It’s been a while since I bothered to read a dissection of a Bush press conference. I’m not surprised that people still bother to dissect them (in this case, that someone is getting paid), but it’s still a bit satirical in it’s redundancy—Bush is a moron, evidence is unscripted comments—nonetheless. In that same vein, I do however wonder why serious columnists continue to hold Bush’s statements up in comparison to a genuine logical test which assumes as its first premise good faith efforts on the part of Bush and his administration to win the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Why not assume instead that they’ve given up? Consider Bush’s idiocy in the following light: They know they’ve screwed the pooch. They racked their brains for a bit trying to figure a way out of the mess, but came up short. But during the intermission they did realize that losing the war in Iraq is not the only thing short of winning the war in Iraq. Better than losing is passing a not yet lost war on to the next administration. So, that’s the plan, the goal, the hope. But you can’t very well expect Bush to elaborate on the strategy whose aim is to preserve the last pretense that their plan for Iraq is anything but an utter and complete failure (we’re still there, we’re still fighting, we’re still dieing), and maintain the proper rhetoric to facilitate a blame shift for its ultimate failure on the next administration.
Anyway, whether or not you think Bush is a moron really all depends on whether you’re dumb enough to believe he actually still cares about winning.