NBC Deems Iraq To Be In 'Civil War'

Network Says Sectarian Violence Fits Definition Of Civil War; L.A. Times Also Uses Term

(CBS/AP)  NBC News and MSNBC broke away from the pack of mainstream media and decided to use the term "civil war" to describe current fighting in Iraq.

Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times became one of the first newspapers to use the term "civil war" without a qualifier.

"Apparently the utter chaos and carnage of the past week has finally convinced some to use 'civil war' without apology," Editor & Publisher reported.

Early Monday morning, Matt Lauer on the "Today" show bluntly laid out NBC News' decision to freely use the term "civil war," although the White House has consistently rejected claims that Iraq's sectarian violence had deteriorated into a civil war.

"For the most part, news organizations like NBC hesitated to characterize it as such. After careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted and what is going on in Iraq can now be characterized as civil war," Lauer said.

The reports were broadcasting as Iraqi President Jalal Talabani arrived for an official visit in Iran, where he is expected to seek its help in preventing Iraq's sectarian violence from escalating.

Also, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Monday that Iraq is close to civil war. Annan talked to reporters in New York as members of the Iraq Study Group were to discuss recommendations for changes in U.S. war strategy.

Asked by reporters at the U.N. if Iraq is in a civil war now, Annan replied, "I think given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact we are almost there."

Sectarian violence in Iraq is at its worst level in the roughly 3 1/2 years since a U.S.-led coalition invaded the country and toppled Saddam Hussein. Bush's summit this week comes in the wake of talks that Vice President Dick Cheney held over the weekend in the region and as members of the special study commission mull recommendations.

"We should mention we didn't wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'let's call this a civil war,' this took careful deliberation. We consulted with a lot of people," Lauer said.

Lauer then defined "civil war," saying it includes at least two clearly defined fighting groups using violence as a means to gain political supremacy and a government in place that is unable to control the violence.

The White House objected to NBC News' decision to use "civil war" and said in a statement: "While the situation on the ground is very serious, neither Prime Minister Maliki nor we believe that Iraq is in a civil war."

MSNBC's Contessa Brewer explained on air, "After careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We’ll have lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase 'civil war.'"

Meanwhile in Iraq, a mortar attack ignited a huge fire Monday night at an oil facility in the northern part of the country, shutting the flow of crude oil to a major refinery. Also, a U.S. Air Force jet with one pilot aboard crashed in Anbar province, a hotbed of the Sunni-Arab insurgency, officials said. Al-Jazeera reported that the pilot was killed.

Two mortar rounds hit the facility 15 miles northwest of Kirkuk, according to an official at the North Oil Co., speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

The fire was burning out of control and could take hours or longer to extinguish, and the flow of oil from all of Kirkuk's rich fields has been shut down to the massive Beiji refinery to the southwest, the official said.

After the F-16CG jet went down, a witness said other U.S. warplanes rushed to the crash site about 20 miles northwest of Baghdad and circled above it. The U.S. military, which released a statement on the crash, did not have any information on the suspected cause or the fate of the pilot.

But Al-Jazeera television showed videotape of the wreckage in a field and what appeared to be portions of a tangled parachute nearby. The broadcaster said the video included scenes of the dead pilot but that they were too graphic to air.

One shot showed an Air Force seal that said Air Combat Command.

[blondmadison]

Iraq might be in a civil war? Duh. Which Einstein had a first clue about this?

I watched the NBC "Meet the Press" this past Sunday this is a portion of the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: You keep using the words %u201Csectarian violence.%u201D Is it a civil war, in all honesty?

REP. SKELTON: You know, it depends on what you call a civil war.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, what do you think?

REP. SKELTON: Scholars will say no. I will say yes, because the violence is, is so heavy. In true civil wars, Tim, there%u2019s a political goal. There is a way to stop it and shake hands and put an end to it. The sectarian violence, the only purpose is to kill each other. The Sunnis are killing the Shiites, the Shiites killing the Sunnis, and among themselves. But insofar as peace and decorum is concerned, it%u2019s a civil war in, in my book.

my previous post can be found here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15850729/page/5/

[oleander8]

DUH!!!

[cathaleen]

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck then it's a duck.

[ketch65]

The bland, generalized definition of a civil war is, **a war between factions in the same country**.

