Heh. As a commenter notes, the Iraqis must be part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Well, it is vast, after all.

The London Times isn't honest about the poll results. The actual poll results were split between Iraqis who said that their country is in a civil war (27%) and Iraqis who said that their country was close to a civil war (22%). "Civil war? What civil war?" is a false figure of speech for "close to a civil war". There are also those who say that not many people like chocolate ice cream; rather they like rocky road or chocolate mint "instead".

The Pentagon, for one, says that there is a civil war in Iraq. If only half of Iraqis are close to believing that, it may be because their president, Nouri al-Maliki, has long told them that whatever Iraq has, it shouldn't be called a civil war.

So who would you rather believe, an American militarist like Petraeus, or a Shiite jihadist like Maliki? If you are Iraqi Arab, you could lean either way. But if you work for Rupert Murdoch, or if you are a blogger of a certain stripe, the choice is clear.

"But if you work for Rupert Murdoch...the choice is clear."

If you work for Rupert Murdoch, there is no choice. Dachau is Disneyland, and War is Peace.

The Pentagon is a building; it says nothing unless you are on acid.

The Pentagon is a building; it says nothing unless you are on acid.

I stand corrected! Pentagon officials now say that there is a civil war in Iraq.

Rand, how about next time you give us a short blurb so we know what the frack you're posting about.

As far as Rupert Murdoch is concerned, Newscorp only publishes their crap because a substantial portion of several very lucrative demographics in the market are willing to buy it. If anything he swings libertarian.

Rand, how about next time you give us a short blurb so we know what the frack you're posting about.

I get kind of tired of getting comments from people who obviously haven't followed the link. I link because I expect comments on what I link to, not just on what I write, or the brief excerpt from the link. If you don't trust me that it's an interesting link, why read me at all?

Rand: If you don't trust me that it's an interesting link, why read me at all?

Because they want to criticize you as some quasi-neocon-political-hack without considering your thoughts have any context.

New AM: Pentagon officials now say that there is a civil war in Iraq.

If they are, they are doing so unofficially. Here is the actual report the New AM blindly refers to. A search of the term "civil war" comes up with two hits near each other. Think Progress pulls out one instance while ignoring what is stated above it. Here's a much larger part of the paragraph (see page 14):

As described in the January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexityof the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shi’a-on-Shi’a violence, al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a “civil war,” including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence, and population displacements.6 Illegally armed groups are engaged in a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian and politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, and indirect fire to intimidate people and stoke sectarian conflict.