Say NBC: Is Iraq Still In 'Civil War'?

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
November 20, 2007 - 16:34 ET

As the first anniversary of its grand declaration fast approaches, does NBC continue to believe that Iraq is in a state of civil war? Readers will recall that as we described here, Matt Lauer opened the Today show on November 27th, 2006 with these words:

Good morning. Civil war. A bloody weekend of sectarian clashes in Iraq and no sign it's letting up.

A bit later, Lauer portentously declared:

For months the White House rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into 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.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Lauer then brought in retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey [as pictured in the screencap from that day] to make the case for the change in terminology. McCaffrey dismissed the White House's rejection of the "civil war" terminology, saying "I think a lot of that is nonsense."

View video of McCaffrey's "nonsense" comment here.

So here we are a year later, on a day when, coincidentally, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have acknowledged remarkable improvements in the security situation in Iraq.

So how about it, NBC?

  • Were you right in declaring Iraq to be in civil war a year ago?
  • If so, is the country still in civil war?
  • If not, when did the civil war cease -- and why?

It's too early to declare victory, yet it might not be premature to say that there's been a loser in Iraqa: al Qaeda. They've been flushed from their Sunni stronghold in Anbar Province, and the MNF recently declared that al Qaeda has been driven out of all Baghdad. In civil wars, one side or the other wins. But if the country continues on its current path, you would have to say that the winner, rather than the Shias or the Sunnis, will be the Iraqi people as a whole.

We'll be watching next Tuesday to see how NBC marks the one-year anniversary of its civil-war-in-Iraq declaration. Can you expect humility from a peacock?

Note: Ace asks: NBCNews' explanation was that they were compelled to term Iraq as being in a state of civil war in order to honestly report to their viewers. Does honesty now dictate a similar but opposite statement? Or is their "honesty" a one-way ratchet permitting only dire declaration which can never be retracted?

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NBC

November 20, 2007 - 16:39 ET by d1carter

Surely, two pigs can't fly....

Don't hold your Breath.......

November 20, 2007 - 16:44 ET by JayTee

Withdrawal of the year old Civil war/Insurgent  "slogan" would require too much collateral.....NBC would have to Report "Success" in the Iraq War -OR- they would have to admit Terrorism was real and the civil war was contrived -OR- that maybe report that the Iraq people are "whole" once again.     

The Democratic Congress has a date with General Petraus early next year.........and the "committee" that grilled Petraus last time will have to eat Grilled Crow this time....and God help them if the Iraq Legislators turn out to be more productive than the Democratic Congress, then it will be Grilled Crow with Toasted Dems on the wrong side dish. 

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

"Can you expect humility

November 20, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Kevroy

"Can you expect humility from a peacock?"

Not as longs as its tailfeathers all lean to the left...

Can you expect humility

November 20, 2007 - 16:49 ET by bigtimer

Can you expect humility from a peacock?

Is that peacock still all green?

LMAO...

Of course we won't hear a word from NBC about their Civil War Declaration as of a year ago...they will pretend like it never happened and doesn't matter, doesn't matter, doesn't matter...let's just move on...

Personally it tickles me pink just hearing some of the talking heads using the words Victory as badly as it kills them....will wait for you guys here to report if NBC and Matt ever utters those words with any real meaning.

It never was a civil war. 

November 20, 2007 - 16:53 ET by mattm

It never was a civil war.  It was the U.S. removing a dangerous dictator who was threatening the entire world, aiding the establishment of a citizen-run government, and defending it against trouble-makers hell-bent on destroying it.

None of this should

November 20, 2007 - 16:56 ET by FishFace222

None of this should surprise anyone, that is the LATIMESNEWYORKTIMES suddenly realizing things have improved.  They will try to make the claim that it was dem takeover of Congress that had everything to do with it though the dems have done nothing but threaten to cut off funding.

If, God forbid, Hillary should become president they will all of a sudden find things quite rosey in the Middle East--just like homeless people up and disappear when Dems are president.

 

 

*** waits patiently for

November 20, 2007 - 17:13 ET by Roger the Shrubber

*** waits patiently for Hater, er, Leon to once again, educate us on the nearly non-existent presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.***

Po lil' Leon shore makes hisself scarce when der's splain' to do...

 

self proclaimed nbc news

November 20, 2007 - 17:32 ET by AntiMedia

self proclaimed nbc news will just hope things get worse.

"NBC hesitated to

November 20, 2007 - 17:34 ET by ForeverOnTheRight

"NBC hesitated to characterize it as such." (Civil War) Yeah the hisitation lasted all of a millisecound if you could measure that.

What drives me nuts, Mark...

November 20, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Gary Hall

What drives me nuts, Mark... Look,Matt Lauer adores Bill Clinton. Matt Lauer thinks that Bill Clinton's after life - may make for an even larger than life legacy than that he has from being president. (excuse me while I refresh). Where was Matt Lauer when Bill Clinton, in July 2003 said (my bold):

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks.........of biological and chemical weapons. ...... And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way.

Now Matt, if there was ever anything that Bill Clinton said that was legacy worth, it was that view that there was a greater cause here and that we all needed to get behind the effort and see it through. And what did Matt Lauer do? He kept that view of Clinton from the public view, in a pathetic desire to hurt Bush politically. That's the bottom line here for this media.

Gary, Don't ever expect

November 21, 2007 - 13:50 ET by IamTinman

Don't ever expect that guys like Matt Lauer would ever admit that they could be biased. Their view of the center is far left of normal folk.

They know that omissions and distortions are as important as outright lies. If pressed on this Clinton quote they would simply say that it was taken out of context and move on to another subject. The MSM learned these "duck and weave" lessons well during Vietnam when "good" news never made it to the TV screen but anything that could demoralize America did. The only things stopping them this time are FOX, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere none of which existed during the Vietnam War. Thank you to everyone who helped make them possible.

  The dems could still do

November 20, 2007 - 19:21 ET by MidAmerica

  The dems can still do lots of damage if they win the White House.  Iraq has only a year of GWB to get its act together because the dems can cut off the aid and support that will still be needed.  I believe the dems have no honor and would willingly stab the people of Iraq in the back if they could score some political advantage.  Dems will not want the job of enhancing GWB's legacy.

When Bush haters I work with...

November 21, 2007 - 00:36 ET by Parker1227

...snort that Bush is stupid (which they also labeled Reagan), I like to remind them that under Saddam's rule, anyone openly criticizing their leader risked death and imprisonment of themselves and their families.

I remember an MSNBC reporter before the invasion doing a man-on-the-street survey, and low and behold EVERYONE sang the praises of Saddam - and the reporter actually bought it and did NOT jump on the obvious fact that only fear can create that kind of consensus when it comes to politics. 

The latest news on the

November 22, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Roger the Shrubber

The latest news on the "civil war"...

Yoohoo! Leon! You've have a couple of months now to clarify your proclamation that Al-Qaeda does not exist in Iraq.

You seem to have plenty ot time to post trollish comments on the Open Thread, but none to devote to debunking the #1 issue in America? Kinda makes you (even more) inconsequential, doesn't it?