Monday, October 27, 2003

If that's what you call desperation

I'd hate to see what you consider a strong, well thought out plan.

Following a sequence of attacks in Baghdad, the first at the al-Rashid Hotel Sunday which nearly snared Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (I guess that's as close to combat as he's ever been, right?) and has been described as "a barrage of rockets fired from a launcher disguised as a portable generator," and " carefully planned" followed by a coordinated (might synchronized be the right word?) series (4) of bombings at the Red Cross and police stations across Baghdad. Sandwiched between these larger scale incidents, 3 additional American troops were killed in a separate incident.

These are the acts of a desperate enemy? An enemy on the run? According to Fearless Leader's press secretary:
"We've always said the more progress we make, the more desperate the killers will become," the spokesman said. Asked how it could be determined that the attacks signaled desperation rather than sophistication, McClellan repeated: "The more progress we make toward a free and prosperous Iraq, the more desperate they will become."

Finally we would seem to have a yardstick of success- more sophisticated attacks will be the result of more progress on our part. Therefore, these attacks are a good thing. A peaceful Iraq, one where American troops and the Red Cross among others were not targets would be an utter failure according to the administration? Or did I miss something?

Update: Maureen Dowd, doing an actual column as opposed to her standard "chatty Kathy/ high school girls in the bathroom" formula, observes: "They don't even understand the political utility of truth."


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home