On War Anniversary, Nets Stress Dire Views of Iraqis, Skip How Iraqis Don't See Civil War

Photo of Brent Baker.

ABC anchor Charles Gibson led on Monday night, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, with the results of a door-to-door survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis conducted for ABC News (and USA Today). Gibson started the “sobering report” with how “fewer than half the Iraqis, just 42 percent, said life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein.” Gibson, however, failed to explain that when asked, “compared to the time before the war in spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?”, fewer than 42 percent -- 36 percent -- said worse and 22 thought things are the same. A poll of 5,000 Iraqis reported in the Times of London discovered, as highlighted by FNC's Brit Hume, that “49 percent said life is better under the current Iraqi government” and “just 26 percent preferred life under Saddam Hussein.”

NBC anchor Brian Williams opened by emphasizing the length and cost of the war: “U.S. involvement in this war is now longer in duration than the Korean War, longer than World War I or World War II. And here are the numbers of great importance to all Americans. So far, at least 3,218 Americans have died. At least 24,000 have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi dead are close to 60,000...” CBS's Katie Couric began with how “the war goes on, there is no end or victory in sight, thousands of Americans are dead, but the President says victory is still possible.” Reporter Allen Pizzey, who on The Early Show had insisted that “Iraqis have very little to be thankful for,” also delivered a dire assessment on the Evening News: “And so four weary and blood-soaked years on, the so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of those who are stuck with it.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The ABC survey found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” with 42 percent thinking there is, but ABC's World News skipped that finding. The British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war compared to 27 percent who think they are in a civil war, yet Couric asserted the nation is in the midst of one:

“There seems to be no end to the misery for Iraqi civilians caught in the middle of what even the Pentagon now calls a 'civil war.' From suicide bombings to murders by death squads, Iraqi civilians have paid a terrible price for four years of war. Estimates of the dead range from thirty thousand to as high as six-hundred thousand...”

The PDF with the full results of the ABC survey. Scroll down to page 14 for the better/worse question, to page 36 for the civil war one.

Hume's March 19 “Grapevine” item on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume:

“On this fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war a new survey, based on an unusually large sample of Iraqis, indicates that contrary to many Western analysts most Iraqis do not believe their country is embroiled in a civil war. The poll of more than 5,000 Iraqi adults was conducted by the British market research firm Opinion Research Business and reported in our sister publication, the Times of London. 61 percent of the respondents did not think the situation qualifies as a civil war there. 49 percent said life is better under the current Iraqi government. Just 26 percent preferred life under Saddam Hussein. And 64 percent want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.”

The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better."

The same paper's March 18 article about the civil war question: “Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?”

A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.”

Noel Sheppard's earlier NewsBusters take on the poll.

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth helped gather transcripts of how the broadcast networks led their March 19 evening newscasts:

ABC's World News. Charles Gibson led:

"Good evening. Four years ago, on this day, the war in Iraq began. In four years, so much has changed. And we believe that if you watch World News this evening and through the week, you will come to have a better understanding of where things stand in Iraq, the good and the bad from the Iraq perspective. There is a popular belief that you cannot talk to Iraqis, that you can't get around the country because of the danger, and there is truth to that.

“But ABC's Terry McCarthy traveled throughout Iraq for a series of reports you will see this week. And ABC News has conducted a poll, more than 2,000 interviews of Iraqis in more than 400 towns and cities. It is a sobering report of a nation. Fewer than half the Iraqis, just 42 percent, said life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Why? The answer is the violence -- 80 percent of Iraqis tell us they have experienced attacks nearby. In November 2005 when last we polled, 63 percent of Iraqis said they felt safe in their neighborhoods. Today, that is 26 percent. In November 2005, 71 percent said their own lives were going well. Today, that is down to 39 percent. And perhaps the most chilling questions for Americans and the American military, we asked Iraqis if it is acceptable, in their minds, to attack Americans. In early 2004, 17 percent said yes. Now, more than half, 51 percent, say it is acceptable to attack Americans. And among Sunni Muslims, the number is 94 percent."

CBS Evening News. Katie Couric teased:

"I'm Katie Couric. Tonight, the United States enters a fifth year of war in Iraq. And the President insists it can still be won."

George W. Bush: "It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through."

Couric: "We'll look tonight at the costs, the accomplishments and the search for a way out after four years of war."

