Why are we in Iraq? Oh yeah ...

[Durandal]

Unfortunately, I don't have a link for this article; I received it in an email. But it's quite good.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Satire by Cybersatirist Bob Hirschfeld

Why is it difficult for some people to understand why we went to war in Iraq?

Iraq was involved with 9/11. Well, actually it had nothing to do with the attack but Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda. Not really connected but he did have contact. Maybe not contact. Perhaps one collect phone call. OK, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

But still Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction it could give to terrorists. Though it wasn’t actual weapons but “weapons related program activities” which eventually could build weapons. Even if most of those programs were non-existent shams that Iraqi scientists used to dupe Saddam to justify their employment. OK, forget about the weapons.

The United States had to invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Innocent Iraqis were being held in a vile prison and subjected to torture and inhumane treatment. We couldn’t stand by and not free the people of Iraq, who in turn would warmly celebrate our action as liberators.

Perhaps they wouldn’t actually greet us a liberators but certainly there would be liberation greeting program related activities in which they’d eventually show their gratitude. Alright so maybe a majority of Iraqis now view us an occupying force, are increasingly resentful about this and want us to leave.

But we did the right thing because the Iraqi people are no longer subjected to human rights abuses. Maybe some of them, but it’s just because of a few renegade troops acting alone.

Besides, as conservative radio hosts astutely pointed out, it was nothing more than some soldiers having a good time and the kind of thing you might find on any college campus fraternity hazing. Perhaps part of our rebuilding effort should be frat houses throughout Iraq to show citizens there these kind of pranks aren't restricted to prisons.

Plus, as a Republican senator noted, those prisoners deserve to be treated harshly since they’re guilty. Maybe not guilty, but certainly suspect. Well maybe the Red Cross reported most of the prisoners were innocent and that the abuses were wide spread. But at least this doesn’t reflect immoral behavior the way liberals in Hollywood do in movies that corrupt our society.

Most importantly, we’re on a larger mission to spread freedom throughout the Middle East by winning their hearts and minds. So maybe the way we’ve bungled the management of Iraq since the war hasn’t won them over and only stoked hostility toward the United States which may incite more terrorism.

But invading Iraq is part of the war on terror and this has made us safer. Perhaps not safer in a code orange kind of way. And you could argue that the billions of dollars a week it’s costing us may have been better spent going after Al Qaeda and protecting homeland security to truly make us safer.

Yet Saddam had to go because he was tyrant. Though there are plenty of other tyrants in the world that we wouldn’t try to topple and most of them we didn't previously arm and support as an ally.

But this is all beside the point. We need to stay the course and not let the media make us waver with all their pesky reporting. The reason we’re in Iraq is perfectly clear. It was a decision our president had to make and one of the toughest ones he did. Even though at the time we went to war, he said he had no choice, which means that without a choice, it wasn’t a decision.

I think that sums up this clusterfuck nicely.

[MKSheppard]

Iraq was involved with 9/11. Well, actually it had nothing to do with the attack but Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda. Not really connected but he did have contact. Maybe not contact. Perhaps one collect phone call. OK, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Explain how we splattered them in OIF then if they weren't in Iraq?

US Special Forces assisted by the Kurds, completely annihilated an
Al Quaeda-related group in northern Iraq, called Ansal al-Islam. They
were backed by Iran, and occupied about 300 square km of
Iraqi territory, which was mostly mountainous, and had a strength
of 1,000+ terrorists, of which roughly 10%~ were confirmed Al Quaeda
fuckers who had escaped our wrath in Afghanistan.

[Sir Sirius]

Oh, and with the help of the omniscient Google I give you the linky.

[Supreme_Warlord]

Iraq was involved with 9/11. Well, actually it had nothing to do with the attack but Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda. Not really connected but he did have contact. Maybe not contact. Perhaps one collect phone call. OK, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Explain how we splattered them in OIF then if they weren't in Iraq?

US Special Forces assisted by the Kurds, completely annihilated an
Al Quaeda-related group in northern Iraq, called Ansal al-Islam. They
were backed by Iran, and occupied about 300 square km of
Iraqi territory, which was mostly mountainous, and had a strength
of 1,000+ terrorists, of which roughly 10%~ were confirmed Al Quaeda
fuckers who had escaped our wrath in Afghanistan.

Get it through your thick head you dipshit - Saddam Hussein was not in control of Northern Iraq, the Kurds (duh!) were. Which begs the question of how he can be held responsible for them establishing a base there?

