You wrote:

"Don't expect to hear much about this in MSM," while you simply wrote the usual blah blah wnd simply linked to another site. I guess we shouldn't expect to hear very much about it from you, either, losers.

Thats a good first step, however with all the sectarian violence, how does the government plan on making the people fall into line and will they take it seriously or will it just be a lame duck government, nice for show and tell, but not much more.

Time will tell...

Matt

You are incorrect. This story is appearing in all the MSN outlets.

Yes, indeed. Front page news in many papers to boot. So much for the liberal media only reporting bad coming from there.

But only 27 dead today from fighting one another. Good thing its NOT a civil war or there might be 28 dead instead from killing one another. LOL

Whats Rumsfeld set the bar at before its considered a civil war? 40 dead a day? 50? 100? what's the magic number?

They don't want it to be called a civil war because that title would reflect that they have lost control in Iraq.

As unsubstantiated as all his anti-media claims (who are the MSM? Are you part of the MSM too?)are, lets assume that the media did give preference to bad stories. Could it be because after having their 4th "elections to bring peace" story that has blown up in your face, they are a little wary of announcing "mission accomplished"? I mean time after time, hell 6 months after the invasion, it was declared that the people had voted and the new government would be ready and governing soon. That was 3 years ago.

While various MSM outlets have reported it, there's more to just reporting a story... other factors to look at... how is it treated? how much coverage does it get in the tv networks? Part of the reason this will just be a blip in the news as opposed to a big story is the fact that it's not bad news, and regardless of bias in the media, bad news is more likely to be focused on then good news.

I find it rather strange that left wing fanatics like axis take such glee and happiness when reporting innocent people being slaughtered by terrorists.

"What's Rumsfeld set the bar at before its considered a civil war? 40 dead a day? 50? 100? what's the magic number?"

Axis, do you have ANY perspective, or even any idea what a real civil war is like? Do you, for instance, have a clue as to how many Americans died during the U.S. Civil War? Or in even ONE day at Gettysburg? Or how about how many Russians died during the Russian civil war that followed the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917? Any clue?

I suspect you loosely use the term "civil war" regarding Iraq only because either (a) you have no historical knowledge whatsoever on these matters, or (b) your perspective has been completely warped by mindless political partisanship.

JPL

I suppose to axis we're in a civil war right here. 44 people are murdered each and every day in America. (2004 statistics) The intellectual vacancy of the left is quite stunning.

Nice job, Mr. President!

Civil war can be defined as 2 faction within a society at war with one another. Red coats vs blue, sunnis vs shites

Same thing. Its a civil war over there, even Iraqis say so. Only one admitting it is the Bush administration

Axis -- What's the matter, can't answer my questions? Or are you saying there's no difference between 7,000 killed in one battle at Gettysburg, and 27 killed the other day in Iraq?

Also, what's the source for your lie that all Iraqis believe they're in a civil war?

"Civil war can be defined as 2 faction within a society at war with one another. Red coats vs blue, sunnis vs shites"

You mean like FBI vs mobsters? Gambino family vs some other crime family? Bloods vs Crips? Sharks vs Jets? If all it takes to make a "civil war" is 2 factions of society, a small percentage of whom kill a small percentage of the others a small percentage of the time, then the U.S. and every other society in history has been in constant state of civil war. Your definition of "civil war" makes a mockery of the term.

"Red coats vs blue, sunnis vs shites"

I LOVE this one! "Red coats vs blue" -- which civil war was that?

Listen, do us all a favor, axis, and go back to high school and don't come back until you've learned a few basics about U.S. and world history. Please.

This must be a dark day for al queda and the democratic party. God bless the Iraqi people, God bless our troops and God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.

So... can anyone name the new Iraqi defense minister (who is responsible for overseeing the army), the interior minister (responsible for overseeing the police force), and the national security minister (responsible for... well, that's fairly obvious, lol!)? Those three pretty much cover the Iraqi security forces. It's important that we know their names, don't you think? Unless the Iraqis stand up, we won't stand down, right?