That would generally qualify Iraq's current status of constant in-fighting among it's own citizenry spread out to include various religious districts as a civil war.

But for the purpose of politicians to avoid having to be blamed for a civil war, when it forged a "revolution" to replace the top governemtn officials with a recognized group of citizens from the same country it will constantly change the definition to this, **A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.**

And as you would probably guess those criteria are only approved usually by the guilty country that incited the civil war to begin with!

But according to the rest of the world, which I would think has a right to voice its own opinion which is not based upon "denial" of facts because it's the guilty party, the first definition would be correct for the present situation in Iraq.

[bluestardad]

get out of Iraq. This is not a threat to America.

[ketch65]

***Can we leave already now?***

The plan was never to leave Iraq to begin with.

There are permanent US military bases being built in Iraq.

I know that's not actually been discussed openly in plain language to the American public, but those plans will be verbalized to the American public//media outlets in carefully staged ground breaking press releases sometime after they figure out how best to address this to the public.

America needs a foothold in the Middle East's OPEC countries since OPEC founded themselves in Austria, with the EU and are dealing almost exclusively in the Euro and not the dollar.

There's no other way for America to survive in the age of dwindling oil reserves.

I know that sounds catastrophic, but as you see, catastrophe is all over the Middle East, since it struck on 9/11.

Catastrophe, carefully planned and orchestrated.

[ketch65]

**There's no other way for America to survive in the age of dwindling oil reserves.**

I forgot the most important oil related reserves for the American politician who earns his millions upon millions in his business of fuel trade, is his bank account reserves.

When you have big business coupled with politics, you'll have big business trade, disputes and subsequent wars based upon those principles.

This is the very thing that the authors of the origional philosphy of Democracy said would be the sign of its doom in any place that decided to apply it!

Utopia would flourish, and then collapse!

If the politicians didn't take a vow of poverty to not serve on the basis of gold and silver and of the commonwealth!

I particpated in Desert Shield/Storm and was their for 9 months, made 7 more return trips with my unit out of Seymour Johnson AFB and have nearly 3 years total there, after the war the general public was led to think that everyone came home and stayed home, we rotated people, supplies and aircraft every 90-120 days, we have occupied and or flown over Iraq for nearly 16 years now, there have been more that 220 operation names since Desert Shield and counting, I retired from the military 5 years ago to get away from the constant deployments,enough is enough its time to come home.

[ketch65]

**enough is enough its time to come home**

The general objective of the United States involvement in supporting Saddam and then all the while plotting his doom has always been one of the goals of the current administration that has ruled for the past generations.

It's an endless series of campaigns in the middle-east to secure oil reserves, natural gas reserves//trade routes to insure it's ability to survive during the coming economic collapses when the oil reserves begin to dry up completely.

It's self fulfilling prophecy.

If you can't see we're doomed to hard times, and a total worldwide economic collapse due to our total combined dependence upon oil somethings wrong with your sight.

With the age of oil, came massive economies, and massive population surges, that created massive needs and wants that were further fueled by oil and the oil trade.

There's no way to stop what's been started with the inception of the industrial era that was funded and fueled with a dwindling supply of oil that is not renewable.

The oil will run out and when it does, humanity will be in utter chaos.

The only ones to stand back and watch, will be nomads, and the Amish, and the Islands that are teaming with villages that live as they always have.

[ketch65]

oh, my last post wasn't directed to anyone specific, sorry if it looked like that....

ken

[ketch65]

***Sure there are...we should get out and spend that money on using alternate resources/fuels.***

Yes you are correct, that is what "WE" should do, but they won't allow it, by controlling the economy, because if "WE" want it that way, they will lose all their vast wealth.

You see, the rules of the land have and are governed by men, families, corporations, that are addicted to money and affluence.

I know you are correct, but they outnumber us, and so do the apathetic and delusional public, who will believe anything they tell them, **they would rather believe a lie, than the truth!**

[observantx]

There can be no doubt now that civil war in Iraq is now in full swing. For months after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the prospect of civil war teetered on the edge. That rock was pushed off the edge and onto the slope by the bombing of the mosque at Samara. Before that point, the violence was chiefly insurgents combating US forces with a smattering of Sunni vs. Shiite vendetta thrown in. When the dome of the mosque was shattered, the fragile pretense of Iraqi unity also shattered and crumbled along religious lines and the violence began to escalate with ever increasing ferocity.

