What's your take?

The following is an excerpt from A Political Odyssey: The Rise of American Militarism and One Man's Fight to Stop It. Sen. Mike Gravel will join me for a reading and discussion at the Barnes and Nobles at 82nd Street and Broadway in Manhattan on Wed. evening, Jul 9, at 7 pm:


From a human viewpoint, the invasion of Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. It has caused regional instability for the foreseeable future. But seen from Bush's White House, the war has been "won" and victory is being consolidated. Bush meant it when he said "Mission Accomplished." He had four main objectives in invading Iraq. They have all been met. That more than a million innocent civilians have been killed or driven from their homes is [for him] beside the point. The fulfilled objectives are:

· Depose the no longer useful Saddam Hussein and install puppets--DONE.

· Take the oil out of the hands of a renegade Arab leader. Get sweetheart deals for American and allied oil companies--NEARLY DONE.

· Make huge war-profits for friends, allies and campaign contributors, like Halliburton, Blackwater, and U.S. arms manufacturers. Let Cheney still brazenly drawing income from Halliburton. Stop Congress from passing a law against war profiteering--ALL DONE.

· Establish permanent bases [to protect it all]--DONE.

Bush thinks he's won the damned war on the ground in Iraq. Who's counting bodies? What he's lost is the public relations war--a mere nuisance. [And with the "Surge" he's even winning that back.] It cost him Congress in 2006. But did that matter? Judging by how feeble the Democrats have been? Why have they been so weak? Take your pick: They are bought; they lack courage; they are trying to keep their jobs; the administration has ways of keeping tabs on them.

* * *

Okay here is my take...for years most liberals talk about what an idiot George Bush is yet they attribute so many intricate diabolical schemes to him that one must conclude the man to be a genius along the lines of Machavelli.
Whats your take?