Halp Us Jorge Bush, We R Stuck Hear In Irak

It's not as giggle-inducing as "Halp Us John Cary," but the American Prospect has the text of a letter to a division of the Minnesota National Guard that's part of the surge. (The "Halp Us John Cary" guys were Minnesotans, too.)

The President has given his message and the troops currently in Iraq are being extended. This includes 1st BCT! Is this a raw deal? Of course! We have every right to be angry, but the reality is that the long awaited homecoming will be pushed back.

...

I am so proud of our soldiers and airment [sic] and their families. We owe all of you so much and will do our utmost to help you through this change and disappointment.

You know what I get out of this? I get a lot of excitement about the coming war in Iran.

Comments

Matt | January 12, 2007, 10:45am | #

Dave, whats your odds we've got troops on the ground in Tehran before Jan 20th, 2009?

JKP | January 12, 2007, 10:49am | #

Wow. Did you think this was funny, David?

R C Dean | January 12, 2007, 11:04am | #

Oooh, a typo! Bush is obviously an idiot.

joe | January 12, 2007, 11:17am | #

Bush? What Bush? Where?

Defensive much?

Elf M. Sternberg | January 12, 2007, 11:25am | #

McCarthy had better play with that Green Lantern Ring with the door closed and wash his hands and the ring afterward.

smacky | January 12, 2007, 12:16pm | #

Did the writers at Free Republic even realize or give credit to who originated the "Halp Us Jon Kary" sign? Do they even realize what those troops in that photo were referencing?

It's the Sugarbush Squirrel, stupid.

www.sugarbushsquirrel.com
http://www.sugarbushsquirrel.com/image/21502899_scaled_760x453.jpg

joe | January 12, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Personally, I was heartened by the "Halp Us John Cary" sign.

It's good to know that there are still some members of the military who identify with the Republicans.

It would be a shame, and potentially a danger to our democracy, for the ENTIRE military to support the Democrats.

James Ard | January 12, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Dream on, Joe. Our fighting men will never support a party full of defeatist pansies. It didn't help when Al Gore tried to disqualify their votes either.

R C Dean | January 12, 2007, 1:14pm | #

Bush? What Bush? Where?

Umm, the headline?

Read much?

joe | January 12, 2007, 1:27pm | #

Ha ha, not only didn't you RTFA, you didn't even RTF blog post. Really putting the jerk in kneejerk, aren't you?

Keep it up, James Ard. The more you people use that language now, when its dishonesty and perversity is so immensely transparent, the less likely it is to work next time.

TrickyVic | January 12, 2007, 1:38pm | #

It's likely that we will still be tied down in Iraq in Jan 2009. The odds are slim that we will have troops available for Iran. Cruise missiles and jets? maybe, they are more likely than troops.

21,000 extra troops can't do much. Certainly not securing all of Iraqs hot spots. I still see us as bogged down in Iraq for years to come.



I see no military option for Iran. If we can't win Iraq by then we will have no credibility to claim we can win anywhere else.

I can't think of a single time when troops alone prevented a country from getting nukes. Iran will have them just like, Pakistan, and India. In reality, muslims already have the bomb.

As well as Bush has handled Iraq, I don't expect Congress to jump on the "troops to Iran" bandwagon as easily as they did for Iraq. If Iraq stays the status quo until 2009, I see little support by the US population for a trip to Iran.

Caesar | January 12, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Bush will most likely provoke Iran to attack us, making it political suicide for anyone to oppose to subsequent counter-attack. Hes already rattling the sabers in hope they take the bait (see the raid on the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq, deployment of the aircraft carrier to the Gulf).

After the war with Iran begins, Bush will say we need to 'sacrifice' and re-instate the draft.

Patrick D | January 12, 2007, 2:41pm | #

"The odds are slim that we will have troops available for Iran. Cruise missiles and jets? maybe, they are more likely than troops."

"Bush will most likely provoke Iran to attack us, making it political suicide for anyone to oppose to subsequent counter-attack."

I was going to write something demonstrating the inevitability of war with Iran and how this move fits in but Leon Hadar has already been doing that for a couple years now.

Here's the link:

http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/

Click through the hot links to get the full sweep of how this has been progressing and will likely play out.

Crassus | January 12, 2007, 4:29pm | #

Not even Bush would be crazy enough to invade Iran. Anyway, Iran is eventually going to run their nationalized oil industry into the ground. Then things will get interesting.

Eric the .5b | January 12, 2007, 4:38pm | #

I don't get the supposed humor. The setup just escapes me. Is it that there's a typo?

Patrick D | January 12, 2007, 5:08pm | #

Crassus,

"Not even Bush would be crazy enough to invade Iran."

I think you underestimate the delusional nature of this administration.

I would also point out that there is no shortage of local and regional players that have an interest and capability to trigger a series of events that would make it extremely difficult for Bush not to attack if not invade and extremely difficult for Congress to oppose it.

joe | January 12, 2007, 6:17pm | #

They were crazy enough to invade Iraq with no plan for the post-war.

These people are pretty damn crazy.