a series of catastrophes ending in . . . ?

From today's Washington Post:

Rumsfeld obliquely acknowledged mistakes and setbacks in Iraq, quoting the French statesman Georges Clemenceau as calling all wars "a series of catastrophes that results in victory."

So, war must always result in victory? How about the idea that often in war both sides are losers? How about war as "a series of catastrophes ending in catastrophe"? Ever hear of Vietnam?

What kind of Defense Secretary would admit that the war he has managed has been "a series of catastrophes" unless that characterization came in the course of a resignation speech? "My administration, although choreographing a series of catastrophes, has produced a war that is a booming success. You're doing a heck of a job, Rummy!" [And here the Secretary gives himself a nice pat on the back with a prosthetic arm designed for just such a purpose].

How much worse could it be?

Bush's New Iraq Argument: It Could Be Worse

By Peter Baker
Washington Post,Thursday, August 24, 2006

For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse.

Bush acknowledged this week that he has been discouraged as well. "Frustrated?" he asked. "Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times and they're difficult times and they're straining the psyche of our country."

The President continued,

"Yes, straining our psyches. Like straining our bowels, only mental. It's like a mental constipation, but nationwide. We need to be regular. Sometimes I'm sad. It's sad to strain mentally. But rarely am I surprised. Clueless, sometimes, but rarely surprised. Peace is happy. If we had peace we'd all be happy campers. We can all agree on that. Except Vice President Cheney."

Embryo R-E-S-P-E-C-T!

New Method Makes Embryo-Safe Stem Cells
By Rick Weiss,Washington Post

Scientists have developed a method of growing stem cell colonies without destroying human embryos. The method involves removing a single cell from an early embryo, a procedure already commonly done to test for genetic defects. . . . Although the safety of the cell-removal process is still under study, there is no evidence that the procedure puts embryos at significant risk or that babies born from such "biopsied" embryos are abnormal in any way.

"You can honestly say this cell line is from an embryo that was in no way harmed or destroyed," said Ronald M. Green, director of Dartmouth College's Ethics Institute and chief of an ethics panel that ACT convened to assess the experiment before it was done.

But early reactions from others suggest it will not be that simple. Bush offered little encouragement yesterday and, if anything, raised the bar higher, suggesting he would not be comfortable unless embryos were not involved at all.

"Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical concerns," said a statement released by the White House. ". . . The President is hopeful that with time scientists can find ways of deriving cells like those now derived from human embryos but without the need for using embryos."

The statement went on, "The President is indeed uncomfortable with any disrespect shown an embryo. For example, one should never touch an embryo without first obtaining permission from the embryo to be touched. Using swear words such as 'damn' or 'shit' in the presence of an embryo, or deliberately breaking wind with an embryo nearby--these behaviors should also be strictly verboten. In short, one should treat all human embryos in much the same way one would treat a maiden aunt with strong fundamentalist Christian convictions."