NBC should be endorsed by libertarians as the least biased network news. Watch it, not the others. That's the news in the news.
-Mark ++++++++++++++++++ Most independent observers would have to admit that there isn't anything "civil" about it. PEACE Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer Franklin County Libertarian Party (614) 891-8841 P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115 "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable" John F. Kennedy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Corey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Yahoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:13 AM Subject: [Libertarian] Is Iraq a civil war? Scholars say yes. Media debate it. > > Is Iraq a civil war? Scholars say yes. Media debate it. > http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1130/p01s02-ussc.html?s=hns > > Sensitive to bias charges, news outlets have avoided the term 'civil war,' but now that's changing. > > By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor > > WASHINGTON > > Bit by bit, the mainstream media are referring to the war in Iraq as a "civil war" in news coverage. NBC News took the leap on Monday. The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times have made the switch. Other news organizations are still using "sectarian conflict" or "on the verge of civil war," but are actively debating using the more loaded term, which the Bush administration still eschews. > > Most scholars who study war view the Iraq situation as a civil war; the only debate is when it became one - in 2004 when the US transferred sovereignty to Iraqis, or early this year when the bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra sparked a wave of sectarian violence that continues? Academics cite the standard definition of civil war: groups from the same country fighting for political control, and a death toll of at least 1,000. A majority of Americans view the conflict as a civil war, polls show. > > The debate over terminology seems to have sprung from the latest surge in sectarian violence, and perhaps from a greater sense of freedom among US media, after the November elections, to call the situation as they see it without being accused of political bias, analysts say. > > "It's a political debate, not a semantic debate or a theoretical debate," says David Gergen, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a former adviser to four US presidents of both parties. "In politics, the conventional wisdom has held for some time that if the public concludes our soldiers were in the middle of a civil war, they would think it hopeless and want to withdraw quickly." > > Mr. Gergen says the administration's resistance to the term is understandable. "Calling it a civil war, in the minds of many supporters of the war, could pull the plug on all remaining support," he says. > The Bush administration, along with its British allies, is not alone is resisting the term "civil war." UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned on Monday that Iraq was "almost there." But as UN chief, he too faces political considerations in his use of terminology. And at this delicate moment, with the US-led coalition and Middle East nations considering next steps, Mr. Annan is walking a careful line.........
