In describing what it calls "a great democratic experiment," today's WSJ editorial -- always an adventure in fantastic "reason" -- states, "the Iraqis are where we want them to be: divided on critical matters of politics and faith."

Uh, OK, so it's a good thing over 1800 U.S. soldiers are dead so that we can "experiment" and we should applaud the fact Iraqis are at odds with each other. Come again....? The editorial goes on to guess that "the odds are still very good" that the country won't succumb to civil war.

Meanwhile, John Burns, "a veteran reporter who’s been in Baghdad since well before the invasion, and whose reporting has been widely acclaimed for its accuracy and balance," portrays quite a different picture. He has written that civil war in Iraq may have already started and that U.S. troops could get caught-up in the crossfire. In addition, our new ambassador to Iraq (Khalilzad) has stated the insurgents want civil war.

Which portrayal are you going to believe? I'm certainly not going with the nearly laughable Journal opinion page, which seems to have authors that are living on another planet. Their credibility has long been a lost cause.