Bull$#!T Meter In The Red



According to the Tony Snow White House Definition of "civil war," the US did not have one in the 1860's:

Q Well, my question now is, what is the definition of the White House of the words "civil war?"

MR. SNOW: That's an interesting question, and there's no clear answer to it, because the one thing -- I spent a lot of time thinking about this last week, and I'm not sure you get any two people to agree. For instance, if a civil war is a situation in which you have two clearly identified organizations with clearly identified leadership, both actively soliciting support from the populace and fighting over territory, authority and legitimacy -- it probably doesn't apply. If you have as your definition of a civil war something that involves the entire land mass -- north, south, east and west -- doesn't apply. But some people think the sectarian violence you've seen -- centered largely around Baghdad, and you also have some terrorist activity in Anbar, a considerable amount -- they think that is civil war. So it depends on which metrics you use for doing it. And frankly, I gave up on trying because there are any number of people who have different measurements.

In describing the consequences of their actions, the White House has gone from "spin," to "denial," and is now feeding us "bullshit." If George Bush broke a vase, Tony Snow would argue it wasn't broken:

"If 'broken' is a situation in none of the components in their most recent configuration could be employed for a useful purpose -- it probably doesn't apply."

Posted: Wed - December 6, 2006 at 04:46 AM        

©