While this is a novel way to spin the obvious planning failures, it's left the world somewhat confused as to what exactly a "catastrophic success" is, and whether it's a good or bad thing.
Among others, Australia thinks it's a bad thing:
Iraq success 'catastrophic': Bush
Roy Eccleston in New York
August 31, 2004
GEORGE W. Bush has admitted the US failed to plan for a speedy victory in Iraq, describing the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime as a "catastrophic success".
In a rare concession from the President, who dislikes admitting error, Mr Bush told Time magazine that his planners had not considered the prospect of a quick collapse...
[snip]
Among others, CNN thinks it's a good thing:
Stumping in West Virginia, a defense of the Iraq war
Bush calls Iraq 'a catastrophic success'
Sunday, August 29, 2004 Posted: 6:28 PM EDT (2228 GMT)
WHEELING, West Virginia (AP) -- President Bush on Sunday defended the invasion of Iraq, calling it a "catastrophic success" despite continued violence and the lack of weapons that drove the country to war.
[snip]
John Edwards is rightfully confused:
GOP convention week kicks off amid protests
By DANA MILBANK
The Washington Post
[snip]
Democrats tried Sunday to exploit that acknowledgment. “The president is now describing his Iraq policy as a catastrophic success,” Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in Washington. “I, like most Americans, have no idea what that means.”
[/snip]
I guess it beats a "triumphant failure." Maybe. I'm not sure.
Ryan
