An infinite number of monkeys will eventually produce a link between this guy & al Qaeda

If "an al Qaeda" falls in Samarra, does it make a sound? Usually the answer is "yes," unless somebody drugs Dubya's PR monkeys. Then why hasn't the killing of Haythem Sabah al-Badri made for E.Z. "We Got' Em" listenin, this week? Here we have Centcom issuing a press-release, announcing the killing of "the al-Qaeda in Iraq emir of Greater Samarra," the guy to whom US Centcom attributes the bombing of the Golden Mosque (Feb 2006), and nobody throws a party in the WH Rose Garden?

I mean, the story has everything: a veritable Qaeda/Iraq sandwich, too mouth-watering to ignore. Are you telling me you're not gonna eat that?

Well, here's the problem: even the best sandwiches go rotten with time. In this case, all of the ingredients--while they seemed delectable in their own right--they were never meant to go together.

What am I gettin' at with this ill-conceived metaphor? The NY Times' Frank Rich will help us out. Today, Rich presents us with a carefully constructed timeline of the US Preznit's propaganda since the Nov 2005 lead-balloon plan for "Victory in Iraq." Rich contrasts the PR-events that punctuated the intervening months against our best knowledge of...reality and manages to unearth yet another Big Lie.

Rich reminds us that, in Jan 2007, Bush strongly "implied that all had been on track in Iraq after the country’s December 2005 elections until Feb. 22, 2006," when, you guessed it: the Golden Mosque in Samarra was bombed. Not true. The death-squads and civil war had been raging for at least 15 months prior to Feb 2006. Samarra didn't mark the beginning of 'sectarian violence.' (memo: can't say "civil war," no matter how many times your own people try to warn you that one is brewing--and they did. Back in 2004.). Rich rightly calls BS on this.

Recalling the same "surge" speech, Rich observed how the Preznit struggled to worm al Qaeda into his justification for 20 000+ more troops. But how to do it? Nobody had been directly fingered for the bombing yet, but it sure as hell wasn't...oh, fuckitall:

Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. [GW Bush, Jan 10, 2007]

But Rich knows what's what:

In fact, no one has taken credit for the mosque bombing to this day. But Iraqi government officials fingered Badri as the culprit. (Some local officials told The Washington Post after the bombing that Iraqi security forces were themselves responsible.)

Uhhh....but how does Badri fill the bill? Rich:

Since Badri is a leader of a tiny insurgent cell reportedly affiliated with what the president calls “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Mr. Bush had the last synthetic piece he needed to complete his newest work of fiction: 1) All was hunky-dory with his plan for victory until the mosque was bombed. 2) “Al Qaeda in Iraq” bombed the mosque. 3) Ipso facto, America must escalate the war to defeat “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” those “very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th.”

A-Ha! As L. Paul Bremer might say: "Ladies & Gentlemen: We got'em!" So...why not crow a little louder, even if it is a widdo-white-lie double-decker Royale with Cheese? Well, as it turns out, Bush's confidence in his own capacity for misdirection actually has its limits. To identify the limits of his confidence, you first have to recognize that Bush has no difficulty conflating "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with "the very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th." Then, putting aside the fact that Bush has no solid evidence connecting Badri to the bombing (I'm sure it's in a secure location), Bush knows that he can't promote Badri, however posthumously, from some penny ante thug who happens to identify with the al Qaeda brand to "the al-Qaeda in Iraq emir of Greater Samarra." No "al-Qaeda in Iraq emir"-->no al Qaeda terrorists feeling threatened by Iraq's glorious democracy and no al Qaeda blowing up "one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam" (just like they blew up our buildings...remember? Hmm?).

Rich provides a perfect summary of the White House conundrum:

Against the backdrop of this stepped-up propaganda blitz, Badri’s death nine days later was an inconvenient reminder of the hole in the official White House narrative. Mr. Bush couldn’t do his usual victory jig over Badri’s demise because there’s no way to pass off Badri as a link to bin Laden. He was born in Samarra and was a member of Saddam’s Special Republican Guard.

If Badri was responsible for the mosque bombing that has caused all our woes in Iraq and forced us to stay there, then the president’s story line falls apart. Far from having any connection to bin Laden’s Qaeda, the Samarra bombing was instead another manifestation of the Iraqi civil war that Mr. Bush denies.

So there we have it. Bush didn't get his "US smites the al Qaeda emir who blew up the Golden Dome" fairy tale.

And thus, just this once, their Goose failed to lay a Golden Egg.

No PR monkeys, geese or sandwiches were harmed in the composition of this post.