Thursday, October 19, 2006

The War Is Going Well, Except The Part That's Going Poorly

Hello Thursday readers. We're coming to you today from the Department of the Painfully Obvious here at IM Central. Take it away Pentagon spokesperson:

The two-month-old U.S.-Iraqi bid to crush violence in the Iraqi capital has not met "overall expectations," as attacks in Baghdad rose by 22 percent in the first three weeks of Ramadan, the U.S. military spokesman said.

Hmm...We set out to "crush" violence. It goes up by 22 percent. Jeez, what were our expectations Mr Pentagon spokesperson? "Well, we were hoping to reduce the gunfire enough for us to get to the airport and get the heck out of Dodge, if you get my drift."

The gloomy assessment of the operation, which began Aug. 7 with the deployment of an extra 12,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops, was issued at a time of perceived tension between the United States and the nearly five-month-old government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "Look. We invaded the country, wrecked the infrastructure and set off a civil war," said White House Press Secretary Tony Snowjob. "Then we give the countrty back to the Iraqis. Now they're all whinning about 'Oh, we can't stop the car bombs,' or 'Oh, where's our electricity,' ungrateful twits."

Witnesses in Ramadi confirmed that masked gunmen staged a military-like parade, carrying banners exhorting people to support an Islamic state in Iraq announced by a militant group. They said mosques in the city used loudspeakers to rally support for the new state. Insurgents are not known to control any territory. However, the Ramadi parade pointed to their growing confidence in a city where U.S. and Iraqi forces have a heavy presence.

Asked how this could happen in a city where there was a supposed "heavy" presence by American forces, Snowjob said that by "heavy, we mean that's where we send the fat soldiers."

Bush was asked in an ABC News interview whether he agreed with an opinion by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that the current violence in Iraq was the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive. "Daddy kept me out of that war," the president replied. "But there's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election so I wish those rag heads would just admit they're beaten, or we could lose the House."

White House spokesman Tony Snowjob said the president was not trying to say that it was the turning point in Iraq, as the Tet offensive has come to symbolize for Vietnam. "The guy's on medication, OK?" Snowjob told reporters. "Sometimes I wonder why Cheney lets him talk at all."

Bush has taken a more flexible tone on Iraq, saying he is open to adjusting policy, as the November 7 elections approach with his Republican Party facing the possibility of losing control of the U.S. Congress over an unpopular war. "We can stay the course a little faster, or a little slower," Bush said. "I'm all about changing with the times."

Bush has maintained that Iraq is not embroiled in civil war and continues to insist that U.S. troops will not leave until Iraqis can take over security for their country. "Well, where are the slaves," the president asked. "How can you have a civil war without the slaves? And Ken Burns. How can you have a civil war without him? That's all I'm saying."

"Look, here's how I view it," Bush said. "First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw," he said. "Yeah. Like the people matter. What is this a democracy or something? Goofy Arabs."

PS: Our rummaging around in the blog closet yesterday also turned up a link to this blog. Now, this is the blog of Mrs. Coyote Mercury, and a very classy one it is too. Oh, not that yours isn't classy too James...we just meant...umm...Oh look at the time...gotta go.

No comments: