Yeah, Right!

Mr Bush is denying Iraq's former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi comments that Iraq is in a state civil war.

George hasn't had a great track record wrt Iraq. On this occasion I'm inclined to agree with him.
Iraq is not in a state of civil war: that requires civilian participation.
Iraq is in a state of anarchy, although I doubt Iraqis caught up in this mess will notice the difference.

Also, on defending his pal Rumsfeld, Bush claims that any war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy.

The problem is that this mess arose because Rummy didn't *have* a plan after the actual invasion. And I haven't heard much of one in the last three years.

It's no longer a matter of who's to blame but who's to move forward. Maybe it's time to let someone who does have a clue have a go?

One final snark from that post:
"I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong... No president wants war."

Well, Mr. Bush, all I can say is you're no president and there is no assumption! The Downing Street memos (July 23, 2002) have caught you out here in a blatant lie!...

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."