But while I have your attention, something else happened Saturday night which proves the Iraq War to be a colossal and bloody (19,000 American casualties!) failure.
The Bush administration has used the terrorist threat not only as an excuse to continue the war but also as a means to keep easily spooked Americans in a state of perpetual incontinence. And while I'm on the cowardly ooga-booga thread, Bush cult members have been crowing about how it's no coincidence that there hasn't been an Islamic terror attack on American soil since 9/11.
Question: how, then, did we manage almost 230 years without an Islamic terror attack on our soil BEFORE September the 11th? But we're supposed to believe that even though the 9/11 Commission gave the Bush's government an 'F' for prevention, Bush is still the man to keep us safe. And in unison, the Bush apologists reading this post rush to the comments section below -- ears emitting bursts of steam, and drool short-circuiting their keyboards -- to post, "Yeah, well, you're a moonbat lib bat moon!"
If he's the great protector everyone claims he is, why then has he invaded Iraq thus creating a chain reaction leading to the rule of an insurgent puppetmaster with ties to the Iranian government?
The New York Times reported today that Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr is controlling the political process in Baghdad. You might recall al-Sadr. He led the 2004 Mahdi Army insurgent attacks against U.S. forces, one of the bloodiest offensives against our troops since Bush declared "bring 'em on."
Saturday night, while Cheney enjoyed a plate of huevos rancheros after shooting his friend in the face, an operative for al-Sadr made a call to an Iraqi official connected to the election of the new prime minister and said, "There's going to be a civil war among the Shia [unless Sadr's candidate is elected]."
The next day, Sunday -- the day of a thousand Cheney Fudd images -- Ibrahim al-Jaafari was confirmed as the new prime minister of Iraq. By one vote. Sadr's candidate of choice. The Times quoted a western official who said, "Jaafari could not have been elected without Sadr's support."
That was easy. One call and his guy is confirmed. That's power.
How does President Bush expect to defeat the terrorists and insurgency in Iraq if the insurgents are controlling the government? Dumb question. I don't think he ever expected to win in Iraq. It was a purely political war waged for all the wrong reasons -- on lies and without any sort of plan for victory what-so-ever.
So what do we do if al-Sadr and Iran are controlling Iraq? We could force another regime change. We're fighting an insurgency which is now shaping the government, so in a way the only path to defeating the insurgency is to decapitate the government. When is an insurgent no longer and insurgent? When he becomes a politician.
Al-Sadr might not become Iraq's Ayatollah anytime soon, but he doesn't need to be. He can hang out in the shadows calling the shots and avoiding direct accountability. He can shape the theocratic landscape of Iraq with the financial and military backing of powerful and zealous supporters. Kind of like an Iraqi version of Dick Cheney.
The only solution is John Murtha's solution. Redeploy elsewhere and keep an eye on things. Meanwhile, our military seems to be growing closer and closer to fighting terrorists as well as an insurgency which has quietly taken control of the government.
CORRECTION: I neglected to note the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. However, we weren't attacked for a span of eight years -- the entire Clinton administration. We went without an attack for eight years under a democratic president. Shock horror! Bottom line, Bush resisted the creation of Homeland Security (a Clinton administration idea) and he stonewalled the 9/11 Commission and continues to ignore its recommendations. And you feel safer under this guy?
Besides, according to Foreign Policy magazine, your odds of dying in a terrorist attack on American soil are 1 in 88,000. According to the same study, you're more likely to die from a fall off a ladder than you are from a terrorist attack.
A Live Science study concluded you're more likely to be struck by lightning (1 in 83,930) or legally executed (1 in 58,618). Your odds of committing suicide are 1 in 121. You're more likely to kill yourself than to be killed by a terrorist! Cancer is the second deadliest threat to you, yet Bush/Cheney has relaxed rules against spewing cancer-causing chemicals into your air and water.
So based on the odds, where the shit is the Global War on Ladders and Lightning?
But okay -- if you want to be so easily and hysterically frightened just because Bush and Cheney say so... enjoy! Just keep your fear to yourself and leave everyone else's civil liberties alone.