And Here I Thought Iraq Was More Complicated

The geniuses at the Lone Star Times blog have come up with an explanation of our reversal of fortunes in Iraq:

Long before the president’s change in strategy we call the surge, those men and women that have volunteered to protect us began to die at a higher rate. Why? What happened in March 2006?

The primary elections were held and campaigning for the November 2006 elections began in earnest. The Democratic Party chose to base their strategy around the Iraq war, using every means possible to cast it in a negative light. The terrorists, emboldened by this strategy, were able to convince neighboring countries to supply them with better, more powerful weapons, killing our service personnel at an ever increasing rate.

Of course, an assertion like this is hard to swallow, but never fear: they have a graph! The graph (below) purports to show the correlation between primary elections and U.S. casualties.

Of course, this is just the anti-free speech, anti-American rhetoric of the Reactionary Right at its worst: the Father Figure is our protector and guide, and to question his judgment or actions is to "embolden the enemy." The Iraqi insurgents apparently sit around in their houses all day, listening to Uncle Ed tell stories of how Harry Reid smote the Infidel Bush with his words of treason and appeasement.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.