So... what do we know about these guys? Anyone have any info?

JPL, what you refer to is a large scale battle. There were also much smaller ones where only a few people were killed.

If your litmas test to what is considered a civil war is that it must be like the American civil war, then there will never be another civil war in the world again.

The american civil war was unique, with bearing on cultures, religion and local territorial location. the time is also a factor. There was a time when "war" constituted lining up hundreds of soldiers in lines to be used as cannon fodder.

My comments were in reference to North vs South.

I said 2 factions in society. Mobsters vs FBI are not factions. For example if a war here between muslims and christians were to break out, it could be considered a civil war if ongoing.

Shites vs Sunnis is no different. They are fighting for control over religious and cultural differences. TO date, this has not erupted into a full scale civil war because for the most part, the ones fighting are religious zealots and fundamentalists. However given the right circumstances, it has a very real possibility to develop into this very thing.

Likewise, the insurgency is to date small as it is again zealots battling it out with troops. Should this change to a situation where ordinary Iraqis are fighting the troops, you will see a much greater body count on both sides. This is why the troops need to tread very lightly there. If Iraqis see US troops slaughtering innocent men, woman and children like there have been several incidents they can easily begin to resist enmasse.

I assure you it is not I that needs to retouch his education, it is you. Your problem is that you are seemingly incapable of free and independant thought and can only parrot those thoughts and views of the president and the administration. If tomorrow, Rumsfeld addressed the nation and said that Iraq in now in a civil war, then your views would change accordingly. Sad to see mindless zombies like you thinks it best that your presidents thoughts be your own.

civil war
n.

1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
3. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
4. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.

James Allegro

You say this is a dark day for the democratic party, Why?

The sooner the Iraqi government can take control, the sooner the troops can come home. That's what the democratic party wants. Isn't that what you want too?

CNN.com's headline for the story is "'Historic day' as Iraq approves Cabinet". Wow, the left-wing anti-war slant just leaps out at ya!

Canadian Observer,

No, he would ship the troops directly from Iraq to Iran for fight the next war. Then to Syria. Then to North Korea. Then to China. Then to Russia.

"JPL, what you refer to is a large scale battle. There were also much smaller ones where only a few people were killed."

Axis, can you name me even ONE recognized "civil war," or even one BATTLE in a recognized civil war, in which "only a few people were killed"?

"If your litmas test to what is considered a civil war is that it must be like the American civil war, then there will never be another civil war in the world again."

Utter bullsh*t. The American Civil War wasn't even close to being the worst civil war of all time. Compare:

American Civil War: about 620,000 killed.
Russian Civil War: about 15 MILLION killed.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

In fact, there are real civil wars going on RIGHT NOW that make the American Civil War look like a stroll in the park. Axis, do you have any clue what they are? (Hint: the conflict in Iraq ISN'T one of them.)

"The american civil war was unique, with bearing on cultures, religion and local territorial location."

Are you saying the Sunni-Shiite conflict has nothing to do with "religion, culture and geography"? Come on, get your leftist talking points straight! I mean, either the Sunni-Shiite conflict IS religious, cultural and geographic just like the American Civil War, or it ISN'T. But either way, the burden is on YOU to explain why casualties in Iraq are only 3% of those during the American Civil War.

"My comments were in reference to North vs South."

I assume this is a reference to your "red coats vs blue coats" comment. FYI, during the American Civil War, the North wore blue and the South wore gray. No one wore red. You may be confusing the Confederacy in the American Civil War (which wore gray) with the English in the American Revolution (which wore red). But I know, it's so confusing! I mean, English, Confederates, North, South, American Revolution, American Civil War, what's the difference? They were all mean!

"Mobsters vs FBI are not factions."