Couric began the newscast:

"Hello, everyone. Four years ago tonight, this broadcast began with the news that the United States was about to invade Iraq. The White House was telling Americans to prepare for what it hoped would be a short conflict, but also for loss of life. The President said, quote, 'We will accept no outcome but victory.' Tonight, the war goes on, there is no end or victory in sight, thousands of Americans are dead, but the President says victory is still possible. Jim Axelrod begins our coverage of Iraq: Four Years of War."

Allen Pizzey later ended a piece from Iraq:

“And so four weary and blood-soaked years on, the so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of those who are stuck with it: American troops who can't go home yet and Iraqi forces who have to learn to take their place. The shock and awe invasion has become slow surge and even the White House admits there's no end in sight.”

NBC Nightly News. Brian Williams, in opening teaser:

"On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, President Bush says more time and patience are needed as Democrats protest the war without end."

Williams led:

"Good evening. The war that started with the sharp, blinding impact of precision-guided weapons hitting their targets in Baghdad in the middle of the night has now gone on for four years. The fifth year of combat in Iraq starts now. U.S. involvement in this war is now longer in duration than the Korean War, longer than World War I or World War II. And here are the numbers of great importance to all Americans. So far, at least 3,218 Americans have died. At least 24,000 have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi dead are close to 60,000. And so far, over 2 million Americans have cycled through Iraq at least once. Earlier, on this anniversary day, before a live national television audience, the President talked about the fight so far and the stakes ahead. We begin here tonight with NBC's David Gregory at the White House. David, good evening."

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'll bet if the media cou

I'll bet if the media could've somehow polled the people who were tortured and murdered during Hussein's regime, that 42% figure would've been much higher.

I guess that's what happens when you eliminate your dissenters.

*****

"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello

42% of Iraqi's said things ar

42% of Iraqi's said things are better now than under Sadam.

Two years ago when a similar poll was done 71% of Iraqi's thought things were better.

I other words the Iraqui's think things are becoming worse!   Savvy!

Yes, things become bad when t

Yes, things become bad when teh enemy counter-attacks.  It has always been thus.  What is your point?

The Iraqis don't see a civil

The Iraqis don't see a civil war? Then they're deaf, dumb, blind and stupid.  The Pentagon just admitted it is a civil war.  Where were these Iraqis who don't see a civil war - Times Square?

I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.

Don't worry - your initial

Don't worry - your initial thought was correct.

Actually, scholars name Buchanan as the worst, year after year.

*****

"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello

I think the Iraqi's know bett

I think the Iraqi's know better than anyone what they think Bill...they have lived through hell and back for decades...something called fear, something you know nothing about obviously...it takes time for people to really start to believe their may be a good outcome.

I saw the networks play to the hilt all day to do their best to pray for defeat, when things are starting to turn around slowly but surely.

And on and on the msm goes because they are the mouthpiece for the defeatist attitude ...repeat a lie often enough...it shall be so...after-all we have an agenda...defeat for this administration, at all costs.

People like you and all your ilk are the defeatists who do not want Victory at all costs...

You my friend are an ungrateful spoiled self-indulgent brat that gets to spout his vitriolic leftist BS talking points every single day because of the sacrifice and blood from other brave patriotic men and women from the founding of this great nation.

You and all your leftist ilk will be defeated in the end, no matter how long it takes....

Fool.

neener neener neener

Why do you guys always resort to name calling?

Is it anger or ignorance?

You act like you have some sort of absolute knowledge on everything.

Like most GOPers. They li

Like most GOPers. They like to smear their opponent and make people forget the shortcomings of their party. Sadly it is effective. Bush and swiftboaters did a great job of this in 04.

Sadamm was a horrible dictator and he tortured lots of people but at least they had running water, no suicide bombers, available food, electricity and a feeling of relative safety when they went outdoors. Yet Bush still says the Iraqi's owe the USA a lot of gratitude.

Cheney actually could have been right. We might have once upon a time be greeted as liberators if actually went in with enough troops and had a decent exit plan

The swift boaters weren't sme

double post

shawn228, if you want to come here and comment, please.

shawn228, if you want to come here and comment, please.

Get your facts straight.  '...but at least they had running water, no suicide bombers, available food, electricity...'

