20 January 2007 - 10:48pm
If a country invades Iraq, and then leaves, does that mean no victory?
The assumption behind all of the Bush and neocon rhetoric seems to be that any kind of withdrawal means defeat. The corollary of that is this:
Victory in Iraq = Staying in Iraq Indefinitely
It's the only thing that adds up. It's the only explanation that accounts for the dozen and one different reasons why we invaded, and why they call any and all alternative plans that provide for withdrawal as being "defeat."
So now it all makes sense. Now we know why we must stay in Iraq. Because staying means victory, according to The Decider. Now we know why we must have a troop surge. Because it makes staying more likely and that means victory is in hand. Now we know why "Mission Accomplished" was announced by the Bush Administration years ago.
Because it already was.
We saw, we came, we occupied. Victory. QED.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
- For Bush, "victory" means staying in Iraq, Redux
- He's "determined": President Bush will leave the Iraq quagmire for the next US president to solve
- Bush selling a "new" Iraq plan (hint: it comes with a bridge)
- Angry Bush claims critics embrace "the enemy's propaganda" [updated]
- Bush speech: Can you find the pea?
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
If Iraq falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it except for 650,000+ dead Iraqis, 3,000+ dead US soldiers, and the entire world, can we still impeach George Bush and Darth Cheney for being the most vile pair of death-mongering, lying, Constitution violating sacks of shit in the history of both the United States and shit sacks?
Or is that question too rhetorical?