the besieged government is ruled by Shiites and opposed by Sunni Arabs." Moreover, the Times article reported that "a growing number of American and Iraqi scholars, leaders and policy analysts say the fighting in Iraq meets the standard definition of civil war." It also noted that "American professors who specialize in the study of civil wars say that most of their number are in agreement that Iraq's conflict is a civil war."
Indeed, Wilson's articulation is similar to the White House's reported justification for refusing to label the Iraq conflict a "civil war." The Times reported in the same article that "[s]ome Bush administration officials have argued that there is no obvious political vision on the part of the Sunni-led insurgent groups, so 'civil war' does not apply."
From the November 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, guest-hosted by Chris Wallace, host of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Mike, thanks for that. There's now quite a debate about whether the American news media should call the conflict in Iraq a "civil war." But it's more than just an argument over language. As correspondent Brian Wilson reports, the choice of words has political implications.
[begin video clip]
WILSON: There is little doubt the violence inside Iraq is real, it is brutal, and it's tragic. But is it accurate to call what is happening there a "civil war"? The chairman of the Joint Chiefs said the conflict in Iraq doesn't meet the accepted definition of a civil war, although he believes that is what Al Qaeda is seeking.
GEN. PETER PACE (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs): It's much more important that we focus on how to defeat the enemy that is trying to create this civil war than it is we spend a lot of time dancing on the head of a pin, as far as what particular words we should use to describe the environment, which is currently unacceptable.
WILSON: Earlier this week the president offered a similar assessment.
BUSH: There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented, in my opinion, because of these attacks by Al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal.
WILSON: The debate over terminology has become a media issue following NBC's formal decision to use the term "civil war," a decision first announced on Monday's Today show.
MATT LAUER (NBC's Today co-host): NBC News has decided a 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.
WILSON: And NBC correspondents have used the term several times since.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Iraq's worsening civil war will dominate the presidency --
WILSON: Other news organizations have not followed NBC's lead. For example, the executive producer of the CBS Evening News said, "To be honest with you, I think it's a political statement, not a news judgment." At CNN, an official statement: "CNN will continue to report on what is happening in Iraq on a day-to-day basis. And we will also report on the ongoing debate in academic and political circles about what constitutes a civil war."
The senior VP for editorial here at Fox said today: "Some are using the term [civil war] to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but of US policy in Iraq. We're unwilling to fall into that tender trap. We're not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different."
Military historians insist civil wars are generally fought over differences in political ideology and point out that much of the fighting in Iraq is fueled by sectarian or ethnic hatred.
SCALES: These communal wars, these ethnic wars, are so brutal and so deadly that generally it takes a catalyst, it takes a spark, if you will, that ignites these types of conflicts. And even though Al Qaeda is small, even though their numbers are few, they are the spark, they are the catalyst.
[end video clip]
WILSON: And, says Scales, no matter what you call it, the difficult goal for the Bush administration is to figure out a way to keep different sects apart, while trying to neutralize what is left of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
In Washington, Brian Wilson, Fox News.















What we'd do without Fox news.
And I thought that the other Brian Wilson was the crazy one.
Wingnuttery at its finest.
Entertainment Weekly voted "God Only Knows" the #1 love song ever. I have to agree. And on one of a small number of absolutely indispensable albums.
Back on topic: why does it matter whether it's called a "civil war" or something else? A rose by any other name and all that.
Does it really matter what you call it? Will the American people suddenly want to stay longer if we call it "sectarian violence" instead of "civil war"? Does changing the wording change the fact that the violence is getting worse?
Nothing will change the fact that the Bush administration had no real plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, or for dealing with the current "sectarian violence".
They once again believed their own propaganda that Iraqis would be throwing flowers and welcome us as liberators, instead of listening to all of the experts who said removing Saddam would leave a major power vacuum and could leave us in an even worse situation than before the war. They ignored people who told them Iran and/or radical clerics would fill much of that power vacuum. Dubya even ignored his own father's book about why he didn't remove Saddam in Desert Storm.
To me, arguing what to call the situation in Iraq is like arguing whether Nero played a "fiddle" or a "lyre" while Rome burned.
It doesn't get much better than "Pet Sounds".
And are you any more dead if killed in a "Civil War" than you'd be by being killed by "Sectarian Violence"?
