It's Normandy! It's The Alamo! It's Vietnam...No Wait

Just so you know, the president is very unhappy with your response to his war. So unhappy in fact that he has taken time off from his vacation to remind you, once again, why blowing things up and killing people is the way to spread democracy.

I mean come on, didn't we find the WMD? Ok, forget that. Didn't we build a democratic Iraqi state? Ok, forget that. Didn't we smash one of the legs of the axis of evil? Oh wait, that's Iran. Didn't we get rid of Saddam? Yeah. That's what we're talking about. So Long Saddam, you corrupt, brutal dictator. We're replacing you with an Islamic Republic closely allied to Iran.

Senior aides say Bush will attempt to portray the Iraq conflict in the context of popular wars like World War II. "You know, funny story there," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "When the president first suggested comparing this war to WW II we said that's probably not a good idea. In WW II we fought dictatorial governments bent on world domination. In Iraq we're chasing a bunch of fundamentalist crazies. It's more like when we went after Pancho Villa, but the president though that would irritate the hispanic vote, so here we are."

The president also will invoke the September 11, 2001, attacks, which he does at least 12 times a day, arguing once again that the insurgents battling American troops in Iraq share the same diet as the al Qaeda operatives who crashed hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field. "Plus they're all brown," McClellan added.

In a previous attempt to boost sagging support for the war, the president delivered a prime-time, nationally televised address. When asked if he would request air time again McClellan responded, "No. Last time we found out American Idol is more popular than the president."

"Our mission in Iraq is clear: We're ruining the capability of our military. We're helping fundamentalist nut jobs build a pool of recruits that will last for the foreseeable future," Bush said in June.

"We're advancing the return of the 13th century in the broader Middle East. We are removing an obstacle to our oils fields...er...I mean to the free flow of oil, and laying the foundation for violence abroad and hard times at home for our children and our grandchildren."

The 9/11 commission's report, issued in July 2004, found no evidence that Iraq had any operational relationship with al Qaeda. "I'll say it again," McClellan responded. "They're all brown. And let me add, not Christians. Christians wouldn't do this."

Meanwhile, some congressional Republicans have raised questions about the progress of the war. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told ABC's "This Week" that "'stay the course' is not a policy. Look, we've known all along that Bush wasn't the brightest penny in the jar, but if a little war was the cost of us getting total control of all three branches of government we were willing to go along, but this guy is such a royal ditz that we've got to drop him or we won't even be able to elect a dogcatcher."

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told "Fox News Sunday": "Nobody wants to admit we really screwed the pooch on this, but people are concerned. It's gone on longer than we thought. The violence is larger than we thought it would be. It's like a war or something. What's up with that? Nobody expected it."

A bipartisan group of House members and Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, have proposed a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq "as soon as we can gas up the planes. We just declare victory and go home, like we did in Vietnam," Feingold said. "Who will know the difference? Iraq was already screwed up when we got there."

The administration opposes the plan, arguing that a timetable would simply let the insurgents wait out U.S. troops. "See, we had a timetable for the vote, and a timetable for the constitution and neither one of those meant a rat's behind, so we're like, done with timetables. Know what I mean?" said McClellan.