How Does Bush Measure Success in Iraq?

by Steve

Sentiments from BuzzFlash's The Angry Liberal that I couldn't agree more with.

It pays to remember the various reasons Bush has given for invading Iraq:

"Saddam needs to disarm."

Bush succeeded here, since most of Saddam's decrepit weapons stock is either scattered throughout Iraq in smoke or no longer in the hands of a formal army. Now it is in the hands of uncontrolled militias unaccountable to a central government.

"We must eliminate a WMD threat."

We're still waiting. And if it turns out that Saddam distributed whatever weapons he allegedly had to other nations or terrorists, Bush is culpable in that.

"Regime change is needed in Iraq"

Bush has succeeded, as the number of dead and maimed Iraqis, the absence of water, hospitals, and law and order will attest. It remains to be seen if a transition government of General Jay Garner and our Bush-contributing Republican donors is a positive change for the oppressed of Iraq.

"We want to liberate the people of Iraq"

See above, and check back on this in about six months.

"Saddam has links to Al Qaeda"

Never proven, and the links between Al Qaeda and the Carlyle Group are stronger.

Oh well, as long as the poll numbers are high, and as long as re-election is in the bag, why would Bush care whether or not this endeavor was a success. It is a success to him if he is re-elected, and as I said several weeks ago, this administration is the most "end results" group we have ever seen. The means to those ends do not really matter to these guys.