There were other times the White House attempted to paint the chaos in Iraq in a positive light. Remember when US armed forces annihilated Saddam's wretched sons Oday and Qusay? Or how about when they captured Saddam and promised things were starting to look up? At best these token events only served as minor diversions for most of the US media, not unlike the alleged thwarting of a terrorist attack on the Holland Tunnel in New York late last week.
On June 6, shortly before Zarqawi's death, the infamous blogger behind "Baghdad Burning" reported; "There's an ethnic cleansing in progress and it's impossible to deny. People are being killed according to their ID card ... We hear about Shia being killed in the 'Sunni triangle' and corpses of Sunnis named 'Omar' (a Sunni name) arriving by the dozen at the Baghdad morgue. I never thought I'd actually miss the car bombs. At least a car bomb is indiscriminate. It doesn't seek you out because you're Sunni or Shia."
Unfortunately, political opposition to the war is weak here in the United States. Washington supports an ongoing occupation, if it can even be called such a thing these days. Dissent is all but dead in DC, where candidates so-often flex their foreign policy muscle in fear that they'll be looked at as soft on terror.
But how could anyone reasonably argue that things were worse with Saddam at the helm? Iraq under US control is far more violent and malicious. Not that the US has any sort of legitimate control over the large country. In fact, the US is now just one of many armed militias in Iraq, truly unable to contain the exponentially increasing sectarian warfare. Every reservation critics of the war put on the table before the invasion is now coming true. Iraq is unwinnable, and the bloodshed is only being exacerbated by the presence of US military.