Now we have hundreds of tortured bodies lying in the streets and floating in the Euphrates daily. Mass kidnappings by well organized uniformed men take place with increasing frequency. Nearly every Sunni, Shiite, policeman, soldier, man and neighbor is suspect. The %u201Cgovernment%u201D is both powerless to stop it and is participating in it.

And who do we have to thank for this? The same man who is now on his %u201Cdiplomatic offensive%u201D to the Middle East. He and his cronies and handlers placed that rock on the hill. It was only a matter of time before it began to bound down the slope leaving blood and mayhem in its wake.

[ketch65]

There is always something a nation or "worldwide population" can do to save itself from obvious catastrophe and destruction.

But as history has shown us, such is usually never the case.

History is doomed and bound to repeat itself over and over and over again.

Much like the cycles of nature, are born again to only die, each season.

Mankind is part of nature, even its intelligence, while viewed as grand, is part of the physical makeup of its nature, which is the governing nature.

Nature will have its way.

[ketch65]

observantX,, nice analogy there,, there was said to be a man named Daniel who foretold of another Rock rolling down crushing the fragile diplomatic ties of the involved nations who will set up their rule in Babylon, which is present day Iraq.

[ketch65]

I guess I was wrong, "ancient" **has been** Babylon is present day Iraq.

Who knows...

[alphaa10-2009]

FARTKNOCKER2 said, "Aren't they all so Brave for giving the uprising a name ... What a buch of bs . Who cares what you call it..."
---

Actually, all Americans should, because the term has core political significance in the debate about Iraq, and the legitimacy of American presence there.

From all appearances, the Bush team agrees completely with that assessment, and treats the term "civil war" as though it were ingested polonium 210.

And they should-- a civil war implies the last thread of any US claim to be the power-in-charge in Iraq is no longer viable.

What interests me is why it took so long for NBC to come to terms with reality on the ground. Back in July, the body counted reached a new high, and it was all NBC could do to dance semantically around the term "civil war".

[ketch65]

alphaa10, that was excellent...!!!

I guess all it took was for Ike Skelton to call it a civil war on Meet the Press Sunday morning and NBC rolled with it

[ketch65]

It seems to me, nothing is working out for America's strategy to rule in the Middle East.

It seems that if it's someone's destiny to prosper and be succesful at anything it or they will be by the grace of God.

I would have to say, America should ultimately consider its standing with God on this.

I know that its sounds pseudo relgious to mention such things, as God etc, but isn't that the mantra people shout while waving the flag, chanting GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Are they demanding God bless their nation?

Perhaps, America should bless God!

[rsoxfan1123]

Time to pull out. Enough lives and money wasted in this Viet Nam like quagmire. Anyone that thinks staying in this mess is a good idea needs to have their head examined.

Iraq was never one nation. It was always three nations - Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite - forced together and held together only by the heavy hand of Saddam Hussein.
Much like the former Yugoslavia was held together only by the iron rule of Tito.
Once Tito was gone, Yugoslavia fell apart - with Croats, Serbs, and Bosnians going their separate ways.
I can see the same happening here
We shouldn't waste one more day trying to hold together something that's already splitting in three, anyway. We might as well bring all our troops home now before they get caught in the crossfire of Iraq's civil war.

[tinker3478]

Does NBC seem to be a little bit behind the curve here?

[book54552134]

Iraq's factions have been engaged in civil war for over a year. NBC's choice to buck the Bush Administration's consensus regarding whether Iraq is in civil war or not is a mere technicality. They have simply decided that they can no longer be party to this aspect of the Bush Administration's attempts to propagandize this issue especially considering that by admitting this reality at this time will play little in politics, at this time since the recent elections are over.

[tinker3478]

Bushie is a nut-bucket too so it is a shame he is unable to do more than paste. His comments might be worthwhile.

[scouser345-2009]

It just boggles my mind that folks still believe we're not in a civil war over there. Then again, I really have to tip my hat to Karl Rove. A steady diet of propoganda spoonfed to hungry rednecks has succesfully convinced the slowest witted 30% of Americans that this war can still be won.