Are you nuts?

Or just completely ignorant?

No, shawn228, 'they' did not have running water; they did not have food.

Suicide bombers?  Maybe, but why are you on the suicide bomber's side?

Do you blame us for the suicide bombings or do you blame radical Islamic terrorists?

Answer that simple question shawn228.  Answer that question.  I don't expect a real answer.  It is a binary question, yes.. or ...no.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

I do not blame suicide

I do not blame suicide bombers on us, I am saying where were they during Sadamms reign? You can call me ignorant all you want ACA.

Let me ask you a binary question ACA. No on second thought I will ask you 2 questions Do you believe the Iraqis are better off today than they were before the invasion? yes or no. Was it really worth it?

You can use all the talking points Conservatives always use. Yes we know.....they had elections......Sadamm faced justice. blah blah blah.

But at what cost ACA? 50000- 100000 Iraqi's dead. Some insurgents, but the majority innocent men women and children. Okay ACA, i know......know you are going to use your usually talking point about me blaming the troops and the USA. Saying how unpatriot I am. No ACA I blame the President and his cabinet.

Especially Donald Rumsfeld. He went in with too little troops and ignored warnings from many Generals. Victory could have been met if we earned the respect and trust of the Iraqis at the beginning. We showed that we could not protect them so they run to whoever can. Would you let Don Rumfeld plan your daughters wedding?

So again was it really worth it?

3200 US troops Dead

Lost respect around the world "yes I know ACA love it or leave it right?"

Estimated 1 trillion dollars or more before war is over

50 000 injured troops. some amputees and head trauma "nice work taking care of them Mr. President"

No WMD found.

I'm sure you will find a way to twist my facts around ACA, but I'm sure there is no changing your mind.

Little Shawn, you like to lis

Little Shawn, you like to list numbers, so why didn't you list the 3000+ that were slaughtered by Islamics on 9/11? Hell, why didn't you list the multitudes murdered by Islamics over the last 40 years? They've been itching for a fight all along and now they got one.

As well, Little Shawn, you seem to actually believe that freedom is free: It is not.

Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!

Little AlgerHiss, name m

Little AlgerHiss, name me one of the Hijackers on 911 that was an Iraqi. You can't say all Muslims or as you say Islamics are the same.

Well, shawn - here's my answer. ACA

Well, shawn - here's my answer.  ACA

What cost freedom?  That's how I took your first queston.  That by the way is not a binary question.  I'll accept your US numbers and I'll accept your Iraqi numbers - I'll hold my breath at the $1 trillion number.

OK, what cost?

Whatever cost is necessary for freedom shawn.  That is the cost.

Cost - as a factor weighed against freedom is the cheapest shot anyone can take toward it.  Let me point you to the total number of deaths in all wars for freedom in this country since 1600 AD.  That is the cost shawn.  Not some Liberal idea that 3200 US deaths is too expensive.

Nice try though.

Now, lost respect around the world?  OK, so the United States lost some respect.  From what base of 'respect' are you asking me this?

Certainly not from Cuba, Venezuela, Guatamala, and France?  Are you really asking me to accept the idea the the US has so much 'respect' around the world that the US should simply ignore the issue of the morass in Middle East and the event of 9/11/01?  Great.

Here you go again.  No WMD found.  So, according to you this country, Iraq, which was taunting the US in particular with its constant claims to be working on WMD, its invasion of Kuwait, its behavior at firing rockets at our planes and its behavior of slaughtering its Kurds and others was only invaded by the US over WMDs?  Valarie Plame's WMD desk, right?  The very same Iraq that had a history (Chemical Ali) of using WMDs to kill its own people.  So, no WMDs were found.

I gotta hand it to you shawn.  Your myopic and rather irrational hatred of Bush has indeed caused you to put a 'price' on freedom.

If you really want to know the price of freedom, shawn - look at the appropriation bill for the War on Terror asked by Bush, subtract the pork put in there by the Democrats.

That would be the current Democrat price for freedom.

Thanks for the permission to call you ignorant.  I only asked if you were ignorant.

You have answered that question in spades.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

LOL, sorry ACA I forgot

LOL, sorry ACA I forgot what Binary meant. "Star Wars, Binary Sunset" Anyways please answer my first question. Are we better off now than when were we were before the invasion? Yes or no. Your the one that is always asking people close ended questions.

I think you might have a different view of cost if you are one of the soldiers that have to be re deployed 2- 3 times or your tour of duty is extended again and again because the army is so stretched thin.

Nice cherry picking about the countries we lost respect to your advantage. No I don't mean Cuba I mean countries like Yes I include France. I also include Canada, Spain, Russia, China and the other Allied countries that helped us fight for freedom in ww2.

If President Bush was so focused on Freedom why did he decide to invade Iraq and not North Korea? Iraq at the time let inpectors into their country, but Bush invaded any way. North Korea on the other hand was like, we are building nukes, I dare you to stop us.? I guess the answer is oil, unless you say otherwise.

I sure don't feel more safer than before we invaded. I will not ague with you about the point about Democrats playing games with War money. I actually agree with you that we should not leave before the job is done.

Are we better off now, with the Iraq invasion?

Are we better off now, with the Iraq invasion?

My answer is an unqualified yes.

Does that deal with the 'binary' aspect enough?

This issue is like the cockroach in the kitchen.  You see one when you open the 'spoon' drawer.  You start putting poison outside the house.  Huh?

<edit - btw - I was one of the soldiers sent by this country's Democrats to a war.  - <end edit>

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Part one....absolutely.  Fun

Part one....absolutely.  Funds and training being invested in security and the general alertness of Americans is a plus.  Much better than the strolling through life everything is roses mentality.

Two, if the military is "stretched thin" as you think you know, how is it that we are completing all our missions and taskings?  And if being deployed multiple times is supposedly having an effect, I'd like to know why our re-enlistment rates for for term soldiers is so high?  We are very effective in re-building the infrasture here, and no, the whole country was not knee deep in running water and electricity before the war.

Three, who gives a crap what France thinks (boy that appeasement thing they got going on there is really working out well for them).

Four, have you not been paying attention to history over the last twenty years?  True, the Iraqi government was "letting" inspectors in, but you forgot to follow that up with how they were being sidelined on inspections for over twelve years and sandbagging.  nK is a saber rattler if you've been paying attention over time.  All they need to do is "promise" something to some former President, get lots of money, food, and fuel and then turn around and do what they want anyhow.  And if your history wasn't selective you would know that nK's nuclear program was springboarded by, well, let's see if you can guess.  The old "invasion for oil" line is pretty played out and I'm not even going to get into that discussion again for the hundreth time (do a NB search to get insight).

You don't feel more safer than before we invaded?  So what was it that was making you feel un-safe then?

My only question to you, and in all seriousness......what exactly are you willing to sacrifice in service of another?

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Under Hussein, suicide bomber

Under Hussein, suicide bombers were unnecessary to the radicals, because Hussein took care of the killing of dissenters himself.

*****

"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello

The swift boaters weren't sme

The swift boaters weren't smearing, they were setting the record straight.  Besides, they weren't acting on behalf of the GOP, they were defending themselves, as veterans, against people like Kerry who called them "baby-killers" and accused them of war crimes.  Talk about smearing!

Everything the Dems and their allies in the press, have been doing, especially lately, is calculated to smear the GOP.  It's what the Libby thing was about, it's what the Gonzales thing is about, it's what all the negativism on the war is about, it's what their meaningless resolutions are about:  It's all they have.

The Libby thing ended w

The Libby thing ended with a guilty verdict mattm. I believe the attorney that convicted Libby was independent council. The Gonzales thing might be him being fired or stepping down to give him face before the month is out. Show me one GOP politition that is solidly behind the AG. They are too scared to stick up for him, they are jumping ship.

...Libby ended with a convict

...Libby ended with a conviction.  So did the Berger trial, yet Berger is wandering around free...  Berger was convicted of an actual crime, whereas the Libby trial was trumped up by the Dems because of an accusation against Cheney's office which turned out to be false: Whether Plame was covert or not is doubtful; plus, it was Armitage, not anyone from the Administration, who leaked her name. 

Libby was convicted merely on contraditing recollections among witnesses.  It's a bogus conviction that will probably be overturned on appeal.

The Libby trial was purely a political ploy to besmirch the Bush administration, whereas the Berger trial was legitimate, and happened after the Clinton administration was no longer in office.

