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.