'Very Well Then, I Contradict Myself'
As someone very much concerned with the tradition of nonsense literature, you can only imagine how fascinating the Dubya administration is to Doctor J. Shades of Lewis Carroll perhaps? The great lesson of nonsense writing-- just because something is illogical doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, and just because something makes sense doesn't mean it's logical.
Case in point: Dubya is right that the more successful the US is in Iraq, the more vehemently their opponents will attack them: but, the question is, if those attacks are successful, doesn't this mean the original premise of success was premature? But does that mean the entire campaign has been unsuccessful? But what is a successful military campaign? Do we measure success by the number of things we blow up or by the number of objectives we accomplish? Can a war that hasn't succeeded in its objectives, if it ever had them, still be a success? So what is success? And has the US succeeded in succeeding? And can the US succeed in establishing a viable succession to Saddam? And will that successive regime be any more successful than the last, especially in terms of its susceptibility to successive American dicta? Or will the US simply have succeeded in installing a regime that will successfully reject American policy, secede from the succession the administration wanted and succeed to successfully undermine the very idea of success? Alas, the snickering catastrophe of success!
And with this suckering subject of success, surcease!!!
Where is Humpty Dumpty when we need him? Oh, that's right: all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't (successfully) put Humpty Dumpty back together again....
(Note: you'll need the free NYTimes subscription to read the article linked above. Or should I say access successfully? I know, I know, I'll stop. Right...about...now.)
[Exit Doctor J, succeeded by a snicker]