Democracy No Longer In The Definition

From whatChimpy said during today’s presser I take it that he has given up on creating a democracy in Iraq.

The ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself, depends upon the Iraqi citizens and the Iraqi government doing the hard work necessary to protect their country.

[And later…]

I am confident we will succeed. I am confident we’ll succeed in Iraq. And the reason I’m confident we’ll succeed in Iraq is because the Iraqis want to succeed in Iraq. The ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself, depends upon the Iraqi citizens and the Iraqi government doing the hard work necessary to protect their country.

[Later still…]

I want to remind you, victory is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself — a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and serves as an ally in the war on terror — which stands in stark contrast to a government that would be chaotic, that would be a safe haven for the enemy to launch attacks on us.

[And again…]

Now, General Casey talked about part of our strategy, and part of the strategy is to give the Iraq government the tools necessary to protect itself, to defend itself. If you’re able to defend yourself, you’re more likely to be able to govern yourself, as well.

[Then there was this exchange…]

Q I just wanted to ask you quickly, sir, if you believe that Iraq will be able to defend, sustain and govern itself by the time you leave office? THE PRESIDENT: Mike, I believe Iraq will be able to defend, govern and sustain itself; otherwise, I’d pull our troops out. See, you all got to understand that.

Nope, no democracy there at all.

5 thoughts on “Democracy No Longer In The Definition

  1. “The ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself,”
    Maybe I haven’t been paying attention, but didn’t Iraq pretty much have that type of government before the USA invaded?

  2. “The ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself, …”
    Uh Sir ! Point of Order – Didn’t Iraq have that under Saddam?

  3. I was just about to say that. I mean, if we’re no longer concerned about democratic elections or human rights, why the fuck did we kick over the hornet’s nest, fer chrissakes?
    A.

  4. . “which stands in stark contrast to a government that would be chaotic”
    so success in Iraq is now defined as anything except the condition that bush caused. Nice!
    you got to give ’em credit … that’s some nerve. .

  5. “”The ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself, …”
    Uh Sir ! Point of Order – Didn’t Iraq have that under Saddam?”
    Not exactly. The bushliar-criminal has demonstrated that it takes nukes to meet the “defend itrself” criteria against the abitions of the cult of republicanism. Saddam didn’t have any nukes. North Korea and Iran with nukes – no invasion. Nukeless Iraq wins the prize of a neocon clusterfuck invasion. .

Comments are closed.