Matthews called "civil war" "the lingo of the anti-war movement," but his own network calls it that, too
On the September 10 edition of MSNBC Live, MSNBC host Chris Matthews -- during a break in the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker -- said that Petraeus "avoided the word 'civil war,' " adding: "I think 'civil war' has become the lingo of the anti-war movement." But referring to the conflict in Iraq as a "civil war" is the stated policy of MSNBC and NBC News. Moreover, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), released on February 2, said that while the phrase "does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence," it "accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements."
On the November 27, 2006, broadcast of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer announced that NBC News would begin referring to the war in Iraq as a "civil war":
LAUER: 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 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. We're going to have more on the situation on the ground in Iraq and on our decision coming up.
In fact, Matthews himself has used the term. On the May 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion with Reps. Artur Davis (D-AL) and Kay Granger (R-TX), Matthews asked Granger: "Do you believe, Congresswoman, that we can end this civil war between the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq?"
From the May 10 edition of Hardball:
DAVIS: Kay, the two previous military commanders said a short-term surge wouldn't work. The president didn't like their advice. He sent them packing elsewhere. This 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 infusion won't change the realities on the ground. This is a vicious civil war between two sets of radical Islamic fundamentalists who both have blood on their hands, who both shed American lives, and a civil war between two sets of radical Islamic fundamentalists is not worth 3,300 American lives.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me -- let the congresswoman respond. Do you believe, Congresswoman, that we can end this civil war between the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq?
GRANGER: Let me remind you that the bombings -- very recent bombings -- have bombed Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds. We're talking about insurgents. We're talking about terrorists. And I think we're missing the point if we just say it's a civil war. I believe it is the Iraqis' importance that they stand up but we back them up while they make this transition. Then they are in charge of their own security, and we go home. Let's just give it a chance and make sure that we are backing up our troops that are doing what we asked them to do.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, U.S. Congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama.
From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the September 10 edition of MSNBC Live:
MATTHEWS: I thought it was interesting, Brian, that the term used the by the general was "ethno-sectarian violence." He avoided the word "civil war." I think "civil war" has become the lingo of the anti-war movement. If you hear a person say "civil war" a lot of times in the newspapers and on television, that means the person's against this war because they believe it's basically a battle between the Shia and the Sunni and we're just an unfortunate referee in that war that's suffering collateral damage.
So I think you're right, the language is very important. What struck me about Ryan Crocker's testimony -- and he's quite a proficient diplomat -- is he was mainly arguing for not leaving Iraq and the consequences that would come to us in our world situation if we did leave. He wasn't making a really positive case about how we're achieving our goal over there, how we're getting to a democratic, stable state. It was much more a warning: don't pull out.
Interesting. What else would you call it when two or more armed factions within a country are making war on each other?
Liberation?
A domestic disturbance?
A wide stance
a soccer match between Manchester U. and Italy?
Brittney Spears and K-Fed in divorce court?
An "untidy" expression of freedom and liberation.
Good link; so in brief, instead of civil war, it should be called
The free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things and bullets in the head don't count war on terror.
Sorry to step on your line, Pete. I should have checked your link before I posted below.
LOL, no worries. It just goes to show how memorable Rummy's wacko wisdom is on the subject.
I hate to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, but can't we just call it "Untidy Freedom".
i don't know why anyone would believe the "lingo" of petraeus and crocker. they are going to give everything the bush spin. that's to be expected, but that does not mean their word is the unbiased truth.
if it is not a civil war, then how to explain the ethnic cleansing of millions of iraqis from their former homes.
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/1/4/46CE51210BD20114/
"Some would say" that Mathews has correctly identified NBC and MSNBC.
Wesley- huh? MSNBC and NBC in a civil war?
I do think Matthews might be hearing voices in his head...
I think poor Wesley was trying to indicate that MSNBC and NBC are the "Anti-War Movement". Of course any entity who doesn't report administration propaganda is "some of them long haired hippie types" that Wesley obviously abhores. Seems to me that folks like Wesley cannot even admit that Bush lied....about anything. Heck, according to Bush we found WMD's. I guess MSNBC and NBC weren't in their tye dyes and smoking that wacky weed when they failed to report how that was lie.
Sure some partisan hate reality types might. Those of us with connections to the reality based universe would know that was BS
Actually, "civil war" is the lingo of the anti-war movement, because the pro-war movement refuses to recognize there is a civil war taking place in Iraq.
Of course, the anti-war movement lingo also just happens to define Iraq in terms of reality, as opposed to neocon fairy tales.
I think that's the part CM doesn't like...the part where the anti-movement uses words (i.e., "lingo") that define Iraq in a realistic manner.
excellent post.
"Matthews called "civil war" "the lingo of the anti-war movement," but his own network calls it that, too"
Which basically just means that MSNBC is part of the anti-war movement. That's been apparent for quite some time. Thanks for pointing that out Media Matters.
Yes, great logic. If you describe a situation the way it really is, then you are anti-war.
Well, to be fair, anybody who looks at the reality of the situation, including honest statistics and reports, would have to be "anti-war" or a evil madman (*cough-cheney-cough*)
How and why is that been apparent for quite some time? Again, you and others of your political philosophy try to paint anyone who doesn't report what "you" deem as newsworthy as "anti-war". What it amounts to is your own bias shining through, in that you wish that all news organizations would regurgitate the administrations or GOP's propaganda. Would FOX then be pro-war? Or are they the only real unbiased news organization in the world? The fact of the matter is that your blanket assertion that MSNBC is "anti-war" is an expose' on your inability or refusal to accept that things are bad over there and at least somebody tells us about it.
MSNBC has had a major anti-war bias for some time. Just look at their main guy, Keith Olbermann. He rails against the Iraq War day after day, compares Bush to Hitler, and even went so far as to say that the T.V. show 24 is simply propaganda for the Bush administration. Mathews is more moderate but still opposes the war. He's claimed that Cheney was right back in 1992 that invading Iraq would be a bad idea.
Okay, Rino. Whatever. You named one pundit who is solidly against the war and another pundit who is supposedly somewhat against it.
You said nothing about the reporters.
But that is besides the point. Iraq is a civil war. Calling it what it is doesn't make you anti-war.
You just never get tired of getting your @ss handed to you on a platter, do you?
You're gross dude. It's only good when it comes right off the grill.
Pretty kinky, Rino. Pretty kinky.
Rino,
That makes no sense. You are equating the opinions of what is essentially the editorial opinions of hosts with the position of an entire network. If one is to follow that logic then you would have to certaintly admit that FOX is not only pro-war but nothing more than merely a mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Look at the hard news offerred by NBC and MSNBC. Show me anit-war bias there and you have a valid point. The reality is that it's just not there. On the other hand, FOX has relatively no hard news segments in it's lineup, in fact I know of none. All they have is Alan Colmes who takes a backseat to the college dropout chickenhawk Hannity. Name a liberal that has their own show on FOX news. If you want a definition of bias look no further than FAUX News my friend.
Fox has quite a bit of hard news coverage. Shephard Smith does the hard news right before O'Reilly's show. Brit Hume does the straight news as well. He only gives his own opinion when he's in a panel. But you do have a point about MSNBC. But you should realize that Fox is the same way. Just because their commentary leans right doesn't mean that their straight news is biased and that their whole network is biased.
Rino:
Can you provide text or context of Keith comparing Bush to Hitler?
The Hitler/Nazi card does get "played a lot, but that comes out of Oreilly's mouth a lot. Mostly against anyone who he disagrees with, is afraid of, or points out his insanity and inanity, including this site.
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12969
Rino: Thanks for the link. Dis you read it? No where does KO call Bush Jr. a Nazi. In fact his commentary (agree or disagree) is well reasoned articulate, and ATTACKS the Democrats for being such wimps on war funding. His analogy is a Neville Chamberlain "sell out" moment.
It really does take knowing and appreciating history and it's a far cry form the mindless bomb throwing those on the right wing talk shows on cable and radio do with their knee jerk reactions of labeling anyone who is vocal about their opposition to the current Administration policies a "Nazi".
Keith's commentary actually involves critical thinking.
Olbermann's commentary was simply an example of irrational far left bomb throwing. I can't believe you can defend someone as extreme as him while at the same time condemning those on the right. He said that the Democrats negotiating with Bush is like when Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler. He was in effect comparing Bush to Hitler. You can't get around that. Olbermann hates Bush and he makes it clear every single day in his far left rants.
