satirebureau.com

Mission Accomplished II, The Sequel

Springtime For Baghdad

Baghdad (Satire Bureau) July 28, 2008 – Thanks to a report from the AP (A-so-so-rated Press), Americans may have one less problem to worry about.

According to Robert Burns, AP’s military reporter, and Robert Reid, AP’s bureau chief in Baghdad, the United States is now winning the war in Iraq that two years ago seemed lost.

The reason? “Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government,” said the authors.

While that news may be cause for celebration to some, it doen’t sit so well with others.

“Let me see if I have this right,” huffed Satire Bureau Military Correspondent, Brigham Home, “We’ve lost 4,000 of our kids with over 30,000 wounded, a million Iraqis have been killed, 5 million Iraqi citizens are wandering around as displaced refugees, and over a half trillion dollars has been thrown at the fiasco.

“And for that deplorable human and financial cost, we can claim Pyrrhic victory because insurgents may no longer be threatening this guy (holds up picture on right)? That’s what this 5 ½ year inferno has been all about?”

Indeed, the nation’s largest news agency seems to have added yet another goal as a justification for the meddling, misguided, maleficent mess in Mesopotamia. Before and after “Mission Accomplished” was declared aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in May of ‘03, the rationale for invading another country certainly has been consistent, as in consistently changing. There have been smoking guns, mushroom clouds, WMD’s, war for Iraqi freedom, bring democracy to Iraq, harboring terrorists, al-Qaeda, al-Jolson, and al-Abama, just to name a few.

But just to be on the safe side, the AP tossed in a cacophonous chorus of circumambagious caveats, like: “Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years…That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq…Scattered battles go on…U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last…Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.”

“Yup, sure seems like a victory to me,” scoffed Mr. Home. “Sounds more like how Jake LaMotta looked after he ‘won’ a fight.”

Moreover, there is strong evidence that the supposed triumph has more to do with cash than thrash. The U.S. began paying insurgents not to attack our troops, since at least last fall, and instead go after al-Qaeda, according to the Times of London. Then, at military.com over the weekend, this headline and story appeared: Ex-insurgents Want More Money, or Else – The Iraqi officer leading a U.S.-financed anti-jihadist group is in no mood for small talk — either the military gives him more money or he will pack his bags and rejoin the ranks of al-Qaeda.

But never mind all that. The AP reporters have found anecdotal support for their view. “…there is something in the air in Iraq this summer,” they go on, “In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children.”

“Funny,” mused correspondent Home, “but I believe the Baghdad parks were being fully utilized when Sadaam, thug that he was, was running things and before we blew the city to smithereens in 2003. So, I guess we are finally back to square one, picnic-wise at least.”

It is, therefore, more than a  little chary that experienced journalists would tout such a hollow victory. The report is especially suspect considering former presidential press secretary Scott McClellan’s revelation that “the White House used Fox News talking heads as ‘spokespeople’ with ‘a script.’ It was done frequently, especially on high-profile issues and Fox often gave the White House ‘its desired results.’”

The main mouthpieces for Fox were, and are, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, both of whom have never met a neo-con they didn’t like.

A spokesman for Mr. Hannity didn’t deny that the talk jock favored the neo-con agenda, but did take exception to the play on a revered humorist’s famous line. “Besides,” the spokesman revealed, “Sean hates Will Rogers.”

Mr. O’Reilly was a bit more direct. “@!%!**#~@#!!,” the irascible Irishman let loose.

Thus, with the Fox fauxes under scrutiny, it is possible that the White House and/or other high ranking Republicans called in a few favors from the AP. Given that the Democratic front-runner, Barack Obama, was garnering favorable headlines during his trip to the Middle-East, the timing was especially opportune.

Or so it seemed.

Apparently, the news of “victory” in Iraq didn’t sit too well with Republican presidential shoo-in, John Mc (Raisin’) Cain.

“I wanna’ be a war president, dammit! This thing better be still goin’ on come January,” the tough talking Arizonan reportedly griped. “The faces on Mt. Rushmore all belong to fightin’ men. I mean, come on, if Americans don’t love war, then why didn’t they carve the heads of Fillmore, Harding, Coolidge, and Gerald Ford into that mountain.”

When reminded that Jefferson, one of the Rushmore rock replicas, served two terms during which there were no hostilities, Sen. McCain shot back, “Get outa’ here. You trying to tell me Jefferson Davis wasn’t president during a war?!!!”