Sunday, December 17, 2006

When Bush speaks of "victory"

What he means is "postponing the inevitable"

Try it on some of his statements:
  • President Bush Meets with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
    We agree that victory in Iraq is important;
    We agree that postponing the inevitable in Iraq is important;
  • President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia
    ... in this struggle, we can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.
    ... in this struggle, we can accept nothing less than postponing the inevitable for our children and our grandchildren.
  • Press Conference by the President (8 Nov '06)
    ... I'm committed to victory.
    ... I'm committed to postponing the inevitable.

    I am making a change at the Secretary of Defense to bring a fresh perspective as to how to achieve something I think most Americans want, which is a victory.
    I am making a change at the Secretary of Defense to bring a fresh perspective as to how to achieve something I think most Americans want, which is postponing the inevitable.


I think a better take on the subject is to say Bush is too vain or egotistical to accept defeat, so a purposely vague "victory" is consistently pounded out.

Whatever "victory" is is whatever makes Bush look like he is not responsible for the mess in Iraq, which can include waiting out his second term to put it in his successor's lap.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/18/2006 8:59 AM  

well, right on, anonymous: "victory" for Bush is like every/any other GOP victory: short-sighted, per the corporate standard, e.g., at or before the end of the fiscal quarter under report.

That political party has proven itself as an election/issue winning machine, but its members just don't seem to have any skills beyond fundraising.

The "inevitable" that you're trying to refute is the very thing you describe: Having the accountability of Iraq land in one's lap. The strategy is for Bush to win by postponing, and for the loser to be defined as the one who gets the blame.

I find it to be very refreshing, having been personally hung up on terms like "until the job is done." Now that I have another view, i.e., "until I'm in the clear," it makes complete sense.

Maybe that's why GOP talking points identified the conflict as "the long war" early on.

By Blogger Brad Eleven, at 12/18/2006 11:06 AM  

Hey, it works:

"We're not looking for an exit stragegy. We're looking for victory." Dick Cheney, Time Magazine, Oct 30, 2006

"We're not looking for an exit strategy. We're looking to delay the inevitable."

By Anonymous mark, at 12/18/2006 3:22 PM  


Vanity of the leaders is the cause of most wars. Read Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly.

The whole Iraq mess is a perfect example.

Which reminds me: Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

By Anonymous Rockie the Dog, at 12/18/2006 6:00 PM  

I am reading March Of Folly at present and agree with its relevence to our present debacle.

I am also reminded of another of Tuchman's works, The Proud Tower, the section concerning the Dreyfus Affair in particular.

Although the Dreyfus Affair is now generally considered to have been about anti-semitism; it was more correctly the result of government executives who claimed to have Certain Knowledge about information that could not be revealed to the public due to reasons of "National Security". These government & military leaders Swore that they had seen this secret information which Proved beyond any doubt that the victim, Dreyfus was guilty of espionage.

They were all Lying. There was No Evidence. They made it all up. They continued to lie and swear that they were telling the Truth. Lies compounded on lies.

But because they had repeatedly sworn that they were telling the Truth, it was impossible for them to admit their error. This was due to Hubris.

They believed that if they admitted to their lies that the government would collapse and they would find themselves at the mercy of the mob. They believed that the world would end if they admitted their errors. They believed that the perception, by others, of them being truthful & honest was much more important than actually telling the truth.

Sounds like our present administration. Certain and Wrong.

Lies upon Lies Upon Lies...All for the best of reasons, the protection of their own status & power.

They were Privileged.

(While the selection of Dreyfus as the alleged traitor certainly was mostly due to him being a Jew, and the anti-semitism card was repeatedly played by the French government, as the primary cause of "The Affair" it is actually rather a canard.)

By Blogger jaycubed, at 12/18/2006 10:30 PM  

see video: Former CIA Official Exposes Bush Administration Fraud
The Bush Administration is committing fraud again in order to sell another war to the American people. How much fraud do we allow the Bush Administration to commit before we start impeachment proceedings?

Once again spineless cowards in our intelligence agencies are allowing the Bush Administration to commit fraud in order to start another war.

By Blogger Tom, at 12/19/2006 8:29 AM  

NeoCon Elliott Abrams doesn't respect the Constitution
Elliott Abrams is another NeoCon who doesn't respect the Constituion and another key player pushing US Mideast policy.

Elliott Abrams, pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress in the Iran-contra scandal. The Bush Administration promoted hime to deputy national security adviser.

By Blogger Tom, at 12/19/2006 6:04 PM  

Post a Comment