Hmm, a psychologically insane madman who invades a foreign country to exploit the resources and kill the natives in the name of a racist ideology and criminal exploitation? Hitler or Bush...take your pick. Both work.
Again, you and others of your political philosophy try to paint anyone who doesn't report what "you" deem as newsworthy as "anti-war".
You must see the irony of chastising somebody with that criticism here, right? I mean, if you change the label to, say, a 'conservative misinformer' then you could be talking about MMFA.
Plus, MSNBC has a pretty clear rhetorical and editorial slant against the War in Iraq. All four of the major faces of MSNBC: Matthews, Olbermann, and even Carlson and Scarborough, make regular criticism with regard to the Iraq War. Particularly how it began and how it's been waged. The disagreement within the talking heads seems to be what to do next, but make no mistake, they're all openly critical of the war.
Which basically just means that MSNBC is part of the anti-war movement.
I was going to make the same accusation as Rino did, as a joke, but he beat me to it. As usual, the wingnuts do an amazing job of parodying themselves.
Only in your world of complete delusion. Would twere that it were so but being cursed with that reality thing, people with actual functioning brain cells know that isnt anywhere close to true. Now calling what is going on in Iraq a civil WAR, now THAT is a self evident truth.
"Would twere that it were so"
Huh? Is there anybody here who can translate that? And he claims that I'm lacking brain cells. Unbelievable. Maybe it's just one of those drunken nights.
P-e-r-h-a-p-s somewhat redundant - possibly a deliberate literary device - but clear enough. Are you one of those whose brain-cell function should be monitored?
I actually think most literate people would recognize a Shakespear reference. A paraphrase from MacBeth actually. It really isnt my fault you are only literate if we include comic books
Ah yes. Most people are just avid Shakespeare fans. I just spend all my spare time reading ancient stories that have absolutely no bearing on my life. Nice one Solon.
WOW, that is your opinion of Shakespear is it? Apparantly you wont be satisfied until you have convinced every poster you are the most ignorant poster in existance. I would have thought most people were exposed to MacBeth in high school. Unless you were homeshooled in your mommies basement
Poor Rino can't even comprehend simple english. "Would twere" comes from Shakespeare but most people I know use the phrase "would it were" meaning that if things were different I might alter my course or change my decision. Pretty simple to figure out, but then again most of our con posters aren't able to comprehend common english usage.
We only did the Merchant of Venice in school....but I did read MacBeth on my own. Kurosawa's samurai version, Throne of Blood, is personally my favorite adaptation, though the Orson Welles version was quite good, too. Poor Rino, he's missing out on the good stuff.
I understand your job is to try to purify thought in your party but are you suggesting that all of the stereotypes we hear about Republicans wallowing in their own ignorance are true?
Even I have more respect for Republicans than you seem to have.
I read Shakespeare in high school. I just don't have every line of it memorized like it's some important aspect of life.
In the absence of literary knowledge, use 'the Google'.
Understandable. Yet you implied it was unintelligible and I was drunk for using it. When I pointed OUT it was a paraphrase from Shakespear you began chanelling some stereotype of an ignorant redneck acting like it was astonishing anyone would cite almost certainly the most quoted author in the English language.
MSNBC "part of the anti-war movement"? Right, along with with the New York Times and the Washington Post - loony liberals all, eh RINO?
What part of the veldt you hunt, B'wana? Ever have any luck at all?
If your thoughts are as illogical as Rino's seek professional help before it is too late
Yes we should all refer to it by a fair and balanced name such as "The President's Glorious Peace and Freedom Initiative" This would correctly convey the reality of the situation.
Rino:
Actually identifying the arring factions in Iraq, as a civil war is called REPORTING. Not a whole lot of that going on, as MM recently pointed out over the summer months.
What do you call the Sunni/Sh'ite conflict? A Backyard brawl?
What exactly is inaccurate about what he's saying? If you hear someone refer to the conflict as a civil war--especially if that's all you hear them refer to it as (as in the case of someone describing the situation as the US being in the middle of a civil war)--you can fairly accurately describe that person (probably more than 95% of the time) as being against the war. Whether they're part of an anti-war movement may be another issue entirely.
