Maureen Dowd: Bush always "had" to win.

From today's NY Times:

http://select.nytimes.com/...

You may have to be a subscriber to get the story.

Apparently Bush always just "had" to win -- upping the ante, changing the rules mid-game and what have you.

http://select.nytimes.com/...

The "print" version.  Maybe this is accessable.

W. always acts like he’s upping the ante in a board game where you roll the dice and bet your plastic army divisions on the outcome. This doesn’t surprise some of his old classmates at Yale, who remember Junior as the riskiest Risk player of them all, known for dropping by the rooms of friends, especially when they were trying to study for exams, for extended bouts of "The Game of Global Domination."

Junior was known as an extremely aggressive player in the venerable Parker Brothers board game, a brutal contest that requires bluster and bluffing as you invade countries, all the while betraying alliances. Notably, it’s almost impossible to win Risk and conquer the world if you start the game in the Middle East, because you’re surrounded by enemies.

His gamesmanship extended to sports — he loved going into overtime and demanding that points be played over because he wasn’t quite ready.

As Graydon Carter recollects in the new Vanity Fair, Gail Sheehy wrote an article for the magazine about W. that made this point: "Even if he loses, his friends say, he doesn’t lose. He’ll just change the score, or change the rules, or make his opponent play until he can beat him."

W.’s best friend when he was a teenager in Houston, Doug Hannah, told Ms. Sheehy: "If you were playing basketball and you were playing to 11 and he was down, you went to 15."

Even if it was clear who was winning, W. wanted to go further to see what would happen. It was a technique that worked well in Tallahassee in 2000, but not so well in Tikrit.

The guy obviously hasn't matured one bit since then.   A classic case of arrested development, in evidence yet again as he ups the ante once more, going for Iran.

•  Too bad

  It's really too bad that Dubya can't distinguish between Risk, the game, and risking lives of thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqis. This is not a game and there are no do-overs.

  Maybe he figures the escalation is a do-over. As someone who has family members over there, I know otherwise.

  I gotta read this column. Where else can I find it?

  by CocoaLove on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 02:32:58 AM PDT

  •  I just put up a link to the "print" version.

    Hopefully you can access that.

    by dov12348 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:06:05 AM PDT

  •  I'm not sure where else you might get...

    ...her column on the first day.   Within the next few days you might find it elsewhere because it's then syndicated.

    by dov12348 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:30:03 AM PDT

    •  Truthout

      Truthout sometimes posts Times Select columns, but usually the day after.  Afraid of NYTimes lawyers I would guess.

      by Doctor Who on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 06:08:24 AM PDT

    •  Please add more comments of your own

      If you're quoting all that from MoDo w/o sufficient comments of your own, this violates fair use.  I don't mean to sound like a legal anal-retentive type, but this issue has come up more than once on DK and it does not look good (not to mention legal questions) to quote large sections continuously like that.

      by chingchongchinaman on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:23:11 PM PDT

      •  Points taken; I'll look into it. (NT)

        by dov12348 on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 06:08:49 AM PDT

        •  extremely late reply

          No problem; thanks for reading it.

          by chingchongchinaman on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:34:57 PM PDT

  •  Too bad he didn't learn anything from the game

    of Risk.  It is funny to find out that Bush played it because I had the distinct impression that he never did.  One of the key strategies in the game is to figure out (like in chess) which risks will open up your options several moves down the line.  Meaning that if you knew how to play Risk and you really knew how to win, you'd never invade Iraq because the move might be a victory on that round, but could get you stuck down the line unable to expand your empire.  The scariest thing about this story is that he clearly thinks this whole being President thing invading other countries and all is no more than a board game.  21,500 more troops = little plastic game pieces in Bush's mind.  Sigh.

    by inclusiveheart on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:31:00 AM PDT

    •  number one rule in Risk

      is to not invade unless you have LOTS of armies (also known  the Powell Doctrine).  If you are unfortunate enough to begin the game with your armies in the Middle East you also better have worked out some serious allies in the region--or else you lose, every time.  Neocons must stink at Risk.

      by YankInUK on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:50:15 AM PDT

•  May be the hook, not the reason

  Dowd may be right about the personality quirk--but that doesn't explain this really bad plan. If W was so intent on winning, you'd think he would have put in enough troops at the outset, or recognized Al Maliki for the loser he is.

  I still believe that the puppet masters (perhaps the Saudis, the money men, the dominionists and others)simply use these personality quirks to manipulate a weak, insecure and incompetent man to do their bidding.

  by MrMichaelMT on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 02:34:16 AM PDT

  •  Check out LNK's Kissinger diary...

    IMHO, this is the answer behind Bush's puzzling actions... 3-6 months worth of violent sound and fury, he declares victory, cuts and runs, and then blames Democrats and other pundits for the Vientnam-esque collapse of Iraq...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 02:44:15 AM PDT

    •  He'll try it, but I really don't think he

      will get away with it this time.

