That’s quite good. Reminds me of this:
Why, then, O brawling love! O loving hate!
O any thing, of nothing first create!
O heavy lightness! serious vanity!
Mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms!
Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health!
Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is!
The Shrub was just bein’, you know, ironic. Or maybe he’s just a freakin’ moron. Who can tell?
Nope. It’s an old term in business. Say you start a widgit company by launching a modest local ad campaign, but because of some interesting angle, your story is picked up by the wire services. Overnight, you get orders for 10,000 of your widgits, but you are capable of making only 500 of them a week. You have had a catastrophic success. It is unfortunate that Democrats once again are announcing to America that they know nothing about capitalism.
So the invasion of Iraq was capitalistic in nature?
Well, given Lib’s interesting definition (which I did not know), perhaps the invasion was a catostrophic sucess for Halliburton?
Liberal’s just talkin crap again.
This “old term in business” was coined by Peter Cochrane of British Telecom some time in late 2000/early 2001, specifically to describe the way certain internet companies got into severe troubles because they couldn’t cope with unanticipated demand on their servers.
Rumsfeld used it to describe Iraq starting around April 2003, and Tommy Franks used it in his autobiography which was released in August 2004.
It means fuckup.
To be fair to Liberal, he probably got his story from some Libertarian hack’s blog, and we know how much they understand business.
No, but as you know, just because a term originated in one discipline does not mean that it cannot be adapted to others. It was General Tommy Franks who first used the term in reference to the Iraq War, having previously warned Rumsfeld of the concept. It is perfectly descriptive of what happened — the nation’s army was conquered so quickly that the US found its hands full of things it couldn’t handle, just like a business that has succeeded more quickly than its operational readiness would allow.
Well, he could have said “We’ve punched the tar baby” but that might offend some people.
Incidentally, I suspect that Bush might have believed the term to be complimentary when in fact it describes a failure in operations or planning.
Incidentally, Lib, if you’re trying to show that you’re not really an idiot, it ain’t working too well. You better make another post mentioning Peter Cochrane. :wally
I touched on this briefly in another thread, and it just blows my mind.
Contrary to Liberal’s assertions, I don’t think this was an adroit maneuver designed to show us how much Shrubco knows about capitalism.
I think this is normal ‘spin’, designed to defuse your opponent’s barbs before they’re even voiced.
“No, we didn’t fail, it was a catastrophic success. We did just that well, yah, really. All the problems in Iraq now? They’re there because we did our jobs too damn well.”
(And they say the president won’t accept accountability for anything)
Meanwhile
You don’t see an essential difference between someone making and selling wickets and someone invading and occupying a sovereign nation… that the job of selling your product is not the same as nation building?
Moreover, are you honestly suggesting that if the US had led a more inept war, maybe one that’d dragged on for years with ‘major combat operations’ still underway, then we’d have figured out what to do in order to win-the-peace?
Or is the fact of that matter that our failures are not due to any successes, nor to our ‘shock and awe’ campaign, but because we believed the wrong people and used shaky intel and never really had much of a plan other than that we’d be greeted with flowers and offers of sex?
Actually, my assertion about Bush was that he likely didn’t know. Here’s what I said: “Incidentally, I suspect that Bush might have believed the term to be complimentary when in fact it describes a failure in operations or planning.” My assertion about the term’s ties to business is common knowledge. My assertion about General Franks’ use of the term is documented above.
Sorry, we cross posted while you were adding that clarification. Still, you’ve said:
Which, at least to me, seemed that you were setting up a dichotomy: Republicans, as evinced by this quote, know about capitalism. Democrats, as evinced by their opposition to this quote, don’t know about capitalism.
Did I mis-read this?
Yes. Please see this thread for an exposition of my concerns.
Leaving aside the swipe at Democrats I think it’s quite possible that Lib has more or less nailed it here.
I find it very plausible that Bush simply misused a business phrase that he had heard some other (smart) people talking about and that he thought it meant something good when it meant something bad (and Lib did say that he thought Bush probably misunderstood the phrase).
Please know that my “swipes” are born of concern, not malice. I have not merely swiped, but have made numerous suggestions on how, as a Democrat, I would do things differently. Above is one link. Here is another.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5224516&postcount=30
Don’t you have anything better to do? I have my own problems with Lib but you don’t see me following him from thread to thread just to snipe at him. Time to find a new trick, Mr. Des.
I posted to this thread immediately before Liberal did. See, I have found a new trick. I’m following him around presciently. Dickhead.
So?
Thanks for the clarification.
I retract, as factually innacurate, my previous refrences to your statement.
Thanks, Finn. No problem. Now that Dio is satisfied that he has his answer, I’d like to invite everyone interested in contributing to this thread, where Acsenray is developing a very fine list of talking points for Democrats.