After Jan. 30, where will they place the new goalposts?

After every fabulous "success" (success meaning crushing failure)of this administration's misadventures in the Persion Gulf, they have promulgated a new set of parameters for just what chain of events will result in their ultimate success. When the parade of troops showered in flowers and rivers of free oil failed to materialize, the administration said they only needed to find Saddam to quell the violence. When Saddam's capture only meant more killing, they appointed the Condi Commission, which would be in charge of putting in place everything needed to make a stellar success of a ragged country. (Why won't the mainstream press talk about the Condi Commission now that she's in charge of all of our foreign affairs?) When the Condi Commission was quietly disbanded, the new "break even" date was the "handoff" to Iraqi control. This was done so secretly, in the dead of night and behind close doors, that it never managed to materialize into the "Peace in Our Time" the administration continued to cling to. Throughout the election and into the winter, the date to keep in mind has been Jan. 30. That's when the oil will flow, the white man will leave, and all Iraqi's will live in peace and harmony. This sweet notion has pacified at least 53 million Americans, so my question goes to you other 240 million out there. Once Jan. 30 passes and the killing continues, or even escalates with a new "Parliament of Targets," what will the administration say is the point at which we can finally declare: Mission Accomplished?

That's why we are building so many bases in Iraq. The bar will continue to move and the message/goal with continue to change.

The Administration will say: The upsurge in violence is due to the insurgency trying to disrupt the newly elected Iraqi government. Just as the upsurge of violence was to disrupt the elections. Just as the upsurge of violence was due to the capture of Saddam. Just as the upsurge of violence was to due dead-enders following the dictates of Saddam. Just as the upsurge of violence was due to dead-enders that did not want the US to succeed in Iraq.

It a "one-fits-all" position. Even the Bush Administration's propaganda is lazy and not well thought out.

Of course the upsurge of violence could be that many Iraqis want the US to get the hell of of their country, and this was the natural result of an ill-conceived and illegal invasion, with only mendacity to support its cause.