      Kissinger is trying an old trick, but ignores one key factor which is that this is Bush's war.  It is not like his time with Nixon where Johnson was perceived to be the bad guy.  Nixon had the luxury of appearing to be cleaning up the previous Administration's mess.  Bush can't run from himself in this situation.  Kissinger, Baker, Daddy, Mommy, and Brother Jeb can't cover his tracks on this one no matter how hard they try.  Bush no only started this war, but also initiated as a pre-emptive strike.  He has no cover here.

      BushCo broke it and Americans know they own it.  His party too will be on the hook for a good long time.  They better hope that Iraq doesn't go to hell in a handbasket after we leave because it will only make it worse for them and their political kind for years to come.

      by inclusiveheart on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:44:29 AM PDT

  •  Rumsfeld likely convinced him...

    ...to use a small force.

    by dov12348 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:08:33 AM PDT

  •  I think you are 100% correct.

    the Saudis know him very well, they know how they can manipulate him, and they have bailed him out in the past. I would say George W. Bush has sold his soul to the Saudi devil. I would even bet that is part of the reason we still have not killed or captured Bin Laden, the Saudi Royals are protecting him, (Bin Laden). Funny isn't it, how quickly the talk turned to Saddam and away from Bin Laden? Something is just not right, as for Condi and the rest of them, they are all tied into Saudi oil, you don't get a tanker named after you because you are cute.

    by Vera Lofaro on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:00:13 AM PDT

    •  You may be right..

      ...but Musharref is on just as shakey ground as Al Maliki, and the result of a raid on the tribal areas (like a raid on Sadr City) would be a completely different government.

      by MrMichaelMT on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:54:19 AM PDT

•  not only does he have to win

  everything that might, can or that does go wrong is NOT his fault.......he completely overlooks any responsibility and any accountability for his actions.

  then he surrounds himself with a bunch of lemmings, hangers-on, and syncophants -- through in a dash or 2 of fear --

  and voila

  a Bush Souffle --- only this souffle collapsed so long ago.....

  while it is SO much fun to watch it collapse --- it is so disheartening and dangerous to the 300,000,000 other Americans who must bear the brunt of his emotional immaturity and idiocy.

  his parents were sure two crappy pieces of shit that raised an even bigger piece of shit

  by distributorcap on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 02:48:17 AM PDT

•  What do you expect from

  a professional loser.

  He obviously wasn't much of an athlete since he was a cheerleader. (I know modern day cheer leading is different, relax)

  I'd like to go 1 on 1 with him in a game of hoops. Whatever score he wants to go to.  My high school coach in Indiana was meaner than Bobby Knight. I got game he's never dreamed of.

  by Zwoof on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 02:54:08 AM PDT

  •  oh and

    he can wear his codpiece. probably come in handy

    by Zwoof on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 02:57:51 AM PDT

  •  Name the court, Zwoof! I wanna watch!! n/t

    by dolphin777 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 03:20:32 AM PDT

  •  Yeah for Indiana high school basketball!

    by sharilynn on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 03:31:30 AM PDT

•  Reminds me of a childhood 'friend'

  He was known to all of us as more than a little bit unbalanced.

  In the best of moods, he was cocky, self-assured, smug and superior -- unless he was proven to be less than superior in ANYTHING.  That especially went to games we all played.  Baseball, football, tag, board games -- if this 'friend' was about to lose, he would literally throw a tantrum.

  Now imagine a 15 year old, a big one, and you have quite a scary scene.

  The difference between that childhood acquaintance of mine and Mr. Bush is the former only went on to become a cop.  The other...well, he just proved there is no limit to how far up you can fail.

  May god have mercy on us all...and somebody realize there's a lunatic who believes he dictator of the most powerful superpower in the world... and yes, he's out to totally win that game of Risk, holding onto maybe six territories with about 10 armies total and a single cannon card in his hand.

  by Technowitch on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 03:35:26 AM PDT

•  SOUTH AMERICA

  I have played countless games of Risk against human and AI opponents.  The best strategy is to start in South America.  A player can dominate South America subtly, without attracting the attention of the players going for Europe or Asia.  It is a continent that is easy to defend, and easy to exert influence from.  

  You think that some day George will wish he was Hugo?

  by Winston Sm1th on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 03:58:08 AM PDT

  •  Which is Why

    Paraguay

    He is planning to start over when he has emulsified the US.

    by Deep Dark on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:21:25 AM PDT

•  We need to add a game of Risk to the presidential

  primary process.

  The american people need to know.

  by greatwhitebuffalo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:05:21 AM PDT

•  I added a "print" version link.

  Hopefully that's accessable.

  by dov12348 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:12:29 AM PDT

•  Twins and Risk = War experience

  Remember when Bushie said "I know war.  I raised twins."  Maybe he could add "I not only raised twins but I played Risk."

