Sunday, December 10, 2006

Which Iraq have they been studying, anyway?

You have to wonder just which planet someone is standing on when they make recommendations like
This support structure should include every country that has an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran and Syria among them.
What color is the sky in their world? Who do they think have been the major contributors to a chaotic Iraq?

Oh, well. These are the jokes, folks...

10 comments:

pdb said...

I think the most damning thing about the ISG report is that Iran's President Alamlaba-ba-barbraann is in favor of it.

Art Eatman said...

I'da writ sumpn, but I gotta go out and throw up.

Art

jesperskibbey said...

Tam,

We should throw out the results of this Iraq study as unpalatable, and commission a new study that has a more pleasing conclusion, with recommendations that make us feel good about the situation.

It should contain the following findings:

1. We are winning in Iraq.
2. The mounting attacks and sense of failure are the result of a persistant liberal media bias.
3. The election results did cause a blip in attacks because, because, as we all know:
4. Democrats are the terrorists best friends. It's true, most Democrats (Moonbats) speak fluent Arabic and have dark skin. (they even have a Muslim elected official ~ is that legal?)
5. The combined media bias and Democrat-led treason in conjunction with a religion where everyone is crazy is causing a one-sided holy war against the West. All that is good, pure and holy in this world is at stake.

Solutions:

I. Elect a Republican Congress - Forever!
II. Declare the Bush family the Imperial Family of America. If we don't western civilization is doomed.
III. Don't pull out of Iraq, we are just getting warmed up. Wait 'til we bring in the Nukes!
IV. Yank the cable on all liberal media. Pass all media content through Whitehouse PR for approval.
V. Outlaw Islam - Globally.
VI. Include France in the Axis of Evil.
VII. Ban: anti-war protests, flag burning, anti-American speech, Cindy Sheehan, The Clintons (yes, Chelsea too), Michael Moore, Democrat-led Congressional Hearings, gay marriage, tofu, hookah bars and hybrid cars.

After doing the above, we have to be patient, as the "War on Terror" will take quite a while to pan out. While being patient, no one is allowed to ask questions or vote for a Democrat, or the enemy might think we have lost our resolve (see 2, 3 and 4 above).

Jesper

Anonymous said...

I just don't understand how a Saudi-paid lobbyist (Baker) could be on such a committee
Farmist

Tam said...

Jesper,

What are you? Some kind of wingnut?

You do agree that to claim that the two nations who have done the most to support Iraqi insurgents have a vested interest in a stable Iraq is the height of either fatuousness or naievity, no?

Iran has an interest in a stable Iraq in much the same way that Himmler had an interest in a stable Jewish population in Germany.

Kevin said...

Ooooh! Oooh! Can I play?

1. We are winning in Iraq.

We're not losing. The only way we lose is if we give up and leave the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of the people who are blowing them up and beheading them.

Like we did to the South Vietnamese and Cambodians.

2. The mounting attacks and sense of failure are the result of a persistant liberal media bias.

Actually, you're not far off there. Why is it that the media is interested in only the blood and viscera? Why is there almost never any reporting of the things going well in Iraq? (See Michael Fumento.) Surely you don't think that nothing good is going on over there? The "insurgency" is playing the media like a violin. If you want another comparison to Vietnam, there you go. The Tet offensive basically destroyed the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army, but Uncle Walter said it was over... so it was over.

3. The election results did cause a blip in attacks because, because, as we all know:
4. Democrats are the terrorists best friends.


They're the ones who've been screaming "QUAGMIRE!" since the first boot hit the ground in Afghanistan, no?

It's true, most Democrats (Moonbats) speak fluent Arabic and have dark skin. (they even have a Muslim elected official ~ is that legal?)

Now, now. They don't have to speak the language or even be "little brown people." They just have to surrender to them.

5. The combined media bias and Democrat-led treason in conjunction with a religion where everyone is crazy is causing a one-sided holy war against the West. All that is good, pure and holy in this world is at stake.

The Holy War against the West has been in existence for decades. It's being carried out by a relatively small percentage of the Muslim faithful, but when there are a BILLION faithful, a "small percentage" represents a significant number. Especially when they're well financed and supported by their less enthusiastic breathren. What's at stake is what actual liberals ought to care about: individual liberty. Tolerance. Freedom to choose. Equality for women.

These people are convinced that the entire world will be under Sharia law, and anything they have to do to accomplish this is A-OK - including killing others of their own faith.

You may not have a problem with suicide bombers coming to the U.S. to expand the war, but I do. The Democrats seem to pooh-pooh the idea.

Let's see what the next couple of years brings.

Oh, and if we pull out of Iraq and the retaliatory massacres over there ramp up to make what's going on now look like a weekend in the park, whose fault will that be?

Oh, right: Bush's. It's all his fault. Always was.

Must be nice living in a world where the answers are so easy.

jesperskibbey said...

Tam,

I'm a mouse dammit, not a wingnut!

I claim nothing except that invading Iraq in order to build a democracy was the height of either fatuousness or naievity.

Jesper

Tam said...

I thought you just said we should stay in Iraq indefinitely and bring in nukes?

That's pretty wingnutty.

I was just pointing out that claiming that Iran and Syria were interested in an unchaotic Iraq when they've been actively fomenting the chaos is kinda silly. How you extrapolated all that other twaddle from that simple statement is indicative of a bizarrely binary thought process: "If Person A says B, then they must also believe C, D, and E."

Whatever...

Tam said...

Oh, and lay off the 'roids; kids look up to you as a role model.

jesperskibbey said...

Tam,

I agree, its wingnutty.

That satire is a collection of suggestions that I had read on the gun boards over the last several months except for several points including Hookah Bars, which rhymed nicely with hybrid cars.

Jesper Skibbey was my parent’s housecat from 1989-1994, named so by my sister after I spent a summer racing bikes with a Danish kid who worshiped the real Jesper. He got to the point that he could not utter a sentence without the words "Jesper Skibbey" in it. His other hero was a pro named Bo Hamburger, which is actually a better name for a cat in my opinion.

I am fairly certain that Jesper housecat never touched the juice. I didn’t either for that matter. It was a tough decision to make, giving up on my dreams because other people cheated and I was not willing to.

Jesper Skibbey