Called Al Qaeda. (Democrat) John Wixted, on the prevalence of the false "civil war" meme:

Awareness of al Qaeda is slowly growing in the minds of mainstream media reporters who have been hamstrung by the civil war schema that they simply cannot get out of their heads. Even so, there is not the slightest mention of the fact that al Qaeda was probably behind yesterday's bombing. Millions upon millions of readers of countless stories like this all over the world will read about that bombing and then shake their heads at the escalating "civil war" in Iraq. And then they will rage at George Bush for what he has done. Here is CNN's coverage of that event, and, again, not the slightest hint that this was an attack by al Qaeda (because, I assume, the reporter thinks this was part of the civil war). The CNN story even notes that this was a suicide bomber. Many stories fail to mention that key detail. It is important because virtually all suicide bombers are members of al Qaeda, as I detailed here. As such, this bombing was not part of that civil war. It was another atrocity designed to provoke a civil war that has largely abated since the troop surge began. That's the key distinction, and it cannot be emphasized often enough. People just don't get it, so it needs to be explained repeatedly until they do. In fact, what's missing from discussions by Bush and McCain and others who have the details right is the emphatic statement that these attacks are not part of the civil war; they are attempts by al Qaeda to provoke a civil war. Just stating that these attacks were perpetrated by al Qaeda does not go far enough to change the thinking of those whose minds are ensnared by an obsolete civil war schema. You have to specifically tell them that they are wrong to think like that. That gets their attention (because they are under the comfortable impression that the civil war debate was settled long ago), and it momentarily arouses disbelief (trust me -- I've been down this path with people many times). When they are presented with incontrovertible facts regarding the role of al Qaeda in Iraq in a moment of disbelief, it has been my experience that minds change (including liberal minds). But you have to directly assert that these attacks are not examples of the civil war in action, nor do they represent sectarian violence. If you don't, people have great difficulty assimilating the idea that attacks by Sunni al Qaeda against Shiite civilians do not constitute examples of sectarian violence/civil war.

His emphasis, not mine.

George Bush has also started civil wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia. Oh, and Indonesia, Morocco, and the Phillipines, plus Algeria, Chechnya, and a few others I'll name as soon as I can work them into the narrative. It goes without saying that they were all kite-flying paradises before January 20, 2001.

On the other hand, on January 20, 2009, we will discover that we are in a desperate and vitally necessary struggle for the future of humanity. America will once again be a beacon of civilization. Oceania will have always been allied with Eastasia.

On the other hand, on January 20, 2009, we will discover that we are in a desperate and vitally necessary struggle for the future of humanity.

Not in Iraq, we won't.

Someone's developed an irony-cancellation field.

A thinking Democrat? One wonders if he follows the party line or strong enough in his convictions to vote against his party when the occasion demands it.