Ed has a gripe with the media coverage of the civil strife in Irak.
Let's let Ed describe his gripe in his own words:
Apparently Ed has become upset that the term "civil war" has been used at times, notably starting in 2006, to describe the various ongoing conflicts between competing factions for power in Irak. Ed proudly concludes that the usage of those words are all together inappropriate and an apology is warranted, especially from NBC. But you see, Ed misses the larger point that may not be readily observable from the lofty vantages of greater Wingnutopia. He, his employer and the rest of administration have been routinely and brazenly in error about the state of affairs in Irak to the point of, dare I say, deception.
"As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.
On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"
I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?"
We have been told by these high up sources that our involvement in Iraq was not and never could have been considered to be an occupation. Liberation not occupation. Nothing to see, only a handful of deadenders to deal with, Rumsfeld breezily assured us.
We have also been told that Irak was free from any form of insurgency. More of those deadenders to deal with I take it.
And we have been assured that the bloody conflicts between competing factions for culture, power, wealth and survival could not and would not meet the definition of even a "low level" civil war.
You see We The People have been knowingly fed so much total BS about Irak from People Supposedly and Assuredly in the Know that if an appology is warranted, and one surely is,over usage of the terms civil war, occupation, or insurgency, it should come from those who knowingly and repeatedly mislead The People. Umm, Ed, got anything to say?
So BS aside, should the Media have used the term "Civil War" to describe the ongoing civil strife in Irak? While President Bush was saying "No", Colin Powell was saying "Yes." Most Scholars backed Powell, or so it was reported. But more importantly, maybe the term "Civil War" found its place in reports of violence in Irak in 2006, because nobody BELIEVED President Bush anymore when it came to assessing the realities on the ground.
Does the violence in Irak today, qualify as a state of Civil War since The Truce, The Flip and The Cleansing? It seems to be decreasing toward what President Bush goal of an acceptable level of violence. And reports indicate that The Truce and The Flip are holding for now and the Central Government is consolidating levels of control. So maybe the Civil Strife in Irak no longer meets the definition of a Civil War for the moment. But one thing we can be sure of is that Ed is a Hack.
You can apologize anytime now, Ed.