Update on Iraq: file under idiocy.

Bush's Iraq Adventure is turning out worse than anyone could have expected...unless of course you count the millions of people worldwide who filled the streets protesting against an unnecessary and illegal war of aggression prior to its beginning. Unless you count the non-mainstream media that continually debunked Bush's allegations, but were all but drowned out by the deafening stomp of the war drums being beaten by the mainstream media.

Those who argued that the Iraq Adventure would be a mistake were repeatedly cast as "Pro-Saddam" or "Pro-Terrorist," when it was clear then and it has become increasingly clear even to most of the sideline cheerleaders that toppling Saddam had nothing to do with anti-terrorist efforts and was in fact more likely to increase rather than decrease terrorism -- esp. the kind that cloaks itself in the guise of religious fundamentalism. At the start of Bush's Iraq Adventure, Saddam Hussein was a paper tiger, a dictator whose control was undermined by weapons inspectors and no-fly zones; a has-been whose greatest war crimes had been conducted with the logistical and financial assistance of the United States.

However, the Iraq Adventure has been a success for two distinct groups: Haliburton and other war profiteers AND al-Qaeda, who has seen its profile raised to new levels by Bush's boondoggle.

Proving that he is ever more out of touch with reality (and perhaps heavily medicated as well), President Bush continues to deny that Iraq is now in or approaching civil war. Our Dear Leader pulled his head out of the sand long enough to issue this statement:

"There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal," he said.

Bush said slain Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had wanted to stir up trouble between Iraq's Shiite majority community and the Sunnis favored by Saddam Hussein.

He traced an increase in violence to the February bombing of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra, north of Baghdad, saying: "We've been in this phase for a while."

Really? So sustained sectarian violence, where one group of people are killing another group of people and vice versa within the same country, does not create a civil war? How about what is nearly universally known as Lebanon's Civil War? Maybe Bush is a stickler and doesn't accept that there's a civil war unless there's a formal declaration of seccession and something called a "Confederate States of Iraq" set up with Jefferson al-Davis as President.

Or maybe he's just stupid.

From today's Post:
Kofi Annan says Iraq civil war is imminent
Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, Bleaker

Here's the lead of the second article:

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

Let us not forget that the Post and other news organizations refused to investigate Bush's claims prior to the war or give credence to any war critics; let us not forget that Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities to oversee the nation's descent into war when it -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- issued Bush a blank check in Iraq.

Shameful.