It looks like NBC is moving further and further to the extreme liberal side of things, because on Monday morning Matt Lauer took it upon himself to declare that Iraq was in a civil war:

For months the White House rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war. For the most part news organizations like NBC hesitated to characterize it as such. After careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted and what is going on in Iraq can now be characteritized as civil war.

Why not let the people of Iraq decide whether or not they have a civil war, using the tools of democracy that we just gave them? Why should the liberal American media make those decisions for the Iraqi people when they can do it for themselves these days in a good old fashioned election or telephone survey?

And then there was this:

Matt Lauer: The White House objects to the terminology that NBC News is now using, and here is part of the statement that they’ve released: ‘While the situation on the ground is very serious, neither Prime Minister Maliki nor we believe that Iraq is in a civil war.’ It goes on to say that ‘the violence is largely centered around Baghdad, and Baghdad security and the increased training of Iraqi security forces is at the top of the agenda when President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki meet later this week in Jordan. What about that idea, General, that the violence is primarily centered in Baghdad, that the country hasn’t erupted into all-out civil war?

Gen. Barry McCaffrey: I think a lot of that is nonsense. Baghdad is 25 percent of the population of the country. It’s the central battlefield.

Ok, but here you guys are out and out saying that it’s only in 25% of the country, which obviously means that it’s not in the other 75% of Iraq! Wouldn’t a real civil war have to take over the whole country?

Anyway, it’s a pretty laughable thing for NBC to try to claim, and so it’s almost not worth pointing out, except that the rest of the liberal media is just letting it slide of course when they should be confronting NBC about their lies and manipulation of the truth.

If you want to see how low the liberal media will stoop to get a shot at President Bush in, just take a look at this. ABC News decided that rumors and pointless stories about the Bush daughters vacationing in Buenos Aires was newsworthy enough to publish on their site.

Amid a growing barrage of front-page headlines, U.S. embassy officials “strongly suggested” President Bush’s twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara Bush, cut short their trip to Buenos Aires because of security issues, U.S. diplomatic and security sources tell ABC News.

But the girls have stayed on, celebrating their 25th birthday over the weekend and producing even more headlines about their activities.

Yeah, headlines in the muckraking liberal media that only cares what they do because they can use it to indirectly attack our president. And all this during a time of war.

Stories of the twins’ visit took on wild proportions in the Argentinean press. One tabloid headline had the young women running nude in the hallway of their hotel, a report the hotel staff denied to ABC News.

And so what if the Bush girls were running around naked? Isn’t that their right? Shouldn’t everyone get their wild streak out of the way before getting into politics or whatever it is they want to do with their lives? If President Bush hadn’t done his alcohol and cocaine use early in life, would he be able to run this country with such a clear head today? Isn’t there the possibility that he’d start experimenting with alcohol and drugs today while being President? I don’t think anyone wants that.

We should be encouraging Jenna Bush and Barbara Bush (the young one, not the old one) to be getting wild and naked and doing drugs. How else will they get that out of their system and be able to be good Senators or First Ladies or whatever they’re planning on being?

But no, the extreme liberal media, in this case ABC News, keeps trying to make them sound like bad people:

And yesterday the Bush twins were spotted at the Sunday soccer matches, wearing team jerseys and sitting in the owner’s box, watching Argentina’s top team Boca Juniors compete. Several games have been canceled due to violence in the crowds this year. In fact, last weekend no spectators were allowed to attend the match other than season ticket holders.

Oh no, so they went to a soccer game where they could have wound up in some little scuffles or violence? Who cares? Let them do what they want, and stop trying to attack the President through these poor helpless girls. Shame on you, ABC News.

Wasn’t it just before Election Day that the Democrats were claiming that they weren’t the cut and run types, and that everything would work out perfectly in Iraq if only we’d follow them and do what they said and vote for them?

Well now that people have voted for them, it looks like they’re changing their minds:

BREITBART.COM - Emboldened Democrats to Urge Iraq Exit

The Bush administration must tell Iraq that U.S. troops will begin withdrawing in four to six months, the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Wednesday, as Congress began re- examining U.S. policy in the wake of last week’s Democratic election victory.

“We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said at the outset of a hearing featuring the top U.S. commander in the Middle East.

Great.  And this guy is the next chairman of the Armed Services Committee?  Now do you people see what voting for the Democrats has done?  You’ve plunged the whole world into chaos and terrorism.

On the plus side, at least this means that the Republicans can take over again at the next election.  That’s if America survives two years without being nuked out of existance by the Islamic terrorists that are going to be taking advantage of this opportunity.

I’m sorry if I haven’t written anything here for a while. Other things got in the way, and then the midterm elections a few weeks ago…well I’d rather not think about them. What a depressing thing they were.

But even the liberal media has their own weird spin on what the elections meant. It was pretty clear that the liberals had brainwashed America into following them into their hellish vision of America where the terrorists win and the rest of the world crumbles under dictatorships and all that. But the liberal media is spinning it differently:

It used to be an accepted fact of political life: Elections are won in the center.

Democrats had to move right and Republicans to the left after clinching their party nominations because most Americans are wary of ideologues.

That CW got scrambled by Karl Rove’s hard-edged, play-to-the-base, govern-with-51 percent strategy, echoed by House Republicans who basically cut the Dems out of any meaningful role rather than seeking to peel off like-minded members to build coalitions.

Now, though, could the middle be making a comeback? The Democrats won in large measure by capturing swing voters turned off by the war and the GOP. Rahm Emanuel, rather than applying litmus tests, recruited lots of moderate-to-conservative Democrats who won in red territory. These new members oppose abortion and gun control and are not likely to be big spenders or taxers.

Ok so they’re trying to make it sound like the Democrats only won by appealing to the middle, which is weird. Why would the liberal media say something like that that makes it sound like America isn’t as liberal after all, no matter what the election results show? You know they have to be up to no good with a weird strategy like that, but I cant figure out what it is.

If anyone of you can figure it out, let me know in the comments. Its troubling and something we should be watching out for but I don’t know what it all means.