Why not? I also mentioned rival crime families and rival gangs. Why aren't they "factions"? And if those rivals kill each other (as they do), why isn't their conflict considered "civil war"? Maybe it's because the percentage of the population involved in those conflicts is small? And is it possible that the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq isn't a "civil war" for the same reason -- i.e., that it's only a small percentage of the Iraqi population that's actively engaged in killing other Iraqis???

"TO date, [the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq] has not erupted into a full scale civil war because for the most part, the ones fighting are religious zealots and fundamentalists. However given the right circumstances, it has a very real possibility to develop into this very thing."

Well, at last we agree on something!!! Namely, that the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq hasn't developed into a "full scale civil war". Congratulations on your first intelligent comment! But the bottom line is that since that conflict is NOT a civil war, yesterday's announcement of Iraq's first multi-religious, multi-ethnic democratic government in its history, is BIG, POSITIVE news. If you had an open mind and/or were honest, you'd admit it.

"I assure you it is not I that needs to retouch his education, it is you."

Right, I'M the one who doesn't know what colors the North and South wore; or that real civil wars make the Sunni-Shiite conflict look minor in comparison; or that "litmas" is a misspelling of "litmus"; or that Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders of Iraq are BETTING THEIR LIVES on their prediction of "no civil war" in Iraq, which means they probably know a lot more about the situation in Iraq than you do.

"Your problem is that you are seemingly incapable of free and independant thought and can only parrot those thoughts and views of the president and the administration....Sad to see mindless zombies like you thinks it best that your presidents thoughts be your own."

This is hysterically funny! I'm a Harvard grad and lawyer with a masters degree in international relations and a near-200 IQ. Yet according to you, because I'm conservative, I'm a "zombie" who needs the President to tell him how to think. OK, I call your bluff: Which Bush speech did I "parrot" for my American Civil War talking points?

"Axis, can you name me even ONE recognized "civil war," or even one BATTLE in a recognized civil war, in which "only a few people were killed"?"

-- Please don't try and twist my words, you know that what I was referring to was during the civil war there where large scale battles with lots of dead and also small skirmishes with only a few dead. Neighbors fighting neighbors during the war for example.

"Utter bullsh*t. The American Civil War wasn't even close to being the worst civil war of all time. Compare"

-- I never said the worst as all did I? Please don't try to put words in my mouth either. I am perfectly capable of expressing myself without your assistance thank you. Now, what I did say was ...

"If your litmas test to what is considered a civil war is that it must be like the American civil war, then there will never be another civil war in the world again."

The point being that what civil wars look like and behave as are dependant on population, cultural and geographic variables. That being said, an Iraqi all out civil war will not look anything like the american civil war but that does disqualify if from being a civil war, which is defined as above and fits what is happening now there, although it is still limited so far to religious zealots.

"FYI, during the American Civil War, the North wore blue and the South wore gray."

-- My bad. thanks for the clarification.

"Why not? I also mentioned rival crime families and rival gangs. Why aren't they "factions"? And if those rivals kill each other (as they do), why isn't their conflict considered "civil war"? "

-- Rival crime families could possibly be considered a type of faction, however it is a criminal one, not a cultural faction or ethnic faction that would tend to disqualify it from being considered a "civil war" as those criminal factions tend to be considered deviants of normal society.

That said, if say, American Muslims were to rise up and declare war on American Christians or vice versa and you all start killing one another in cities all across the country, would that meet your definition of civil war? And if so, how is that any different from Sunnis killing Shites and vice versa? It isn't, its the same.

"And is it possible that the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq isn't a "civil war" for the same reason -- i.e., that it's only a small percentage of the Iraqi population that's actively engaged in killing other Iraqis???"

