Krauthhammer has officially gone off the rails

Charles Krauthhammer is increasingly unhinged from the realities of warfare on the ground in Iraq. He is so consumed with putting a positive spin on this clusterfuck that he will go to any lengths of linguistic gymnastics to carry water for George Bush and attempt to make his case.

The landscape is shifting in the two areas affected by the Splurge, Baghdad and Anbar. Of course, this shift is not for the better. Just yesterday a suicide bomber grabbed headlines by blowing himself up in the cafeteria of the Iraqi parliament. But the more devastating suicide bomber was the one that took out the Sharafiya Bridge. Baghdad is a city divided by the Tigris. That bombing isn’t as sexy, but it was more strategically important and the effects realized will be farther reaching. The parliament bombing was a psychological coup. The Sharafiya bridge was a strategic one.

Krauthhammer jumps through a whole series of hoops to make the case that because tribal chieftains in Anbar have united against al Qaeda, that is a promising sign. Why, he even uses the phrase turned the corner! Of course, that corner we turned put us on the Sharafiya Bridge…

Come again? al Qaeda has never enjoyed wide support in Iraq, and nobody with a window to reality is pushing that meme. The Iraqi’s want all foreign forces out of their country, and that includes the interloper al Qaeda-Iraq fighters. Oh – and they are only a marginal force of about 4% of those fighting. (But they sure get a lot of credit for as small as their numbers are…Just sayin’)

Lets look at Krauthhammer's actual inanity:

How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

This from the guy who called Bush’s selection by the Supreme Court and the narrow victory in 2004 as a mandate? Please. Not a single Democrat lost a seat. Both houses of congress, 28 Governorships, and strength gained in statehouses throughout the land. You cant unthump the electoral results.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

Lot’s of us are asking that question. By the way – last I checked, Connecticut was one state of 50 and certainly not the epitome of Americana. Nice head-fake though. Half a point for that.

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

You have to be kidding me. We voted to change back then, but it isn’t fair to carry that over and say we disapprove of this new-and-improved strategy? The unmitigated audacity of that statement just floors me. The election was a referendum on the war, and Americans want it over. 70% of us aren’t barking fucking mad. We recognize futility when we see it. Sorry reality isn’t working the way you would like, but, well, reality and facts have a well known liberal bias. Oh – and clocks turn forward. As soon as the conservatives get their minds around that, we’ll all be a lot better off.