The continuing downward spiral of Bush's approval ratings, especially those concerning Iraq, caused the right to advance it's time frame for when they declare that the "Mission is Accomplished." (yes, again) I expected it later in the year, and thought there would be a triumphal announcement by someone in the administration. But I guess it would look a little awkward for W to put that flight suit and cod piece back on, so the announcement is being made via an argument by bloggers and other writers of fiction on the right.
It's actually hilarious, if only people were not dying over it.
Dr. (In)Sanity is, as always, one of the least subtle: "Here's an astonishing concept:the U.S. has already won the war in Iraq; just as we won in Afghanistan. We won when the liberated people in these countries held their own elections and started to form their own governments."
Gateway Pundit agrees about Iraq, and is even more upbeat on Afghanistan, describing W's visit there: "Bush "The Liberator" lands in a Free Afghanistan."
Victor David Hanson's editorial is headed "We're winning in Iraq. Let's not lose at home"
The poor writer at Blogs for Bush expresses his great admiration for Mr. Hamsom by referring to his phenomenal accomplishments as a teacher of Latin and Greek, as well as top prizes he received from the National Endowment for the Humanities. (I do pity the writer whose computer expired after having to process words so noxious to it's habit) He describes current events in Iraq, and issues a most gracious invitation to those of us on the left : "Great things are afoot, a new birth of liberty comes. Do you want to be part of it?"
David Price, writing for Deans World analyzes what would constitute victory in Iraq. He concludes that the "removal of Saddam's regime with minimal casualties [is] a success almost regardless of what replaced it." He describes it as the 2003 definition of winning, and still believes it the best.
Of course, Sister Toldja jumps on the bandwagon, without really adding anything to the performance.
What these writers are doing is extraordinarily dishonest. They are denying the reality of what is happening on the ground in Iraq - despicable, but predictable. Worse is the dishonesty of not having comparable justifications for going to war with the outcome of the war. You cannot say that you went to Iraq to liberate it, and call it successful, if you have destroyed the little liberty that was there. You cannot say that you went to Iraq to establish a real democracy in the Middle East, and then define victory as the toppling of Saddam's statue, and leave a country in chaos.
It was to be expected that Bush would cut and run. What I failed to anticipate was his history of screaming "I won!" as he ran home, unwilling to face the consequences of his actions.
Comments