Bush: It could take time for world to view war as a Hezbollah loss
Whenever a politician states that "history will decide" whether or not his actions were right, it simply means he has become tired of defending the indefensible but lacks the grace to actually admit he got it wrong and has lost.
Both the Bush and Blair administrations have adopted this disgraceful tactic towards their failed policies in Iraq, claiming that only with the benefit of hindsight will the wisdom of their actions finally become clear.
It hasn't taken long for Bush to be forced to employ a similar tactic towards Israel's failure to defeat Hizbullah. This, lest we forget, is a conflict in which Bush has already declared Israel victorious. By yesterday, he was already frantically rewriting that script:
"The first reaction of course of Hezbollah and its supporters is to declare victory. I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them," Bush said after a meeting with his economic advisers.Apart from pushing people's final decision of who exactly was victorious onto some undetermined future date, you'll notice another subtle change of the goalposts being applied.
"Sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and what don't," he said. "Hezbollah is a force of instability."
Victory can only be achieved by "what forces create stability".
Well, taking his own measurement of what constitutes success as "stability" into account, hasn't he unwittingly admitted that his own war against Iraq is a failure? After all Iraq was far more "stable" under Saddam than it has been under the presence of the coalition forces?
This is the problem with the Bush regime as it stumbles towards oblivion. It simply lacks coherence. It asks that different measurements be applied to different situations. The only unifying theme, is that it must always be declared victorious.
The sheer incompetence of this little arsehole used to amuse me, now I'm beginning to find it embarrassing.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
3 comments:
Just like it is still taking time for the world to realise there are WMD in Iraq, or that Iraq is now a stable democracy?
Seriously though, I think there is only one loser in this recent war... the Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah were just as criminal as Israel, just on a smaller scale don't you think?
I agree that Hizbullah were no more honorable than the Israelis, however, Israel set out to destroy them and named this as a war aim.
I said at the time that I thought this was foolish of the Israelis as they had not managed to destroy them during eighteen years of occupation. I also said that, in the minds of the Lebanese, Hizbullah would only need to survive in order to achieve victory.
And survive they did. Nor can the Israelis blame anyone else for their defeat. Olmert did not have to name that as a war aim. Indeed, he did not have to go to war. He could have done the prisoner swap (that he will now do) without any need for the orgy of violence that he indulged in.
Of course, we all now know that Bush and Co planned this as the start of a much wider Middle Eastern war. So part of all of us should be grateful that the neo-con plan was stopped as the result, had they succeeded, would have been catastrophic.
Amen, true, you a rigth to point that out there Kel, an asymmetrical defeat for Israel it seems!
Post a Comment