In the Humble Opinion of LittleBill, Socialist, Atheist, and Humanist
Winning and Losing

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote that the Supreme Leader had gone through a number of motivations for the War On Iraq, coming to rest finally on the terrorristststs. But now I realize that I was wrong. The real motive, from the day of 9/11, was Bush himself, and WINNING. Looking back at the picture of Bush standing on the ruins, with his arm around a rescuer and a megaphone in his right hand, you can see that that was the moment when he was deified by God to remake the world.

None of Bush's other motives, from spreading democracy and Christianity throughout the world, to getting rid of Sadam, to destroying a hell of a lot of lives in the hope that some of them were terroristststs, have panned out exactly as he had planned. The result is that he has turned into one of the most prolific killers in human history.

But WINNING is of paramount importance to him and his view of himself. Odd, isn't it, that the primary slogan of his first "election" was that he was a uniter, not a divider? He has sewn hate over most of the surface of the earth. He has divided his own country as it has never been divided before. And he has nothing to show for it but ruin wherever he looks, including into the future.

Funny thing is that it has never occurred to him that the best way to win is to have all sides win, whether it is within families, towns, countries, or cultures. To WIN means that someone else has to LOSE. You would think that a man who is so devout in his beliefs could figure that out.


Emily said...

Jonathan Chait:

And now that the Baker-Hamilton report is out, the commissioners are carefully patronizing the commander in chief . . . .

Wow, a commission devoted hundreds or thousands of man-hours to addressing the central conundrum of U.S. foreign policy, and the president gave them a whole hour of his time!

. . . . In return for these considerations, the commission generously avoided revisiting the whole question of who got us into this fiasco and how.

. . . . The panel appeared to steer away from language that might inflame the Bush administration." Of course, "inflame" is a word typically associated with street mobs or other irrational actors. The fact that the president can be "inflamed" is no longer considered surprising enough to merit comment.

Indeed, everybody seems to understand that if you want to help amend the disaster in Iraq, the No. 1 rule is that you can't acknowledge it's a disaster in Bush's presence . . . .

Los Angeles Times

LittleBill said...

Glad to hear from you, Emily. I am a little behind on my newspapers, so the Group's obeisance to Bush amazes and seriously disappoints me.

an average patriot said...

Wow LittleBill
Very good! You know I agree with you so I won't bother you with his plan from the start.

Urbanpink said...

Amen. It mystifies me that people don't adopt WIN/WIN strategies the world over.