So was this attack on Camp Victory the al Tet Offensive?
An indirect-fire weapon struck the major U.S. headquarters outside Iraq's capital Tuesday, killing one "third-country national" and wounding 11 coalition soldiers, the U.S. command said.
We aren't out of the woods yet, but the enemy may be too atomized to pull off anything of note.
On the other hand, it isn't like our loyal opposition needs much of a push to run as fast as their little legs will carry them:
A day before President Bush's war address, Senate Democrats rejected a four-star general's recommendation to keep some 130,000 troops in Iraq through next summer and sought legislation that would limit the mission of U.S. forces.
Their proposal was not expected to set a deadline to end the war, as many Democrats want, but restrict troops to narrow objectives: training Iraq's military and police, protecting U.S. assets and fighting terrorists, Democratic party officials told The Associated Press.
Huh? Fighting terrorists in Iraq? I thought Iraq was a distraction from that fight? That's what Congressional leadership keeps telling us.
There I go again. Looking for sense in the nonsense they peddle!
Truly our enemies are blessed to have such useful de facto allies in our Congress.
UPDATE: Iranian fingerprints are on the strike. The rocket was a large one (240 mm) and probably supplied by Iran.
I suppose that the Iranians might still be planning some type of offensive during the remainder of the month to influence the debate, but al Qaeda sought to influence the debate at the Petraeus/Crocker report stage. Why wouldn't Iran have tried to do the same thing?
My question remains, was this the al Tet Offensive?
