Fair and Balanced...
as long as you agree with us.


January 13, 2007

Bush feels 3,000 dead not nearly enough, wants 21,000 more

WASHINGTON (GamaWire) - Not sensing that 3,000 U.S. soldiers were enough of a sacrifice before admitting failure, Substitute President Bush announced plans on Wednesday to send as many as 21,500 more troops into Iraq in a twisted, backwards attempt to help "hasten the day our troops begin coming home."

Bushface's announcement came as public support for the unjust war was at an all-time low. An AP-Ipsos poll this week found that only 29 percent of Americans approved of his handling of Iraq, with 68 percent disapproving. In fact, during the uncomfortable twenty-minute, prime-time address from the White House library, the sounds of protesters amassed outside the compound's fortress-like gates occasionally filtered through.

"Those are just, um, woodpeckers," he shrugged, unsure of himself. "Yeah, them darn old 'peckers."

Bushface refused to entertain congressional Democrats' calls to end the unpopular, lie-based war. He said that "to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale...and I only like mass killings on an imaginable scale." He also refused to explain exactly why he believes that would be the case or why he doesn't feel that the country is already torn apart due to his invasion.

"If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Bushface said. Soft numbers indicate that this would be the ninety-eighth "crucial moment" to turn the war around since he started bombing the country over unclear reasons in March 2003.

After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bushface's last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion. Bushface promises that this is only the beginning.

During the address, he warned Americans to expect many more U.S. casualties for now. He also did not specify how long the additional troops would stay.

"Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties," he explained. "The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will." Once again, he refused to articulate exactly why he believes this.

Bushface's blueprint would boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, now at 132,000, to 153,500 at a cost of $5.6 billion. The latest increase calls for sending 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad, with the first of five brigades arriving by Monday. The next would arrive by Feb. 15 and the remaining would come in thirty-day increments. Bushface also committed 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters.

Even before the address, the new Democratic leaders of Congress emphasized their opposition to a buildup. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after meeting with Bushface. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."

There was criticism from Republicans, as well. "This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran and potential GOP presidential candidate. Other Republican senators who are against a troop increase include Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, George Voinovich of Ohio, and John Warner of Virginia.

Not surprisingly, Bushface's only major support came from Sen. John McCain, the wormy Arizona Republican who's recently changed his moderate tune to appeal to his leader's right-wing base in the hope of snaring the 2008 presidential nomination. McCain echoed the warning of an increase in troop deaths. "Is it going to be a strain on the military? Absolutely. Casualties are going to go up," the senator said.

Even though it didn't amount to anything, the White House began making a big stink about Bushface's supposed openness during the address to admit to errors he has made. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," he said.

Unfortunately, the only mistakes he was admitting to were more trivial and tactical in nature, such as not ordering a military buildup in Iraq last year and allowing American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government. He still refuses to claim responsibility for starting a war on a lie, not properly funding armor for the troops, giving away tax cuts to the rich that could have been used to pay for the war and supplies for the soldiers, letting Osama bin Laden get away, or not holding anyone in the administration accountable for the intelligence failures leading up to September 11.

"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents," Bushface said. "And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. They just refused to keep fighting after they had been killed. That is not going to happen anymore on my watch. I want our militareries to keep fighting long after the last man has falled. Only then will we achieve victory."

Bushface cited the government's latest optimistic bullshit estimate. "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November," he said, refusing to threaten specific consequences if they do not. Iraq has missed numerous previous self-imposed timetables for taking over security responsibilities.

Bushface's strategy ignored key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which in December called for a new diplomatic offensive and an outreach to Syria and Iran. Instead, he accused both countries of aiding terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," he ranted. "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria." It should be noted that our only remaining ally in the war is the island nation of Fantasyland.

Bushface claims that he considered calls from Democrats and Republicans to pull back American forces. He concluded it would devastate Iraq and "result in our troops being forced to stay even longer." He once again refused to explain his logic or why he doesn't feel that Iraq isn't already in devastation.

Resisting calls for troop reductions, Bushface said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States," again apparently under the faulty assumption that the sovereign nation ever posed any threat to the country. It's hard to say how one doesn't already consider the Iraq war to be a disaster for the United States, which has lost all of its credibility in the world because of it.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday Bushface challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," he said, speaking nothing of the irresponsibility of launching an unjust war over lies, faulty intelligence, and personal reasons.

Evidently he is unaware that pulling troops out and ending the war has been the proposed alternate plan all along.



The Gama News Team ©2007 GAMA Productions. The Gama News Team and its related characters are the exclusive properties of GAMA Productions. All rights reserved.