[tinker3478]

Well hey-what do you expect from people with food insecurity?

[pudd54]

600,000 dead, I quess you might call that a civil war.
Glad we saved them from Saddam.

[duffyn]

I'm really glad you support bush. You must be a very loyal person. But too much of anything is never good. I most certainly do not support bush. The troops, yes, him, no. The sad fact is is that Iraq is mostly all his fault and he doesn't really have the intellect necesary to deal with any complex situation - let alone Iraq. Him cheney, and rumsfield make up a set of the most arrogant know it alls I have ever seen in my life. Do you really think they consulted with sociologits, physcologists, etc to determine the best way to turn Iraq into a Democracy??? No way, they didn't listen to anyone. They knew it all. Generals resigned over their bad plans before the war. So they alone are responsible for this mess and not a one of them has had to ever go into combat. In my humble opinion bush sucks big time. Big big time. Sure I still hope Iraq turns into an awesome Democracy. Does anyone really think it will?????

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[sandy5274]

Somebody go tell Looney Toons King George 43 and
his Power Mad Deputy *** Cheney That Iraq is
In A Civil War That Is None Of Our US Business!
So Shut Up And Bring Our Troops Home Or We Will
Force Congress To Impeach You Both!

To All: I have contacted CBSNEWS.COM via phone and email regarding bushrocks1 with the following message: For the past couple weeks now we (the bloggers) have complained about an individual that constantly cuts and pastes the very same very lengthy line, a very very long line, it can be found in every subject area of CBSnews.com whether it pertains to the subject or not, his post starts with: "Would I send my son to this war" This is called spamming or text flooding, clearly against your very own terms of service/rules for engagement. His user name is bushrocks1 if you allow this to continue I will urge my fellow bloggers to boycott CBS altogether. Thanks in advance....I have also asked for a ban on his IP address or the entire sub net in his area

[jackntx]

Just a thought.....

Part of the definition of civil war Matt Lauer uses requires 'a government in place that is unable to control the violence.'

If the present, permanent (and remember, that's only since May 20 of THIS year), ELECTED, government is not able to control the violence, then why was that government able to declare AND ENFORCE a curfew in Baghdad???????

Hmmmmmmmmmmm????!!

The fact is that violence and progress currently co-exist in Iraq right now. Prime Minister Malaki is taking yet another big step forward by establishing relations with its regional neighbors. This step is what the terrorists and insurgents wanted to stop by their recent attacks BUT they have failed.

All their efforts ultimately will FAIL if we continue to ramp up the training of the Iraqi security forces so their loyalty is to the nation and not to the tribe or sect.

Yet another example is TODAY's article on the Multi-National Forces-Iraq website, http://www.mnf-iraq.com, describing the implementation of urban warfare training into the basic combat training curriculum. See http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7578&Itemid=109

The mainstream media is hell-bent and relentless its pursuit to craft the erroneous perception of failure in Iraq and undermine the progress of strengthening the institutions of its new democracy. Do not believe them.

Yes, the situation is difficult but the progress has been phenomenal as well.

[scouser345-2009]

Bushrocks1 - The reason why we will fail in Iraq is because of "traitors at home". Gee I guess the failure wouldn't have anything to do with an incompetent administration, with an ill conceived adventure that was disasterously executed. Even neo-cons are now saying this. Face facts Bushrocks, your hero is the worlds laughing stock.

scouser345 I don't think that bushrocks1 even reads any of the articles or the posts, just pastes his garbage and moves on, rather like the Bush administration, shoot us some *** and move on to the next subject and have no idea what he talking about

[tinker3478]

Let's see if we can profile ****rocks, shall we? He is a white male between the ages of 45 and 60. Obviously, he is educated as obnoxious as he may seem. He possibly has a high IQ; it's hard to tell. He probably doesn't have a son since he is so eager for the war to continue. He is disabled and/or unemployed because he can be on these sites any hour of the day or night. Because he has a computer with internet service, someone in the household works-either a wife or girlfriend. He is evidently impotent and feels the need to vent his frustration on the rest of the world.

How am I doing so far?

[mh4cbs1]

Civil War? DUH!

When with CBS have the journalistic integrity to call it what it is?

