Bush Strategy for Success in Iraq

I've had an epiphany; it came to me while watching Real Time with Bill Maher on YouTube. They were discussing, in rapid succession, many topics ranging from religion to global warming to elections to Iraq. Then it hit me: Bush's plan for success in Iraq is global warming! Look at the facts:

• Bush denies global warming exists.
  Let's assume that it is indeed his plan. Wouldn't he want to keep his winning strategy a secret? The best way to maintain the secrecy is to deny its existence.
• Iraq is very hot.
  Being a desert country, Iraq has recorded some of the Earth's hottest temperatures. If it were bumped up a little, it could very well cause rampant death and destruction in the region.
• Much of Iraq has inconsistent electricity.
  Due to contractor graft, incompetence, and/or stupidity, many of the electrical plants in Iraq are still operating at Shock And Awe^® levels. This means that there won't be nearly the requisite amount of available power to maintain air conditioners when the temperatures go up. There will be virtually no safe place to cower from the heat.
• Bush is accelerating the effects of global warming.
  Through both his regressive domestic agendas and his refusal to update (or even enforce) pollution and efficiency standards, Bush is in effect quickening the effects of global warming. This is being done as a way to accelerate his Operation: Infinite Temperatures initiative.

All in all, it is an ingenious plan. In only a few short decades, the residents insurgents of Iraq should just topple over from heatstroke. Of course, so will the residents of Phoenix, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, El Paso, Salt Lake City, and Kennebunkport. Sorry 'bout that.

Safety Last

Here's a fun conversation that I've been having with Republicans for the last few years. I say something like, "The President lied about why he went to war with Iraq. How can you defend him after you tried to crucify Clinton for lying?" They say, "We went to war to remove an evil dictator who was tormenting his people." I reply, "that's not the reason I heard back in 2003." They ignore that and attack me with, "Don't you think we're safer now that that madman is in custody?" (to which I think to myself "What do you mean, he's still the President...")

For years, I would just sit there staring at them, scratching my head as to how they can flip-flop rationale without even noticing. I'd just stop talking about it because it's not nice to argue with your siblings at the holiday dinner table. It occurs to me though, that we aren't safer. Seriously, how are we safer? The madman (Saddam, not the other one) may be out of power, but all that did was create a void. That madman, evil as he is, was keeping religion out of his government (You can tell I mean Saddam here, as the other one isn't keeping religion out of the government).

Now that there's a democracy (another of the famous flip-flopped rationale for invading, yes invading, Iraq), the people of Iraq are trying to vote into power a theocracy. Well, sure, they're allowed to do that. It's their country. If we're honest with ourselves, we have to let them do that if it's what they want. But guess what? It's not what we wanted. Name for me all of the Muslim theocracies. Now how do those countries on your list feel about the United States? Are those flowers and sweets I smell? Probably not.

All we've managed to do is to foment legitimate anger against the U.S. in Iraq. A country, by the way, that had nothing to do with attacking U.S. soil, ever. Not on 9/11, not ever. Now, instead of a dictator oppressing his people, we have terrorist training camps throughout the region gunning for U.S. soldiers. This is not an improvement for us, folks. We are not safer now! Your rhetoric is flawed; having Saddam out of power is not safer for us, the U.S. people. So, examine your facts, turn off Faux News, and pass the potatoes.