Did anyone else notice the Dems, intellectual dishonesty last night??

Question

Last night after the Bush speech, the dems responded. In their response, they REPEATEDLY called the violence in Iraq a "Civil War". Look, I'm all for a fair debate on the subject, but when you start thowing out false characterizations, it just throws debate out the window.

I DO agree that it is possible for Iraq to decend into a Civil War eventually, but to call it that now is either IGNORANT, or DIHONEST. Which is it Dems, or would you like to retract that characterization and resume an intellectual debate on the topic?

Answer 1

What would you call two opposing forces fighting for control of a country? a disagreement, a squabble?

Answer 2

I am not a Democrat, but a moderate Independent. I, like many others, know the definitive meaning of the term civil war. If what is happening in Iraq is not civil war then every definition of it needs to be changed. How do you call the term a false characterization? How does the following not apply to Iraq?:

Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/civil%20war

NOUN: 1. A war between factions or regions of the same country. 2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization

http://www.bartleby.com/61/89/C0378900.html

civil war noun [C]
a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=13755&dict=CALD

Just because the President does not want to use the term "civil war" doesn't change the fact that there is clearly one going on in Iraq. It's a strong term, and just adds to the concept of our failure in Iraq, that's the only reason he resists using it. So, for the sake of intellectual debate, let's stop playing games and call a duck a duck. Because it sure is walking and quacking like one.

Answer 3

It's more of a jihad than a civil war. Two factions of the same religion are at each other's throats constantly. The dems didn't call what was going on in Ireland for 100 years a civil war but, you know, anything to bash the President works for them. There's no low that they won't stoop to.

Answer 4

No,but noticed bushes didhonesty! If you agree with not just dems but most of the nation than why would you want to send more troops into a war even you think we might not win!

Answer 5

Iraqi vs. Iraqi. Same country, same people. It is a civil war! What Bush need to do is listen to the Americans instead of listen to Maliki. He rather do what Maliki wants instead of what the people of United States told him on November 7; a clear opposition to this war.

Answer 6

"Civil war" sells better to their followers than the truth.

But I don't recall the Dems in power being the most honest bunch, any one recall the whole "I did not have sex with that woman" moment, or the "I don't know how all that money ended up in my freezer." incident?

They are trying to sell this thing to the "Cindy Sheehans" of this country, so things like honesty wont fly.

Answer 7

I noticed a bunch of republican chicken hawks
babling like they did before 2006 elections

Answer 8

I did notice Bush teeling the truth for the first time....