Still, what Matthews seems to be doing is calling attention to what kind of language was and wasn't used in today's testimony, and attempting to suppose why 'ethno-sectarian violence' is being used as opposed to 'civil war.' His analysis seems pretty clear. It's not so much a reason for why people use the phrase 'civil war' but why others do not, and by associating the phrase with a basic philosophy with regard to the war, you can more easily suppose why people with an opposing philosophy do not readily use the same phrasing.
>>If you hear someone refer to the conflict as a civil war--especially if that's all you hear them refer to it as (as in the case of someone describing the situation as the US being in the middle of a civil war)--you can fairly accurately describe that person (probably more than 95% of the time)
That would mean that MSNBC is anti-war. By the way, where did you get the 95% of the time figure--have you done a study?
>>Still, what Matthews seems to be doing is calling attention to what kind of language was and wasn't used in today's testimony, and attempting to suppose why 'ethno-sectarian violence' is being used as opposed to 'civil war.'
You obviously didn't read the article closely.
But referring to the conflict in Iraq as a "civil war" is the stated of MSNBC and NBC News. Moreover, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), released on February 2, said that while the phrase "does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence," it "accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements."
The two terms are not being used the way you say they are.
My use of the word 'probably' was meant to signify that the percentage I was quoting was not based on anything other than perception and conjecture. I could easily have said an over-whelming majority, but seeing as I have no actual statistics to back any of that up, I still would have been forced to qualify it as I did. If my qualification wasn't clear, I apologise.
That would mean that MSNBC is anti-war.
I think that's probably the case. I don't mean it as an indictment. I just think it's most likely the truth.
You obviously didn't read the article closely.
Um, you're the one who intentionally misrepresented what I said originally. Still, I'll let that one pass. The two phrases are being used just as I said they are.
There is a perceived political liability to the use of the phrase 'civil war' if you're of the belief that we need to continue the fight in Iraq, so the phrase, which is both accurate and inadequate is often avoided or downplayed by people who wish to maintain America's presence there. Likewise, those who wish for America to leave almost always focus on the phrase 'civil war' because it emphasizes the notion that the fight is not ours.
Of course, both of these opposing factions tend to ignore the truth apparent in the opposing point of view. That's to be expected. I think what Chris Matthews is doing is calling attention to the way the two sides use language and essentially take ownership of words to the point where the simple use of some words contains an implicit description of political leanings.
As in the way conservatives took ownership of the word liberal.
we studied that in school, i think. the ethno-sectarian violence between the states.
Breaker, I think you make a valid point. What bothers me is this lingo silliness. I think we need to stop parsing words and just speak the truth. It bothers me that Petreaous gave into this type of silliness by inventing a word that means the same thing as civil war but apparently worried about what conitation the words civil war would have on his audience. If his position is one he believes in then he should be able to speak what it is and defend and explain how the situation (the civil war) does or doesn't effect his position and tactics/strategy. I have a certain amount of respect for Petreaoous coming into this based on what I had previously (before he was "promoted") read about him and his actions. I was disappointed that he played this silly political game of wordsmithing to produce a particular positive or negative reaction to the word and not the truth of what is being said.
If his position is one he believes in then he should be able to speak what it is and defend and explain how the situation (the civil war) does or doesn't effect his position and tactics/strategy. Lost
If he believes then he SHOULD speak. As time has shown us Generals who speak the truth don't remain Generals under the current administration. They are handed their retirement papers and asked to leave. For those who think that this General is speaking HIS opinion they are refusing to acknowledge the current climate in Washington. The fact that General Petraeus is willing to go along with what amounts to "stay the course" after 4 years says a lot IMO. IMO his actual role is a mouthpiece for the current administration not and independent General.
Hi Pearl, I find it so discouraging that this is happening. At least Zinni and the others spoke out and stood up to a certain extent. I still find it so dissappointing what occured with Powell and how such a great man was brought so low. I am starting to feel the same discouragement listening to General Patraeus. I read about him in a book prior to him being "promoted" and was really impressed he seemed to be someone who thought through his actions and didn't just give into the crowd. I didn't get to hear all the hearing but what I did hear bothered me alot. I am really frustrated with the current climate and debate and I just want a real discussion and real information. I want the truth.
What's so great about Powell? He's no better than the other losers who helped his idiot boss Duhbya take this naiton over a cliff. Just like the morons who put Duhbya in office not once but twice, the fact that he sees his lies as a mistake now is too little too late.
