Hey, guess what everybody! Looks like we owe President Bush an apology.

[Bucky]

Stephen Hadley just now released a new National Intelligence Estimate and, it turns out we were being far far too cynical in doubting the efficacy of the surge. Ooops, I mean the "augmentation" of troops.

No, not that kind of augmentation of our troops! "Hey, these are real, bub!"

Hadley: Intel report supports troop surge
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 (UPI) -- The new National Intelligence Estimate supports President Bush's surge of U.S. troops in Iraq, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said Friday.

While the NIE said some elements of the Iraqi conflict can be described as a "civil war," Hadley said it warned of catastrophic consequences if the United States withdraws. "Civil war does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq," he said.

Notice how hysterical we've all been. The situation in Iraq isn't anything so banal and ordinary as a civil war. Please note that one side isn't wearing blue and the other side isn't wearing gray. Also there's more than one side fighting (except for the fact that they're all on the side of evil, except for the loyal Iraqis who help us run Abu Ghraib), so clearly it's not a civil war. 'Kay?

Hadley told White House reporters the NIE contained no new intelligence, but it was "a consolidated set of judgments about the situation in Iraq" from the intelligence community.

See, it's such a slam dunk, they don't even need new intelligence to back up their case that more troops are needed to baton down our great success in Iraq. Wait, I didn't mean to say "slam dunk."

"If coalition forces were withdrawn, if such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi security forces would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution," he said, quoting from the report. "Neighboring countries, invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally, might intervene openly in the conflict.

See? It's right there in that report. That one, the one printed on all that paper. It says if we don't keep sending our troops to die in Iraq, then other countries will end up sending their troops to die in Iraq. We can't let them catch up to us in the dead soldier count! And then eventually we'll end up fighting them oven here instead of over there, which would really be worse, because then we couldn't shop, which means we wouldn't be sacrificing for our cause any more. Or at least not that fun kind of sacrificing where you run up the charges on your credit card.

"That's why the president concluded that while the current strategy was not working and it was a prescription for slow failure," Hadley added.

Slow failure? OMG, that's horrible! Just how do you prevent your efforts from turning into a slow failure? Why, you start doing much more of the same of whatever it is you have been doing and... WALLAH!! It is no longer a slow failure.

Problem: solved!

[mcscajun]

1. Well, now. We all know that *Slow Failure* is totally unacceptable.

Hey, if we're all goin' to hell in that handbasket, surely we must make a rush for it! :sarcasm:

BTW -- unless the reporter of this story left out the rest of the sentence, it would seem that Bushisms are spreading among the staff: "That's why the president concluded that while the current strategy was not working and it was a prescription for slow failure," Hadley added. "While" can't stand alone there; it cries out to be either "for a while now" or for there to be another clause to finish off that sentence.

:freak:

[Bucky]

2. Yes, I noticed the bad grammar, but I'd used up all my sarcasm points already.

I think Hadley's just winging it and couldn't even bring himself to complete that dependent clause. At first I thought maybe "while" was a typo for "why," but you'd have to cut out another word for even that reconstruction to make any sense. Sometimes reporters will fix the grammar in an interview quote, just to make the information clear to the reader. My guess in this case would be the reporter thought Hadley was a dumbass and decided to just quote him verbatim just to drive home the point that the White House is operating on half formed ideas.

[mcscajun]

3. "Just winging it" might just be the reason.

Exposing fools might be another.

In any case, here are some more points for you. Use 'em anytime! :)

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: