the much ballyhooed iraqi 'civil war'

doomsaying predictions of 'all-out' civil war abound. while one pessimist assigned a 'civil war' label about a year and a half ago (less than a month ofter iraqis assumed sovereignty, and before 3 elections), the negative conventional wisdom remained a bit slower [bugmenot login] to galvanize.

a meet the press roundtable [search 'roundtable'] (with the typical MSM idealogical balance) just 2 weeks before the dec15 elections, during which the washington post's eugene robinson falsely claimed a bush promise of "athenian democracy"
[btw, i don't think he truly knows what that means...we don't really have it here...and when the closest thing to it happens, it's easily undercut by special interests [bugmenot login]
assigned terms like 'mess' and 'disaster' without a single mention of iraqi elections [search 'election' during the roundtable to find no such reference], with robinson suggesting a split iraq as a 'best idea'

MR. ROBINSON: But, you know, I'm not sure that the idea of maintaining a unitary Iraq is necessarily the best idea. I mean, is that ever going to work? Is Iraq ever going to be a stable polity, a stable country? And I'm not sure that it is, absent the sort of tyrannical rule that Saddam Hussein had imposed. I mean, you have the Kurds in the north, who see themselves as part of a larger kind of transnational, persecuted minority. You have the Shiites in the south, who see themselves ditto, as part of a larger, transnational persecuted minority. You've got the Sunnis in the middle, who used to run the country, who don't anymore. Is that a country? Can we leave that as a unified country? I'm not certain.

seriously...
fortunately these doomsayers may prove wrong as sunni and kurdish factions appear to have brokered a deal to cooperate in the newly formed government.

i guess progress in iraq doesn't make for good MSM product...