I see someone else is wondering much the same thing I did the other day. The Anbar Province example is all about propping up, though money and weapons, the Sunni Sheiks who themselves are not part of nor for a general Iraqi democracy. I thought the Bush administration was supposed to be FOR democracy.

Why aren't more people outraged over revelations that we're supporting Sunni insurgents against an elected government? Where are the headlines from all those news outlets that paraded purple-fingered Iraqis before us as demonstration of the war's success? Wasn't promoting democracy Explanation Number Four for why we're in Iraq? Or was that Number Five? ...

Gen. Petraeus denied in his testimony this week that we were arming or funding Sunni insurgents, despite numerous reports to the contrary. But, as Spencer Ackerman points out, one of Petraeus' own generals said otherwise last June. And, while Gen. Petraeus presses the Administration's case against Iran, the stunning fact remains that there is clearer evidence that we're funding insurgents against the al-Maliki government.

CNN reporter Michael Ware says it plainly: "Fears in Baghdad and in America of U.S. troops supporting armed groups opposed to the government are not unfounded." And there's this exchange between Ware and Anderson Cooper:

COOPER: Are these -- these tribal groups willing to work with the central government in Baghdad ... and vice versa?

WARE: The answer is no on both counts, Anderson ... they are opposed to the Maliki government and any government that they believe is beholden to Iranian influence, a belief shared by many within the U.S. mission. So, these are anti-government forces that America is supporting against the government it created. [emphases mine]

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki said in July that the United States is reaching out to "gangs of killers." We're supporting part of the insurgency. So here's the real question for Gen Petraeus:

Is the Insurge working?

These actions speak to a deeper pattern within the Administration, its conservative allies, and their media enablers. All three groups appear to have a deep affection for the rhetoric of democracy, combined with a deep discomfort with the actual workings of the democratic process. Add to that a willingness to do whatever it takes to succeed in their chosen professions, and you have a recipe for disaster.