Why did the Iraqi chicken cross the road?

CPA:
The fact that the chicken crossed the road shows that decision making authority has switched to the chicken. From now on the chicken is responsible for its own decisions.

Halliburton:
We were asked to help the chicken cross the road. Given the inherent risk of road crossing, and the rarity of chickens, this operation will only cost $326,004.

Muqtada as-Sadr:
The chicken was a tool of the evil Coalition and will be killed.

US Army Military Police:
We were directed to prepare the chicken to cross the road. As part of these preparations, individual soldiers ran over the chicken repeatedly, and plucked the chicken. We deeply regret the occurrence of any chicken rights violations.

Peshmerga:
The chicken crossed the road, and will continue to cross the road, to show its independence and to transport the weapons it needs to defend itself. However, in future, to avoid problems, the chicken will be called a duck, and will wear a plastic bill.

1st Cavalry:
The chicken had no right to cross the road as it did not have the correct identification. Thus, the chicken was searched and detained. We apologize for any embarrassment to the chicken.

Al Jazeera:
The chicken was forced to cross the road multiple times at gunpoint by a large group of occupation soldiers, according to witnesses. The chicken was then fired upon intentionally, in yet another example of the abuse of innocent Iraqi chickens.

Blackwater:
We cannot confirm any involvement in the chicken-road-crossing incident.

Translators:
Chicken he corss street because bad she tangle regulation. Future chicken table against my request.

This is actually dated from early 2004 and the CPA era.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Tinkerty Tonk on 25 Sep 2006 at 10:14 am

    Raging RINOs: We don’t have an official t-shirt

    It’s great to have a mantra to print on t-shirts and chant at demonstrations. But we RINOs aren’t particularly high concept. Here’s how our founding father describes us:
    Are RINO’s an endangered species? How can Conservative bloggers who might ….

  2. BuzzTracker.com on 02 Oct 2006 at 3:30 am

    Featured on BuzzTracker

Comments

  1. sockpuppet wrote:

    probably shows you how educated I am on all this. Funny but dark, like all your Iraq posts lately. Ignore the success = perfection attitude of some, and what do you say your chances are of being happy with the Iraq situation in 2008? 10%? 20%? 50%? B/C ever since your “Rumsfeld should be fired” post, I have noticed a lot of negativity.

    Full disclosure, I am a Rumsfeld apologist. He is one of the few men in government i have faith in, even considering the mistake he made by doing “war on the cheap”.

    You have convinced me that a Rumsfeld “uberblitzkrieg” army was perfect for invading (proven) and horrible for occupying (mostly proven).

    Posted 22 Sep 2006 at 11:12 pm

  2. sockpuppet wrote:

    I cut myself off. Are not the biggest goals of the “neocons” yet to be realized? (ignoring your “mission creep” trenchancy).
    I am no geography expert, but Iraq seems like a great place to be for a long war. Am I listening to the drums too much? Is there an easier way ?

    Posted 22 Sep 2006 at 11:21 pm

  3. Tainted Bill wrote:

    I assume this was before the translator was discharged for being gay?

    Posted 23 Sep 2006 at 9:39 am

  4. commissar wrote:

    sockpuppet,

    I’m not quite sure how to respond. Yours is obviously a sincere comment, not just snark, which I appreciate.

    Sure, my own views have changed. History trumps politics, current events, and blogs. That is, we can read about events in the historical record (from ancient Greece to Vietnam) and feel comfortable drawing conclusions, regardless of our political views. At this point, there is enough “history,” (I mean largely indisputable stuff in the historical record) about Iraq to permit me to draw some conclusions, even though those conclusions run counter to political views I’ve had until recently.

    We screwed up. Badly. And there’s no easy way out.

    That being said, I have been wrong enough in the past to decline to try to change anyone else’s views at this time.

    Posted 23 Sep 2006 at 11:23 am

  5. sockpuppet wrote:

    History is written by the victors, as they like to say. I am not in your head, but I assume from your vietnam reference, that you think we are destined for doom in Iraq.

    We screwed up. Badly. And there’s no easy way out

    Ok, so there is no easy way out, but we have to do something. What do we do? Is your position more troops ? I doubt you are interested in Vietnam part 2. Losing Vietnam was just a very ugly sidenote in a larger fight against Communism. I think our problem in the middle east is much more serious.

    Thanks for the response, btw. I don’t have any answers here and I am just thinking out loud. I believe there is a much bigger picture here even though I can’t see it.

    Posted 23 Sep 2006 at 2:25 pm

  6. commissar wrote:

    sock,

    I meant nothing by vietnam than “recent history.” I could have used WW2 or Afghanistan or Gulf War 1.

    “What do we do?” If I were king, you mean? :) I’ve argued the case for more troops here, but that’s not gonna happen.

    If we make comparisons, Afghanistan (mujahadeen vs. Soviets in the Eighties) is probably a closer analogy than Vietnam. The creation and training of jihadis in Iraq, as in Afghan, may be a very counter-productive result of our efforts.

    So, frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if “cut-and-run” might not be the least bad option. At least we would stop ‘manufacturing’ jihadis. Not to be callous, but American casualties are not that huge; 800/year is more a “CNN” level of unacceptable than actually unsustainable for a country our size.

    We can discuss more here, but I’ve gotta lay it out in a full post.

    FWIW, as a two-time Bush voter, I take no joy in reaching these conclusions.

    Posted 23 Sep 2006 at 4:29 pm

« Inputs vs. Outputs
Rumors that Osama bin Laden Is Dead »