-- I suppose thats a matter of personal interpretation isn't it? Exactly whay percentage would need to be killing each other before it meets your test? 50%? 75%? And if its just 20% than its just considered normal violence? Is that how it works? Funny but I don't seem to recall that normal violence before the U.S. sent in the troops. Oh, thats right, GWB cleared out the regime in power and left an empty vaccuum, just like Daddy Bush said would happen if he invaded. Which is why Daddy bush didn't, he had some smarts and wisdom and knew that they was no possible exit strategy and knew that it would result in a never ending conflict. So he withdrew and was recognized as a great leader in that respect. GWB did invade and then stayed and thats why the troops are now stuck in a never ending conflict trying to force Iraqis to adopt a way of life totally foreign to them that took America over a decade and countless lives and wars to get straight. And so thats why GWB is a crappy leader and picks crappy military-wannabe strategists like Rumsfeld who ignore the advice of wise and seasoned veterans in favor of blindly winging it. Remember GWB said in 1999 that if he invaded Iraq, there would be NO american causalties. Any military person, ever a cook would have known better than to make such as dumb statement like that and it only goes to show how utterly clueless, out of touch with reality and out of his element this president it.

The point is its all semantics. Sectarian violence sounds a lot more limited than civil war which sounds a lot more severe and also casts shadows that US troops have lost control of the situation, which they have. The troops are not in control of things over there, they are hanging on and hoping to ride it out. There are too few troops with inadequate body armour and inadequate light armored vehicle to take control of the situation. But this is an administration that cannot ever admit to a mistake or error or charge course when a strategy fails to work. If this administration was captaining a ferry, it would drive it up onto the rocks and then keep the engines full ahead until the engines overheat and blow up in hopes that they would somehow dislodge themselves by the grace of god and be able to continue forward.

I'm a Harvard grad and lawyer with a masters degree in international relations and a near-200 IQ

-- Near 200 Really? You should consider running for office since you are about as smart as Clinton (182 IQ) and twice as smart as the "Decider" (91 IQ). Send the decider back home to Texas to milk his cows and you take his place.

I will say that your elite IQ level does not really come across in your posts at all, such as you trying to equate a couple spelling typos and a blue instead of gray mistake to a lack of intelligence or eduction.

Nor does it come across in the short sightedness expressed in your posts.

Nor does it come across in your mistaken interpretation of clearly written english sentences and paragraphs.

but then I suppose its a cultural difference. By following your congressional language laws they want passed, I am speaking Canadian, while you are speaking American.

I will try to speak American like the decider does, hang on... Uum, er,...well...uuh...er

No that didn't work either.

Maybe we need to meet in the middle and speak English in order to breach this language barrier.

" 'Eh there 'Ou's yer mum? Can 'ya 'ear me now?"

Is that better? Oh well...

This is hysterically funny! I'm a Harvard grad and lawyer with a masters degree in international relations and a near-200 IQ.

Oh really. Well I am a NASA scientist working on the Manned Mars Mission and am also moonlighting for strategic policy on space technology. I am also a leader of the Masons. And I secretly serve as vice president. I am also deputy deputy White House chief of Staff and control gravity. Yoou are such a loser JPL.

Of course the Democrats want the war to end. Do you think all of the American casualties were Republicans?
Axis is not far off, however, when he worries that the troops may be re-deployed to Iran, to spread the winds of freedom their way. Our American neocons think military force is the best way to protect our interests in the Middle East.

Also, pardon me if I'm cautious about the new Iraqi government. After WWI,the British occupied Iraq for twelve years, trying to establish democratic self-rule. After they left the government collapsed. A military coup re-established autocracy, and eventually led to Saddam Hussein. Time will tell, so we should hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.

Also, they have a point about all the people that die in America. Just yesterday there was a story in the paper of 60 people found buried in a ditch, after they were executed for being protestant. Yea, that happens all the time here. Oh, did you guys see those 3 car bombs across Baltimore yesterday too? I thought not.

JPL, you seem like a smart guy. In fact, your self-description suggests you are one in a million -- maybe more. Can you tell us who the new Iraqi defense, interior, and national defense ministers are?

Great job MR. President