Dead is Dead
Rush Limbaugh cited pet sounds as his #1 choice to listen to while making love.
When asked if he was a fan of other Beach Boys albums, Limbaugh responded "Who are the Beach Boys?"
Sorry, I just came off the Rush & his cat/women analogy thread.Ignore me.
ba-doomp *tching*
I don't know just how interesting everybody else finds this argument over semantics to be.
It seems secondary to what's happening in Iraq, to bicker much about what to call it... it's distractionary also, because this argument over semantics completely puts off any discussion of the role of U.S. Troops in Iraq (which is no role involving the National Security of the U.S.), and puts off any discussion of what the administration of our government should be doing about the Iraq tragedy (which is forming a stable government in that place! Which is a mission of diplomacy, and not of U.S. Armed Force!)...
And so what difference does it make what you call it, if it doesn't make the government there any more stable... which right now happens to be the single and most necessary criteria (the forming of a stable Iraqi government), the accomplishment of which then makes the Homecoming (safe and alive!) of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq, a thing we can achieve.
And are any of the administration's idiots (who are fast approaching a criminal liability ion this matter) working towards that necessary goal, the goal of a stable Iraqi government?
Or are they all just fiddling around, like Nero, while Baghdad burns...
Futzing around, arguing semantics... foolishly distracted from solving the problem (a stable Iraqi government!)... criminally negligent of their duties...
Like the crew of a train, in anticipation of the wreck ahead, arguing whether to say the train is about to "jump the tracks"...
...or be "derailed".
Controlling the language and terminology is a crucial part of the propaganda war. Remember Orwells 1984? This may seem like small potatoes and in fact in each singular case it might BE small potatoes but taken in its totality it IS the game or at the least a very significant part of the propaganda war we are deeply immersed in.
This gives the Bush Huggers (wow, that conjures up all kinds of images) something to talk about other than people who are dying. It's an old magician's trick, distract with one hand and a story, while the other hand is performing the illusion.
The 'news' organizations now begin (or increase) attacks upon one another. They were so in agreement just, what, 6 mos ago?
What I love about all of this is, 1 year from now...when EVERYONE will confess that Iraq is in the middle of an all-out civil war... these FOX jerks won't make a peep... or even, claim they said it all along.
Why is it that the 'left wing moonbats' always seem to be proven right (er, correct) with the passing of time?
Last night, on scareborough ("dead intern in his office"), he and pat bushcanon started voraciously arguing about Iraq...
Raising their voices, stepping on one another's voices... back'n'forth... and when they were done, they joked about it (MMFA has the record I'm sure... I can't quote any of it accurately)... but I recognized it for what it was:
A Sham.
A sham dialogue, or colloquy, that not only had the effect of not addressing the Iraq tragedy, but of also side-lining the other two persons who were supposedly part of the discussion... they were relegated to the role of bystanders, as joe and pat took off on their "Hatfield v. McCoy" routine.
And so now the phony (distractionary) argument of "civil war" v. "sectarian violence" descends into the phony (distractionary) debate of "Fox" v. "NBC-MSNBC"...
As Baghdad burns.
At least the Hatfields truly hated the McCoys... at least they were sincere...
Unlike the "media" hacks at Fox and NBC-MSNBC, who'd like nothing more than to table any and all discussion of the Iraq tragedy (and side-line the other participants in the dialogue) by way of a sham dialogue or colloquy.
Bill O'Reilly was calling it civil war as long ago as May of 2005. Of course he backed away from that, subsequent to the official line becoming "sectarian violence."
Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.
We in the south avoid such descriptions mentioning Civil War. Here are some alternatives based on our own semantic battles: The War of Sunnite Aggression, The War Between the Sects, The Second Iraqi Revolution or my all time favorite -- The Recent Unpleasantness
That slideshow had to be Yankee programmed, no self-respecting Son of the South would look at pictures that quickly.
Or maybe I'm just slow.I am in Southern California.
If only we keep saying something is true, it MUST be true!....the creed of the liar.
This just shows how detached from reality these corporate pinheads are. They really do think that if they spin something hard enough, it will actually turn out to be true. That's all that matters...the spin. Reality can go hang, they got damage control to do!
They're all lost in a mad little world of their own invention. Our media is staffed by lunatics.