Meanwhile, Land-scam Reid, Cold Cash Jefferson,  DUI P. Kennedy and Yellowcake Wilson, et al...continue to walk free, without so much as a peep from the media, and little or no legal action!

One GOP politician solidly behind the AG? - President Bush.

Get your facts straight next time.

I do have my facts stra

I do have my facts straight mattm. The President had lukewarm support for the AG at the best before his endorsement this morning. Could not wait to to say neener neener huh? There is more at stake now that he is petrified to put Karl Rove and Harriet Miers under oath in front . If there is nothing to hide then he would have no problems doing so. He is using the excuse of not wanting a public spectacle because he has something to hide. You can flame me all you want, but the truth will come out. :)

Also once again you a pointing at a double standard with Berger. Who exactly are you blaming? The justice system. From what I recall the Libby trial started when GOP controlled both chambers and well as Sandy Berger. Is the MSM involved in judical matterss as well? Gee sorry I did not know they had power as well.

Sadamm was a horrible dicta

Sadamm was a horrible dictator and he tortured lots of people but at
least they had running water, no suicide bombers, available food,
electricity and a feeling of relative safety when they went outdoors.

Wow! People who are tortured, but, they have running water, no suicide bombers, available food, electricity, and feel safe! What a great life! Please move there Shawn and share the happiness.

What an absolutely vapid remark!

D


A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.

Hitler was a horrible dicta

Hitler was a horrible dictator and he tortured lots of people but at least they had running water, no suicide bombers, available food, electricity and a feeling of relative safety when they went outdoors. And the trains ran on time.

As to Saddam's lack of "suicide bombers," well he offset those to Israel by paying Palesitinian entity families $35,000 per "martyr.

The answer is socialism. But only if the question is:

"What's the fastest way to impoverish, enslave and destroy people?"

1.)  There have been signifi

1.)  There have been significant increases in Iraq's sewage treatment, and water distribution capabilities in the four years we have been in Iraq.  Prior to our arrival only major cities had clean water.... and only sporadically.

2.)  The presence of suicide bombers only indicates that our enemy is "Shooting Back."  Move on please.  While I was there the Iraqi's did not hold casualties from sucide bombings against the US. They held it against the other factions.  US troops actually are MORE trusted than any of the locals.  Locals tend to prefer US troops provide local security than having others in the role

3.)  There is more electricity being consumed in Iraq now than duirng ANY year of the Saddam Regime.  The recent purchasin gof computers, air conditioners, microwave ovens etc has exponentially increased electricity usage since we have arrived.  In order to make up for this gain, local communities off the grid (And ALWAYS off the GRID during the Saddam Regime) have been purcahsing their own generators.

BD thanks

BD thanks for the update. It is encouraging for me to read some--on site, real time information. I thank you for continuing to do your duty in spite of the fabrications and biased reporting of the major networks and the MSM.

I usually sign in and read the latest blogs lately. I get a little down when  I see the new lefties come in to NB and start the old arguments all over again.

An ugly American is one who does not support his country.

I have to agree here.. re if

I have to agree here.. re if you repeat a lie often enough!! Kind of like; they have WMD's .say it again & again LOL.

Another oldie but a goodie; remember Rumsfeld & Tora Bora. I can still remember the picture of the mountain fortress & here folks on the 6th floor we have the armoury, on the second floor the living quarters etc etc.

There  was not a hole big enough to put my dog down!

 Tell a lie often enough; remember the underground hide aways under Bagdad?

it must have filled itself in!

Tell lies often enough ; the Bush administration has done it in spades.

The sad thing is that the slanted Liberal media bought & broadcast it all..

Who lied about WMD?LOL yours

Who lied about WMD?

LOL yourself.

I don't think anyone lied; I

I don't think anyone lied; I think they stretched the truth to fit what they wanted to do.

I appreciate that, but... 1.

I appreciate that, but...

1. There were WMD, Saddam gased the Kurds...  The WMD were either moved, destroyed or hidden...but their extent was probably exaggerated - especially by Hussein himself.

2. The WMD weren't the main problem, nor were they the only reason for the war. Saddam Hussein's fanatical, terrorist-abetting regime was the problem. 

Whether or not Bush's policy was well advised, is and will always be debatable, but to actively campaign for defeat, especially for merely political "gotcha-ism" is counter-productive.  (Not that that's what you're doing)

bal, I took you for a marri

bal, I took you for a married guy? Every time I "stretch" the truth with my wife, she calls it a LIE!!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

What did they stretch?Was sad

What did they stretch?