Heru, I was referring to Powell's reputation (well deserved in my opinion) prior to what transpired during the run up to Iraq. This man had respect across political lines and he was a very accomplished very intelligent man who previously showed himself to be a man of deep character. I agree with you the after the fact remorse falls pretty flat but it actually adds to how sad what has become of this once greatly admired and respected man.
I don't think he had a great character. For example:
But Colin Powell was untainted by these worries. Powell's ARVN unit punished the civilian population systematically. As the soldiers marched through mountainous jungle, they destroyed the food and the homes of the region's Montagnards, who were suspected of sympathizing with the Viet Cong. Old women cried hysterically as their ancestral homes and worldly possessions were consumed by fire. "We burned down the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters," Powell recalled in his memoir, My American Journey. "Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in which his guerrillas swam. ... We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference did it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?"http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Politicians/Failed_Opportunist_Powell.html.
Collin Powell, then a 31-year-old US Army Major, "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "white-washing" the atrocities of My Lai. was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had limited knowledge of the events there). In his report Powell wrote:
I don't think he had a great character. For example:
But Colin Powell was untainted by these worries. Powell's ARVN unit punished the civilian population systematically. As the soldiers marched through mountainous jungle, they destroyed the food and the homes of the region's Montagnards, who were suspected of sympathizing with the Viet Cong. Old women cried hysterically as their ancestral homes and worldly possessions were consumed by fire. "We burned down the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters," Powell recalled in his memoir, My American Journey.
"Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in which his guerrillas swam. ... We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference did it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?"http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Politicians/Failed_Opportunist_Powell.html.
Yes, thanks for pointing out Powell's admissions and role in Vietnam. He enabled atrocities and covered them up.
His own ambition drove him to climb the ladder, but I expect he doesn't always sleep well at night.
Hey Lost, I have such mixed feeling about Powell. Probably more anger than sadness. I cannot understand how you allow the your reputation to be used as Powell did. He had misgivings about the intelligence yet he allowed Junior to use his name and reputation to put the “sold” sign to the public on this war. The fact that he has not taken the opportunity to voice publicly and often how truly awful the situation with Iraq is lowers him even further in my eyes. The true picture IMO for Iraq is we will either be there in large numbers for the next 15 to 20 years or Iran will take a much larger role in Iraq. Either scenario is not good news for Americans. That is what we are left with. Junior is simply trying to scurry his happy butt out of office before Americans realize exactly what this “war of choice” has unleashed. I’m waiting for someone to tell America the truth about Iraq and how long our we will be there and General Petraeus lost his opportunity today. What really ticks me off is those who whine and argue as to whether this is or is not a “civil war”. What do you call a war when you don’t know your enemy cause he’s not wearing a uniform. What do you call a war when people of the same country kill each other based on whether they are Sunni or Shiites. For those who think today was a good day, wake up, Americans are still dying and there is no end in sight.
Then I take it that the majority of the American people are "Anti-War" with regards to this illegal occupation of Iraq.
I watched MSNBC briefly earlier and had to turn it off because of Tweety's blathering/framing everything over and over again with the "Anti-War" prhasing (with a derisive tone).
I watched CNN interview head of MidEast Studies at John Hopkins. He painted a rosy picture of Iraq to help "prepare" America for Petraus' report. In summarizing all the obsticles facing our troops he actually started to say "civil war" but cut himself off and just said "war".
I don't care what he is a professor of. F*ck him.
Matthews is a little hero-worshipping boy who thinks he's a minor player in an action film and that Rudy is the hero - I can't believe people still take him seriously as a journalist. He needs a big slap and to go home crying to mommy.
I did not know Colin Powell was a member of the anti-war movement...
"That was the big mistake. Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn't do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, 'Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop.' Then the insurgency started, and we didn't acknowledge it. They said it wasn't an insurgency. They looked up the definition. They said it was a few dead-enders! And so we didn't respond in a way that might have stopped it. And then the civil war started at the beginning of last year. I call it a civil war, but some say no, it's not a civil war, it's a war against civilians. In fact, we have total civil disorder."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/09/colin-powell-te.html
Matthews....little b*tch who gets half-hard over cowboy fantasies involving Guiliani and Bush. There's a scared shool-boy in there somewhere and he just wants the big kids to like him.
oh, P.S....he's not fit to lick a real reporters boots....not that there's many of them left.