December 15, 2005

"He is struggling to make sure this is defined as a win whenever he gets out..."

".... so he's trying to keep the definition of victory to be something he can meet." So says Mara Rudman, who was a deputy national security adviser under President Bill Clinton. She's quoted in a WaPo piece that analyzes Bush's recent Iraq speeches. I like the way the quote (unwittingly) implies a corollary: The Democrats are struggling to make sure that, whatever happens, it will count as a loss for the President.

11 comments:

Al Maviva said...

Yeah, he totally redefined his notion of victory in that speech yesterday. He said we would "leave behind a free and democratic Iraq," and he also told us it could be tough.

Man, it disgusts me the way this guy Bush moves the goalposts. At first, he said we'd go in and achieve democracy and freedom, in spite of the fact the cost might be high.

Then he totally changed his tune and said that when we left, Iraq would be governed by a democratically elected government, and the people would enjoy liberties previously unknown in that part of the world, and they'd be grateful to us for the cost in American lives and treasure.

Now it's "democratic and free," is all he cares about.

If Bush's blatant abuse of the truth keeps going on, and he keeps defining success downward, pretty soon we'll cut and run as soon as it looks the like the country is run by a democratically elected government, that respects the basic rights of the people.

This kind of Bush spin doctoring is appalling; how I long for an honest, resolved administration, a president and advisors that would tell it to us straight, like St. Bill of Hope, a man who bravely used integrity to overcome the false things poltical opponents said about him...

/sarcasm

Exactly why is it, we're supposed to take Mara Rudman's comments seriously?

Goesh said...

yeah, next Bush will claim the US was responsible for putting a monster on trial for mass murder

sonicfrog said...

Oh come on. No one can say they didn't see this comming. After all, two weeks into the initial invasion, Ted Kennedy was on CNN calling the thing a quagmire. Recently I posted a reply to a comment on another blog (slut!) where the author accused war supporters of being haunted by the Vietnma war. I laughed and suggested that maybe, just maybe, the guy had it backwards; that the anti-war Dems were the ones with "Nam" on the brain. Then, as if to prove my point, two days later,Howard Dean makes his "I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam." speech. I love it when the opposition hands you a victory. And that's exactly what the Dems are doing for Bush. Because of the anti-war position they've wrapped themselves up in, they leave no room to be able to credibly claim a piece (or should I say "PEACE") of the accolade pie when all is said and done. They can accept nothing less than defeat.

miklos rosza said...

It's true. Bush has been blessed by the character of his foes.

erp said...

Is Mara Rudman, the author of this article, related to former N.H. senator Warren Rudman?

Nepotism is rife in the media. So many media people are related to the rich and famous, it's no wonder they are completely out of touch with we, the people.

Pelosi's daughter did a video on the Bush campaign, Anderson Cooper over at MSNBC is Gloria Vanderbilt's son! Andrea Mitchell married to Alan Greenspan -- now that's a picture you don't want in your mind.

Many politicians like Tom Daschle have spouses who work for major corporations and lobbyists. Lots more I can't think of right now.

The elite in the U.S. really is a closed society and it makes me livid.

DEC said...

I do business in 62 countries. Over the past 30 years I have heard customers in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East complain about the impatience of American businesspeople. In fact, it is the one of the biggest complaints in the global marketplace.

In the case of Iraq, we are once again seeing American impatience. Life is not a movie. You can't wrap up every story in a short period of time.

John said...

In case you forgot, the reason we invaded Iraq was to rid it of nuclear weapons; or, maybe, nuclear-weapons-capability. Rice and Cheney and their visions of mushroom clouds. It was a lie. We know it was a lie because Donald Rumsfeld said, in the weeks before the war, when the UN weapons inspectors were there, that he knew exactly where the WMD were located. It was obvious he was lying, because if he knew, he would have told the inspectors. But he didn't know.

Inspections were working. I'll give Bush credit for rattling the sabre to get the inspectors back in. But he loses the credit for chasing the inspectors back out, in order to launch the invasion.

I'm still hopeful a secular pro-western, pro-Israel democracy comes out of this debacle, but I'm not optimistic, not when Cheney's pal Ahmad Chalabi is making friendly visits to Iran.

I personally know anarchists who have dreamed for decades of achieving what Bush is bringing to us all: the severe debilitating of the American empire. Bush is achieving it by mortgaging the economy to the fascist/communist Chinese empire and by severely compromising the readiness of the military to defend America's interests and even America's security.

Afghanistan is emblematic. The Taliban largely rid the country of opium production but harbored terrorists. Now the war lords have taken control of enough of the country to resume mass-scale opium production, but not enough of it to end terrorist-harboring. The worst of both regimes. Courtesy of George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq.

If you think I'm happy that one of America's political parties can define this is a Win, you are gravely mistaken.

PatCA said...

Noel, Noel, Noel, may all the defeatists go to hell!



(More nepotism: Andrea Koppel (Ted Koppel) and Evan Thomas, grandson of ACLU founder.)

SteveR said...

Chris Wallace Mike Wallace

Yeah John you're right, we should go back to the way it was, that was much better for everyone.

Pooh said...

uhm, not to be overly arch on the nepotism point here, but GHWB's son went to Yale...I'm just saying, if we want to play that game, it's equal opportunity.

DaveG said...

In case you forgot, the reason we invaded Iraq was to rid it of nuclear weapons; or, maybe, nuclear-weapons-capability.

No, John, that was one of the reasons given, and beyond that, your assertions that the weapons never existed and that "inspections were working" are opinions, not facts. Others hold that the year wasted at the ineffective and corrupt UN was ample time for weapons to be moved to adjoining countries, and inspections were bound to fail due to well-documented cheating and duplicity on the part of Hussein's government.

And no, I harbor no illusions as to whether you are happy that a history-making effort in the Middle East can be claimed as a win or not. I'm pretty sure from your posting that you would be happy to see any progress at all defined as a loss, just like you and the rest of your ilk will strive to do until their dying day.

This I do believe, though: "I personally know anarchists who have dreamed for decades of achieving what Bush is bringing to us all: the severe debilitating of the American empire." I would hazard a guess that you seek them out.