Commentary on the President's most recent Iraq speech

I watched the speech and wrote down a couple of notes that may or may not make sense without a fuller context - but here goes.

In terms of the word "victory" - there is some kind of specific objective event that has a temporal delineation. When the clock runs to 0:00 in football, the game is over and the winner is known. In WWII, victory was known with the bombing of Hiroshima. The cold war ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall.

These are icon that mark the moment of victory. What will be the icon for the end of the War on Terrorism and define the victor?

Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology and therefore will never go away. Only the people who are defined as terrorists will change.

Islamo-facism is not a state specific principle, so what will be the Hallmark of the end? China is still communist, so did the collapse of the Berlin Wall really end the cold-war against communism?

The President made the observation that the Terrorist can't defeat our military - and he is right in the traditional sense. But this is an unconventional enemy in and unconvetional form of warfare, so why is the President committed to defining victory in rhetorically conventional terms?

Should not victory and defeat be defined for this unconventional war in unconventional or non-traditional terms? Is this President doing that?

Hurricane Katrina wiped out an entire American City - and America survived. It can be argued that we thrived based on the 3rd quarter GDP figures.

Without being indifferent to the deaths in N.O. or in Iraq or even 9/11 - there is an observation to be made.

We have taken the best punches of nature and bad guys and survived and flourished. Is this not a notable fact for determining motivations of the Administration and the neo-con's of the Republican party?

It goes to control.

It is my understanding that the War on Terrorism is fast approaching 500 Billion dollars. If 100 billion have been committed to New Orleans I would be amazed.

What is the definition of Homeland Security in the context of these observations?

The President admitted it was his decision for go to war on faulty intelligence, and he would do it again. Why? What's the need?

It seems that if we could raise a culture to build and construct things that was as passionate as the gun culture, then destruction could be seem as an opportunity for renewal rather than revenge.

A HomeDepot culture instead of NRA culture, removes the ability for terroist to do us harm. A HomeDepot Culture would mourn the dead and care for the injured by rebuilding bigger and better. The NRA culture (lead by the NEO-CONs) seek revenge because it enhances different priorities that are not specific to the individual.