and another thing...

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens in the same country

This is an article from a press conference with our military leaders today. I should quote the whole thing simply to illustrate the absurdity, but I'll refrain for now.

"Am I optimistic whether or not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi government, can prevent the slide to civil war? My answer is yes, I'm optimistic that that slide can be prevented," Abizaid said.

Later in the hearing Pace told the committee that his comment about the possibility of civil war did not mean he expects one. "Speaking for myself, I do not believe it is probable," he said, because the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military are not breaking apart.

Asked whether the United States would continue to have a military mission in Iraq in the event that civil war did break out, Rumsfeld declined to respond directly, saying that it could give the impression that he presumes there will be a civil war. "Our role is to support the government. The government is holding together. The armed forces are holding together," he said.


Why the pretense? There's a civil war in Iraq. There has been for a while now. What is so freaking complicated about this? Yeah, the government forces are trying to fix it, but c'mon, "opposing groups of citizens" are working against them.

I just had to ask the question, you know? I mean, I understand that part of the spin is to say that it's not a civil war if you don't have opposing groups of citizens trying to take control of the country. If they're just trying to obliterate each other, then, hey, presto - no civil war.

There's a civil war in Iraq.

Period.

I wish the spin would stop.