Mitch: War in Iraq going “extremely well”
Matt Gunterman March 6th, 2007
Bruce Schreiner of the Associated Press has an article this morning on Mitch’s latest take on the troop surge and situation in Iraq and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal. On Iraq, Mitch is, of course, staying the course: hand-in-hand with George W. Bush. The interview reveals a bit more about how Mitch will attempt, over the course of the next year and a half, to compartmentalize developments in Iraq and his own close association with the president to ensure that he can declare his actions wise and justified no matter the eventual outcome in the Middle East.
According to Mitch in regards to the troop surge, “early indications are it’s working,” and the wider operation is going “extremely well.” So, let’s engage in a bit of relativism and take Mitch’s words at face value. To Mitch McConnell, yesterday’s suicide bomb that killed 28, the two explosions that killed 9 American soldiers, and attacks that left 14 more Iraqis dead on Tuesday are indicative that the troop surge is working and things are going extremely well.
It’s hard for us mere mortals to understand, but Mitch would probably argue that you and I simply can’t understand because we’re not privy to all the facts, which are no doubt very similar to Karl Rove’s “the math.” Being privy to all those facts is just another added bonus (on top of the $2 million gifts) of being best chums with the president.
As stated by McConnell, the goal with the troop surge is “getting a capital city quieted down enough to where they can function.” So, as we’ve known for quite some time, the Bush administration’s goal is no longer to create a shining beacon of capitalism and democracy on the Euphrates, it’s simply to make it “function.” And, since “early indications are it’s working,” we can only assume that acts of terror like the ones above are not part of the equation of what will ultimately determine whether the city is functioning. You see, one element of the philosophy of terrorists is to stop freedom-loving societies from functioning. Therefore, by Mitch’s reasoning, if there are terrorist attacks, the society must be functioning; if it wasn’t, insurgents wouldn’t be trying to stop it. That, my friends, is how Mitch McConnell can say, with confidence, that things are going “extremely well.” See how dumb you are.
Mitch does leave the door open for failure, however, but that failure will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqis. Only after we have made the city function with our troop surge will we know if the Iraqis can take over the reins because, “[t]hat will be the point at which we will be able to determine whether they have the will and the capability to govern themselves there in the capital city.” Even though we’ve placed over 20,000 of the nation’s young people in the path of destruction, on top of the tens of thousands already there, we’re not quite certain that the Iraqis are up to the task of self-governance, and according to Mitch, that’s not an American problem. It’s an Iraqi problem. Comforting to know, isn’t it?
- Iraq War , Mitch McConnell
- Comments(2)
I just don’t think that Senator McConnell cares about the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I believe he feels he can do what he wants so long as he continues to get federal funding projects around the Commonwealth. He is not a Senator for our Commonwealth, he’s a Senator for himself. Hopefully sites like this will educate voters that McConnell is not their Senator, but political money’s Senator.
The Bruce Schreiner article link isn’t working.
Yeah, obviously McConnell is trying to make Iraq Obama’s failure if the civil war restarts just like how Steele was trying to claim Afghanistan was a war of Obama’s choosing. The amazing thing to me is how Republicans can assume the Bush administration shouldn’t take most of the blame seeing how much they claimed it would be easy to stabilise Iraq and have Disneyland in Iraq. The fact is the neoconservatives had absolutely no idea how to re-establish self-governance after destroying it and the Bush administration didn’t even want to establish a real democratic regime with a popular vote until the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani demanded it (because they had greedily and selfishly preplanned a de facto autocratic regime to do favors for their corporate campaign contributors). And it was after THAT when the Bush administration claimed a democratic election would help curb the civil war. Ironic, isn’t it?