Maybe I'm just dense, but hasn't Iraq been in a civil war for quite some time now? It sure looks like it to me.

Of course Iraq is in a civil war. The rate of civilian casualties in inter-communal violence (thousands each month, tens of thousands each year) places Iraq clearly in the same category as other places where a civil war is recognized. For some reason, though, the news media are letting Bush get away with redefining civil war so that it's always just out of reach.

Re:national articles comparing the Cantwell campaign to that of Lieberman, I think these articles are part of a campaign to discount the wide range of issues Conn. voters are pissed at Liebermen about.

First of all, when she came under criticism and challenge from the anti-war side of the Democratic party, she didn't have a public tantrum like Lieberman.

Cantwell may have voted to authorize Iraq and been unwilling to fully abase herself before our anti-war progressive rath, but she doesn't defend Bush at every turn or denounce us for traitors when we criticise her or Bush.

Cantwell hasn't had a policy of trying to increase her political stature by cutting down her fellow party members in order to show her "independence."

Lieberman has been undercutting the Democratic party long before Cantwell came on the scene. Also, almost completely ignorned by national media is Lieberman's refusal to take a position during Bush's national speech tour for Social Security privatization. Face it, you can't really say you are for core Democratic party values if you can't immediately defend Social Security. I think Connecticut voters are more aware of areas of Republican-like values on the part of Lieberman.

For a civil war, it requires one group to say thet want a separate government. So far that hasn't happened.

A civil war can also have one group who wants control of the current government, with the other group wanting to maintain control of the current government.

That is neither here nor there, an "offically" recognized civil war doesn't mean anything other then an "ah hah, see, we told you so, nani nani boo boo" victory for the anti-bush crowd. Offical civil war or not, it keeps getting worse, it seems, and not better.

With it looking like Mike!?! is now the repub of choice for those sorts of people... anyone who is in the know know anything about that Safeco stockholder suit?

Please don't include those 'happened on this day' links. Do you enjoy providing so many choices that we can waste our day categorizing? Btw, say happy birthday to Ben Shepard, I ignored him when he was at the Sunset a few years ago. Also - no hitters - gotta love em. Maybe slog will only post a sports comment when something significant like that occurs.

No Dilda, it ain't that simple.
By most definitions, a civil war is a war in which factions of the same culture, society or nationality fight within the borders of the country.

The situation in Lebanon from the 70's to the 90's, for example, was a civil war by almost everyone's reckoning. In that case there was intercommunal violence, with paramilitary forces on all sides, but they were never in a position to defeat the state forces. They just fostered a terrible chaotic situation.

Pretty much everyone except the U.S. and the English governments speak of Iraq as a civil war. The 'coalition' has some political points to gain by refusing to recognize the obvious, but the rest of us don't have to be so obliging.

Is Cantwell now going to die in a plane crash like Wellstone did?

Meanwhile Dubai STILL owns 20 US port cities, allowing the al-Qaeda-financing country to float nuclear bombs right into the heart of major US port cities.

Given that and Alaskan Mike McGavick's poor showing last night - I'd be worried Bush has done this intentionally.

Good thing I'm not paranoid ... ...

I didn't expect racist paranoia from you, Will.

The civil war in Iraq isn't beginning, it's ending. The Kurds have fully met Dilda's criterion: they fly the Kurdish flag, not the Iraqi one; they maintain their own borders; they do not recognize Iraqi passports or visas; they have their own army; their officials swear allegiance to the Kurdish Region, not Iraq. Most of this has been true for over a decade, when the US no-fly zone started to protect them from Saddam's chemical gas. Not coincidentally, they also have a functioning economy and civilization, unlike Iraq.

The fighting you're seeing now is the Iran-backed Shia fighting over border details with the remnants of the Sunni Ba'athists and Al Qaeda imports.

Is bush the devil?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/20/chavez-bush.html

"Chavez is angry that the U.S. is trying to block Venezuela's campaign for a seat on the U.N. Security Council."

Chavez is a worthless shithead who makes even Bush look good in comparison.

I'm not racist. I'm just pointing out a large glaring military vulnerability easily exploited by any competent terrorist organization which has infiltrated most major gulf Islamic nations at oh so many levels.

Denial of reality just gets you an IED in your face. It doesn't make you safer. It's a real threat - not like the lies about Iraq being a threat.

al-Qaeda cares nothing about your rationalizations for why you refuse to deal with military blind spots in our national defenses - it just exploits them. They're very good at what they do. Pretending they're not won't change anything.

I wish one of the national Cantwell articles would mention Goodspaceguy.

Chavez is a worthless shithead who makes even Bush look good in comparison.

Thanks for the Bill O'Reilly moment, there. With such thoughtful analysis, breaking down complex issues into easy sound-bites, I'm sure you have a promising career at Fox News.

lol @ Noink

Iraq is in a low-grade civil war. If/when we pull out, it'll escalate dramatically (at least everywhere but de facto "Kurdistan"). I support dividing Iraq into 3 or 4 separate nations, but the central/Baghdad/Sunni area needs a sizeable share of the oil profits from the other regions to avoid an even more protracted war. Although Turkey will then invade Kurdistan, Basrastan will virtually become a province of Iran.... No easy way out of this quagmire.

"If the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the U.N. can take them to account?"

The psycho has a point there.

The sooner we pull out of Iraq, the better the chance they'll fix things more quickly. Staying isn't helping anyone. Except al-Qaeda. It's great for their fund-raising and volunteer recruitment worldwide.

Yo, Queequeg: is everyone who doesn't reflexively jerk out dollops of opinion that match yours "Bill O'Reilly" now? If so, I would like to thank you for confirming that Seattle leftists still maintain a Taliban-like totalitarian ideological purity from which no deviance on any question whatsoever will be tolerated without confirmation from the Central Authority.

Hugo Chavez is, in fact, a worthless shithead. He couldn't even exist without his doppelganger George Bush to rail against, since then he would be forced to actually address his own collapsing nation. Busily fellating the likes of Castro, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong-Il is all fine and dandy, but annoying the US isn't really enough of a platform to run a country on.

Don't mess with a major oil supplier, FNARF. We need all the non-middle-eastern ones we can get.

I'm guessing that Hugo Chavez is so popular because he says what everyone is thinking but not willing to say for whatever reason.

And yes, Bush is the devil.

Chavez is worse than some of our middle eastern ones. It's a rule: any country that gets more than half of its foreign exchange from oil is a terrifying ticking time bomb: Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iran, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, you name it.

Chavez is not "popular". His status comes entirely from his relentless opposition to the personality of George Bush. A lot of other people are opposed to George Bush too, but not too many of them hold Kim Jong-Il up as a credible alternative. Chavez is a third rate blowhard, not to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain.

Liberals who oppose Bush but support Chavez, Kim, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad are the stupidest people in the world, and give real liberals a bad name. Get a fucking clue, huh?