Was saddam attempting to acquire weapons?  Yes.

Did Saddam have missiles which were prohibited by agreement?  Yes.

Have binary chemical artillery rounds been found, and even used by Iraqi insurgents?  Yes.

Did they still have staffs planning for the use of such equipment?  Yes.

What is your point again?

Nice try-actually the Pentago

Nice try-actually the Pentagon said that PARTS of the conflict could be described as a "civil war". Yet even when I did a news search on the left-biased Google, I found no reports supporting what you claim. 

Please give us a credible-repeat, credible-link where the Pentagon said what you claimed.

(sound of crickets)

Military.com

In the pacific theatre of W

In the pacific theatre of World War II, there was this women named Tokyo Rose. She would get on the radio and tell the US troups to go home and that the empire of Japan would prevail.

In the USA, we don't need Tokyo Rose, we have our own American media playing that role. I mean I've heard of desperate measures to win a 2008 election but tanking the war. That's just BS. The liberals are playing with the lives of American troups and might be bringing terrorist acts back to our soil again.

ABC,NBC and CBS should be ashamed of themselves. Apparently they are not.

I also love how they bring up

I also love how they bring up how long this war has been going on in comparison to WWII and Korea....  Well we're still in Korea and Germany and Tokyo.  Besides, it's an apples and oranges comparison.  We're not fighting a conventional war against uniformed soldiers of soverign nations, were fighting for a soverign nation (the duly elected government of Iraq) against terrorists who are hell-bent on thwarting the march of freedom and democracy.

It would be nice if the media in this country would join the good guys.

Just what do consider to be &

Just what do consider to be "winning" in Iraq?

Change the subject much? Firs

Change the subject much?

First of all, the actual "war" was "won" within a couple months of its start. Hussein's regime was ended. Since then, we've been attempting to keep the peace, the Iraqis have elected a soverign government and have begun the process of building a democracy. But terrorists (who are encouraged by Leftist naysayers in the media, in Congress and in the blogosphere) are making it difficult - because they, like the Libs, can't afford politically for this policy to succeed. 

Our presence and its increase

Our presence and its increased stability is "WINNING."  And I challenge you to prove to me that we are not gaining stability day by day.  (Warning, two time Iraq vet here....)

Under Saddam thousands were k

Under Saddam thousands were killed over a score or more years.

Since the Invasion & occupation of Iraq ,according to estimates, over 600,000 civilians have died. Is that your idea of stabilization.

Perhaps you are correct as there are less people to stabilize!

42% of Iraqis think things have improved. Two years ago 71% thought things had improved. 42% is  going backwards is it not?

MJB or is it MBJ?

MJB or is it MBJ? I would consider shuttting your mouth and stuffing your attitude as part of winning in Iraq. I am so tired of trolls like you!

An ugly American is one who does not support his country.

Thanks for the link.&quot;Som

Thanks for the link.

"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."

That sums it up pretty much. Although, I am sure some will try to spin this one way or the other. Shouldn't the focus be on establishing victory and not arguing over the pronoucements of politicians and trying to put a name to this conflict?

Wow, longer than WWI and WWII

Wow, longer than WWI and WWII. The problem is the MSM and some of you bloggers here do not realize we are in a fight for the rest of our (yours, mine, everyone's) LIFE. Civilization, as we have come to know and love here in the US, is at stake, and you/they cannot see past the tip of Waxman's nose. Stories on Global warming, Ms. Smith and other nonsense rule the day. Quibbling over whether it’s a civil war or not is idiotic. The MSM has it’s agenda set and their sticking to it. Sad, sad times we live in.

”A cat looks down upon man, a dog looks up to a man, but a pig will look a man in the eye and see his equal.”
- Winston Churchill

If that many people, even i

If that many people, even if not a majority, think it IS "a civil war," things aren't that wonderful, hence the story's not that biased at all. A substantial minority of Iraqis also -- like me -- also think the place would work better under three smaller governments which would better reflect the tribal nature of Iraq. Tito/Saddam-style brutality and a giant, expensive, intrusive state seem like the only way to accomplish forcing Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan to remain "one."
JMR