George Bush legacy? Started a Civil War. Lied to the American people to invade Iraq, a country that was NOT a threat and they knew it.

Read PNAC position papers and you will understand that these NeoCon facists are unapologetic violent, milataristic imperialists. Read it in their own words, just Google "PNAC".

They used 9-11 as their Pearl Harbor (their words) to scare Americans into complacency. They LIED about Iraq, fabricated "intelligence", and knew Iraq was NOT a threat.

Impeach Bush? Obviously!, But then JAIL BUSH, CHENEY and their treasonous gang of murdering thugs.

Do it in the name of every dead US soldier, every soldier with missing limbs, brain damage from IEDs. Do it for the hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi civilians.

The death and destruction unleashed by Bush and Cheney is 100 times the horror of Osama. Face the FACTS and JAIL BUSH.

[jackntx]

Scouser345,

Most facts about Iraq are not reported by the major media. That is why so many, and now even some so-called 'neocons' are buying into the tripe about gracefully turning tail in Iraq.

Mh4cbs1,

An important point about 'civil war' is that one of the factions involved in the conflict has to be outside the government that it is fighting. Right now, that is not the case in Iraq. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are all part of the government.

NBC and MSNBC are not displaying 'jounalistic integrity' with their self-proclaimed 'civil war.' Instead, it is yet another brazen attempt to foist its biased view onto the American public.

To say that Iraq was not a threat is simply deciding to live in land of Oz! I took your suggestion and perused the PNAC website. A very interesting (and very meticulously documented) report entitled 'Setting the Record Straight about Iraq' under the 'What's New' section is very instructive. The report was issued in April of 2005. Read it and learn!!

[scouser345-2009]

Jackntx -According to Websters dictionary, the definition of civil war is " A war between political factions OR regions within the same country" Shiite's and Sunni's butchering each other at a record levels, mixed ethnic neighborhoods disapearing and a government that has no ability to quell the violence and thus is quickly becoming irrelevant. Good call N.B.C.

[scouser345-2009]

When are you braindead Bush muppets gonna get it. This war is a lost cause. Ill conceived adventure to begin with, absolutely no planning for the aftermath. If ever there was an opportunity to salvage the situation it has long since passed. Go ahead blame "traitors at home" blame liberal media, blame Santa if it makes you feel better , it really doesn't matter because at this point most Americans are not buying it anyway. The blame for this disaster lies squarely on the shoulders of Mr "Mission Accomplished"

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[jackntx]

Ronin10,

First, you're trying to compare a 230 year democracy to a 7 MONTH old democracy. The analogy is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that the population of Iraq has spent the last 30+ years being brutalized by a ruthless and murderous dictator.

Second, your generalized assertion about training Iraqis is utterly incorrect.

The facts:

The process of building the Iraqi security forces is about 75% complete. See the Oct. 25 article at http://www.mnf-iraq.com (under News, Daily Articles) describing the complex environment.

320,000 trained Iraqi security forces exist and 355,000 will be trained end of 2006. See Nov. 11 article quoting Maj.Gen. Caldwell.

Iraqi security forces are RIGHT NOW leading in 75% of the operations. See the November 3 article quoting Caldwell regarding PM Maliki's plans. See also the October 27 article quoting Caldwell regarding Iraqis taking responsibility across Iraq.

Rapid progress is occurring to eliminate terrorists and insurgents: in November so far, 816 terrorists and insurgents have been killed or detained, while 63 US military have been killed, resulting in a ratio of 13 to 1 !!! See the press releases at http://www.mnf-iraq.com (under News, Press Releases).

See next post for third point.

[jackntx]

Ronin10,

Third, Regarding infiltration and leadership. Another generality devoid of any specific facts.

The last 3 months have seen strides made by the Maliki government to aggressively address the issue of infiltration. See the November 21 article at http://www.mnf-iraq.com regarding the government taking on the militias and noting that recently, 3000 persons in the Ministry of the Interior, under which the police force is established, were fired because of ties to militias.

Do the research and see for yourself how much the mainstream media is not telling us about the ongoing progress in Iraq.

Violence and progress co-exist in Iraq. Yes, it's tough, but it is plain wrong to focus only on the violence and ignore the good that has occurred as well.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.