So what you're saying, Jack, is that this war was winnable at the outset, but sometime after the invasion the initiative was lost and then the war became unwinnable. And because of this the president should ignore the mandate of the people who reelected him. He shouldn't take the power shift in congress as a hint to improve his strategies, rather he should just give up 'cause that's what a good politician does. Retaking the initiative, making this war winnable again, is far less important than saving face. After all even a bungler gets lucky, and every decision he makes is a chance for him to get it right and turn it all around, and we can't possibly allow that to happen, can we?
No, I'm pretty sure the president's public image has gotten away from him and taken on a life of its own. How else do you explain all the people who would rather see the president impeached than see peace restored to the Middle East? I think deep down everyone wants the war to be won, I think that's what the recent election was all about. There just happens to be a whole lot of people who would hate for the man they voted against to accomplish anything positive. That they keep believing all of Bush's decisions are bad, even the good ones, makes them pathological.
We have to question whether the public thinks the war is being lost based on the testimony of experts like Robert Gates or based on the president's reputation. The latter is probably a greater factor than the former, which means that if we started winning this war only a minority of people would actually believe it. Just because the president is in denial doesn't mean the public isn't suffering from mass delusion.
|