[Durandal]

Iraq was involved with 9/11. Well, actually it had nothing to do with the attack but Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda. Not really connected but he did have contact. Maybe not contact. Perhaps one collect phone call. OK, he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Explain how we splattered them in OIF then if they weren't in Iraq?

US Special Forces assisted by the Kurds, completely annihilated an Al Quaeda-related group in northern Iraq, called Ansal al-Islam. They were backed by Iran, and occupied about 300 square km of Iraqi territory, which was mostly mountainous, and had a strength of 1,000+ terrorists, of which roughly 10%~ were confirmed Al Quaeda fuckers who had escaped our wrath in Afghanistan.

Strawman. You'll excuse me if I don't bother feigning to be surprised.

He didn't say, "al Qaeda was in Iraq"; he said "Saddam had no connections with al Qaeda." If you seriously believe that the mere presence of al Qaeda terrorists in a country indicates support for them by that country's leaders, I suggest you learn where the 9/11 hijackers learned to fly.

[LordShaithis]

Remember, chemical shells aren't actually chemical weapons, and Al-Quaeda fighters running around Iraq REALLY means there are NO Al-Quaeda fighters in Iraq.

[Durandal]

Remember, chemical shells aren't actually chemical weapons, and Al-Quaeda fighters running around Iraq REALLY means there are NO Al-Quaeda fighters in Iraq.

No, you fucking idiot, al Qaeda fighters running around in Iraq does not imply that Iraq's government had connections with al Qaeda. Get it through your God damn heads.

[MKSheppard]

No, you fucking idiot, al Qaeda fighters running around in Iraq does not imply that Iraq's government had connections with al Qaeda. Get it through your God damn heads.

I dunno, stalinist states tend to be very strickt on who they let into their
countries.

[Thinkmarble]

I dunno, stalinist states tend to be very strickt on who they let into their
countries.

To be strict you need to control an area. Sadam Hussein did not control the north of Iraq after the Gulf War, thanks to the kurdish upraising and the american bombing campaigns.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No, you fucking idiot, al Qaeda fighters running around in Iraq does not imply that Iraq's government had connections with al Qaeda. Get it through your God damn heads.

I dunno, stalinist states tend to be very strickt on who they let into their
countries.

Hence the armed Kurdish militias that Saddam loved so much.

[Durandal]

Remember, chemical shells aren't actually chemical weapons, and Al-Quaeda fighters running around Iraq REALLY means there are NO Al-Quaeda fighters in Iraq.

No, you fucking idiot, al Qaeda fighters running around in Iraq does not imply that Iraq's government had connections with al Qaeda. Get it through your God damn heads.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I have to object to the satire from a humorist's perspective.

That was a one-note, one-joke essay.
Seriously, he should have tried at least more than one tack there. Is it so much to ask for him to use a different kind of joke (at least the re-definition method of pointing out incongruity) as opposed the same 3-sentence style over and over.
That could have been a funny essay, but he killed it with repetition and an annoying tone.

Would it hurt him to pick up a fucking Dave Barry, Woody Allen, Steve Martin, Philip Roth or even Asimov book?

[Durandal]

He's just working with what he has. Every excuse the administration gave for going to war is falling apart.

[Vympel]

I don't mind buzzflash for some humor, but the hysterical tone is often embarassing to read. This article was good though.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

It just wasn't funny, even though the material it's based on has so much potential. It's almost as bad as an SNL skit.

If politics are making this guy hysterical as to blinding him to obvious punchlines, he should go into a different line of work.

[banquetbear]

Explain how we splattered them in OIF then if they weren't in Iraq?

US Special Forces assisted by the Kurds, completely annihilated an
Al Quaeda-related group in northern Iraq, called Ansal al-Islam. They
were backed by Iran, and occupied about 300 square km of
Iraqi territory, which was mostly mountainous, and had a strength
of 1,000+ terrorists, of which roughly 10%~ were confirmed Al Quaeda
fuckers who had escaped our wrath in Afghanistan.

...odd, your cite states that Ansal al-Islam is backed by Iran. And this human rights watch report states:

"Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention. On the other hand, the location of the group's bases very close to the Iranian border, taken together with credible reports of the return of some Ansar al-Islam fighters to Iraqi Kurdistan through Iran, suggest that these fighters have received at least limited support from some Iranian sources. "

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm