Poor old George Bush Jr. He’s got nothing left but straw men and circular logic to keep American soldiers in Iraq.
First he implies that his critics believe the "sophisticated propaganda" of the enemy terrorists that "our" presence is the cause of all Iraq’s problems - a case I’ve never heard made by anyone, American or otherwise.
Then he breaks out the trusty old sunk-cost routine:
"I’ve met too many wives and husbands who’ve lost their partner in life, too many children who’ll never see their mom or dad again. I owe it to them and to the families who still have loved ones in harm’s way, to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain."
Highfalutin emotional rhetoric aside, you don’t have to be David Henderson to see the mistake in the Great Decider’s reasoning. From the Skeptics Dictionary:
"When one makes a hopeless investment, one sometimes reasons: I can
With GW’s logic, I would still be in Atlantic City at a slot machine right now!!
Pretty funny – I saw this ad in this blog today
Woodrow Wilson School
Master in Public Policy One Year
Program
Ads by Google
Yes, we owe it to you and your dead relatives to kill more. Bush really has to be the most cynical fucker since …oh…Bill Clinton. Where do we breed these monsters?
>Where do we breed these monsters?
Woodrow Wilson School
Master in Public Policy One Year
Program
Sounds like Bush has a gambling problem. He should have gone to AA while he had a chance. And if that’s the logic with which he ran his TX businesses, no wonder they failed.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
-Benjamin Franklin
The illusion becomes flimsier and more people will be able to see through.
it’s also known as ‘escalating commitment”
if you had any idea you’d be committing as many resources at the onset you would have never made the investment
wiki, as usual does a very nice job;
Somehow, the issue of any members of the Bush family serving in Bush’s war never comes up.
Do they teach economics at all in Harvard B school? I know it’s almost too much to ask, but sunk costs are Econ 101 level concepts. I had an Econ 101 class more than 15 years ago, and I’ve never forgotten the sunk cost lesson. Do not throw good money (dead soldiers) after bad.
I’m sure ensuring sacrifices are not made in vain can somehow be accomplished, but it will cost us, and I’m not sure we’re prepared to pay those costs, and neither is GW. If we were to, for example, send a couple hundred thousand more troops over there, we could restore a modicum of order in Iraq while the army and the police are trained up. Of course, in order to make that happen, we’ll have to start drafting people, and when Skip and Biff from Chickenhawk Estates get letters in the mail asking them to lend a hand in Iraq, the shit will hit the fan.
[...] Courtesy of Scott Horton, we have the following gem from our Dear Leader: [...]
When betting on double or nothing odds, you can assure a win eventually by doubling your previous bet every time. Eventually it has come up a win, but the bet goes up exponentially. Three losses on a $1000 bet has $15000 out of pocket on the fourth try with a return of $16000 on the win. That means a $16000 win only puts you back at the $1000 you bet in the fisrst place. That is a break even bet.
It would cost Gerge $300 billion (of HIS money this time) and at least 43,000 life times to break even.
It is terrifying that the foundation for the rationale of this war is crumbling and the supporters have to see that there beliefs did not pay off and the absolute was not that at all. Changing rhetoric is not adjusting tactics – they have changed their tone, but not their tactics.
GWB may have been “taught” about sunk costs in B-school, but he only learned two things: diddly and squat.
Oh wait, I take back that second one. He DIDN’T learn squat.
But he certainly does know that when you find yourself in a hole, keep digging!. And don’t forget to keep up a constant stream of “almost there!”, “getting closer!”, and “damn those liberals, it’s their fault I’m in this hole”.
Not to mention “hey, that spot over there, Iran, looks like a great spot for a hole!”
Phil Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
With GW
I was actually just teaching this very same concept to my Econ 101 students in my introduction to microeconomics course.
I understand when a teenager doesn’t quite get it, but the President of the United States?
The main problem with escalation of commitment is that the person really doesn’t “get it.” Perceptual blinders and defense mechanisms, information filtered through “yes-men, ” loosely defined and difficult to assess objectives, and the perception that there weren’t better alternatives all reinforce Bush’s belief that he made the right choice in going to war in Iraq and that although things are tough, things aren’t 1) as tough as the lib’rul media portrays them, 2) beyond Bush’s abilities to overcome them, and 3) all that bad for those of us not actually fighting in Iraq.
When I teach decision-making defects to my management students, I am so tempted to use Bush as an example- but I bite my lip and just give generic examples that would make thoughtful people think of Bush!
Pharaoh doesn
Bush doesn’t believe this. He knows that drooling morons will believe it. Why must we act as if we think he believes the things he says?
With the comments coming from W. Gump over these many years and the excellent remarks made by “mommie” Shrub such as her “beautiful mind” comment and her outstanding comments in Houston after Katrina, I have come the the conclusion that the dog wrote her own book, unaided by ANY member of the Bush family. Nice book there Millie!
That logic is similiar to (former United States Secretary of Education) Bill Bennett’s roulette table logic where after blowing several grand, he decides that if he gives up now he won’t ever get the money he’s already lost back. So he winds up blowing several million dollars.
Bush’s definition of winning is not the same as the general publics. If it were, he wouldn’t have allowed Bremer to implement a free market, privatization based occupation policy that basically fed the insurgency.
The civilian chain of command (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, etc.) betrayed the military and the Iraqi people. Which means Bush’s justification (honor the fallen) for staying the course is even sicker than much of the public realizes.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
-Benjamin Franklin
Er…no. That would be Albert Einstein. But a good quote none-the-less.
Follow the money! That’s where the root of all decisions from places of power generally come from.
Who is getting rich?
Well, you know what W said today? He was wagging his finger at the Internet and saying that the negative opinion is causing Iraqi insurgents to kill more Americans in time for elections, so as to influence them.
I keep hearing more and more from this regime about how bad the free speech on the internet is. Wonder what they have up their sleeve?