The majority of you are probably visiting to find out about the AP Capt. Hussein story. If you are, first go to this post where you can see the progression of my investigation, then this update and finally my last one here.

The big story, or one of them today, is the fact that a few MSM outfits have decided to deem Iraq a civil war, because as we all know…they are experts on this sort of thing.

Sigh….

Here is the NYT’s take:

“After consulting with our reporters in the field and the editors who directly oversee this coverage, we have agreed that Times correspondents may describe the conflict in Iraq as a civil war when they and their editors believe it is appropriate,” Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, revealed in a statement. “It’s hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war. (See Ed Wong’s story on the subject in Sunday’s paper.)

“We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect. The main shortcoming of “civil war” is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe ‘civil war’ should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated.”

Puhlease! As many have already noted this is the media’s attempt to gain some acceptence in the news business since their reputations have taken a plunge into the gutter over the past few years. Here is Steven Spruiell’s take:

Let’s cut right to what this “civil war” fanfare in the media is really all about: It has nothing to do with the ongoing violence in Iraq, and everything to do with the fact that these media organizations, which are struggling to maintain their relevance in a rapidly changing industry, feel the need to assert themselves and remind the public of their importance, and what better way than by calling the war for the insurgents and starting a push to solidify public opinion in favor of immediate withdrawal?

The MSM played a huge part in forcing the US out of a war we were winning, a war called Vietnam, and now they believe they can be just as important in ensuring Bush’s legacy goes down in flames. Consequences be damned.

As my recent posts have shown, our media will take any witness, any informant, any warm blooded mammel as a source for a story as long as they produce visions of chaos and bloodshed. All to propagate a view that Iraq is doomed. As Steven notes with this headline, it’s already begun:

Mark Finkelstein has really zeroed in on this. Check out his screen cap from NBC’s Today show: “Civil War: How Can the U.S. Get Out of Iraq?” really says it all.

That’s it in a nutshell folks. The MSM has consistently used stringers sympathetic to the enemies cause to fill stories of bloodshed. All to produce despair in the minds of the American people.

They can feel how important they will be once again if they force a withdrawal…they can feel it so bad they can taste it.

It doesn’t matter that cutting and running from Iraq will give Al-Qaeda a whole nation in which to run their terror operations worldwide. It doesn’t matter that cutting and running will make the sacrifices made by our troops to have for nothing. It doesn’t matter what will happen to the millions of Iraqi’s who will once again suffer because we didn’t have the balls to do what was right and just….to finish the job.

Go ahead MSM, pat yourself on the back. We are all so proud.