Case in point: They say the surge is working. They tout how easy it is for Senators to buy cheap rugs in Iraq, how the guys who used to be killing us are now sort of helping us, and how it's even possible for the most protected person in the world to make a top-secret trip to a large military base for a few hours. That's a working surge.
And then...they need to justify allowing our
Now, a normal person would be embarrassed by this conflict. If the country is too dangerous, then the surge really wasn't that effective. And let's not forget that until the "Surge" was ordered, these guys pretended that Iraq was safer than many American cities. A normal person would at least feel the need to explain this apparently conflicting evidence, and should probably plan to retract at least one of these statements before slinking off in shame.
But are our conservatives normal? Hell no. Not only will they not try to explain this difference, they'll go right ahead and combine both parts together and then top it off with a supreme conspiracy theory involving Iran. And thus, while combining conflicting reports about the level of violence in one war, they'll toss in an empty accusation in an attempt to start another war. Simply amazing.
Undermining the Surge
Via Will Bunch at Attytood, we see Pajamas Media nutball Richard Miniter tying the Blackwater incident, the surge, and Iran together in one post; based solely on an "exclusive" anonymous source which said the CIA and State Department activities in Iraq are largely shutdown because Blackwater isn't there to protect them. And that apparently includes some activity in the holy Greenzone.
By apparently lifting Blackwater’s license, the democratically elected Iraq government may stall the forward progress created by the Gen. Petraeus’ surge and change in counterinsurgency tactics. Indeed, some contend that the actions of Iraq’s Ministry of Interior, which supervises police and some intelligence functions, may be influenced by insurgents or even by Iran.
So let's see if I got this right. He's suggesting that this might be part of an Iranian plot to undermine the surge because they knew how dependent we were on the
And really, when you get down to it, they really only "undermined" the surge by showing that it wasn't really all that effective; which doesn't have any actual effect on the surge, but only the surge propaganda. So basically, Iran undermined the surge by undermining what the surge-supporters have been saying about the surge. And these guys think it's a bright idea to tell us about this in a article.
But I'm not even sure how the Iranians got into all this and just see the whole thing unraveling into: Iraq is a scary fucking place where even our CIA guys aren't safe in the Greenzone. So thanks for the head's up, guys, but that's what we've been saying for quite awhile. And let's not forget that Iran's influence in Iraq is a relatively recent event. And I wonder who was to blame for that? Hmm...
But somehow in their puny little minds they imagine they pulled this off. Somewhere, there are satisfied wingnuts thinking "Touche, Iran. You won this round, but now you've just made me angry" or some other childish cliche they picked up from a Steven Seagal movie (and yes, I used the term "thinking" quite loosely).
Oh, and I really liked this little bit of editorializing in what PJ Media clearly is pretending to be objective reporting:
It’s well known in Iraq that dead insurgents become “civilians” as soon as their comrades carry away their AK-47s and spare magazines. Captured al Qaeda manuals detail how militants should use deaths as a propaganda tool.
Yes, and it's well known in America that dead civilians become "insurgents" as soon as Americans kill them. Captured PJ Media manuals detail how faux-reporters crap their pajamas every time a civilian casualty is reported, forcing them to use the deaths as a propaganda tool. (And why they imagined the name "Pajama Media" didn't set them up for easy ridicule is beyond even my comprehension.)
And if you're wondering what the commenters are saying, I'll summarize: Iran is involved and this whole incident was part of a set-up to hurt our efforts in Iraq, which the Dems in Congress are rooting for because they always cheer on America's enemies; even though the only people killed were bad guys. Additionally, Clinton's CIA is a bunch of pansies who don't get anything right, including stuff that happened before Clinton's term and which coincided with what these guys were saying at the time.
Included in the list of CIA blunders are "UFOs". No, I can't explain that one either. Sometimes it's just best to chug the rest of the wine and go to bed. Think I'll do that now.