  Does anyone else think Bush is on the verge of an emotional melt down?  My only hope is that it will happen in public.  A nice long vacation at the ranch would be in order, and that would make Nancy Pelosi #2?

  by JFinNe on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:16:02 AM PDT

  •  He'll have an emotional meltdown...

    ...only if or when his toys are taken away.  Right now he's having a blast.

    by dov12348 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:23:44 AM PDT

    •  Disagree

      He sure doesn't look or act like he is having fun.  He is totally isolated from reality and is only now appreciating his situation.  

      by JFinNe on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:37:47 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps, but I'm not so sure...

        ...we can read him just from his appearance.   With someone like that, you're mainly left with a choice of psychopathic disorders.  Who really knows the mind of a madman?

        by dov12348 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:42:49 AM PDT

•  Maureen Dowd shares responsibility for Bush

   Her "coverage" of Al Gore during the 2000 election season was the some of the most shallow, superficial, substanceless fluff ever printed in the NYT pages. Lots of snark about his clothing; next to nothing about his vision for America. She helped make Bush "acceptable" to moderate Americans who'd had deep misgivings about him (now proven).

   She's a distaff Richard Cohen.

  by Buzzer on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:59:02 AM PDT

  •  No, I can't go along with "Dowd did this."

    Not from the op-ed pages of the New York Times. It's a  pretty big forum, but in south Florida, the Herald commands a bigger one.

    by ticket punch on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:10:49 AM PDT

    •  At least

      Gore still carried South Florida, regardless of what the local papers wrote, including the Herald. I believe all three major papers endorsed Gore. None of the local columnists belittled Gore as did those at the WAPO and NYT.

      Frankly, IMO, a moratorium should be placed on these so-called pundits writing about presidential candidates. They completely ignore the issues that matter and play up the BS that doesn't.

      by CocoaLove on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:51:18 AM PDT

      •  No one tells me what to read. I decide.

        My local paper carries Cal Thomas and Kathleen Parker. I suppress them the old-fashioned way, by skipping them.

        Readers rule, not newspaper columnists.

        by ticket punch on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:31:10 AM PDT

  •  this is only more fluff.

    How else do you play a game, softly?  She's an idiot.  Like you said she is one of the culpable. Damn her to hell.

    by Salo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:20:52 AM PDT

    •  No arguing with "damn her to hell," is there?

      Game over, man, game over.

      by ticket punch on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:31:51 AM PDT

•  It's a maturity problem

  by barnowl on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 05:07:34 AM PDT

  •  Maturity problem--Bush or Dowd or both? n/t

    by LNK on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 05:22:18 AM PDT

•  Dowd is just so clever

  Sorry, but this is like someone complaining about the pick-pocketing activities of a serial killer. Has she forgotten his legacy as the Dim Reaper? A man who presided over more executions than any governor in US history, without a single instance of clemency. This is what we're seeing "more of the same" of. He's going to send more Americans into a meat grinder, for no other reason than to prop up his low self esteem. It's not about winning, it's about not losing. Which is why Bush can't define victory, but he knows what losing feels like. It feels like Iraq.

  by jhecht on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 05:14:27 AM PDT

  •  I disagree.

    Whether and why the serial killer decapitated cats when he was 15 might be insightful in learning more about his current actions.

    by dov12348 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 05:23:16 AM PDT

  •  I know.

    She's a light weight.  How you play Risk or Tennis is not a diagnostic test for high office. LIke you said why not look at his nasty gubernatorial habits?  Or his lies, or his inconsistencies.

    by Salo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:23:50 AM PDT

•  My inspiration...to deal with Bush

  Randi Rhodes points out that Americans aren't comfortable with  things of the mind, including insanity as an item in a legal proceeding......

  Bush is liar.

  That's enough.....

  Let's do it right back at him.

  He has to win, always? OK.
  Humor him.
  I think it's a GRAND idea to use this psychological weaknesses in our favor......Give the man a Nobel Prize! Accolades Galore!! Keep him busy giving acceptance speeches.

  Instead of the upcoming anti-war protest demonstrations, we should have glorious, happy marching bands  in Victory Parades all over the country.
  Thank you, George Bush!
  Bush is The Greatest!!

  [Applause! Smiles! Throw Flowers!]

  Publish commemorative books about his great victory. victories.
  Straight. Like Jesus' General without the colorfulness.

  Well, maybe the color orange will be the (secret) sign.

  P.S. Like I said before, I've been watching too much Monty Python. Confuse-a-Cat.

  by LNK on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 05:34:47 AM PDT

•  Sounds like him

  A rich, spoiled piece of shit.

  by Paleo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 05:51:11 AM PDT

•  Game Over

  THAT'S IT!  Someone needs to tell "W" he has won the Iraq game so he will let us stop playing and take our troops off the board.

  by Doctor Who on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 06:11:20 AM PDT

•  It's too bad for the entire world

  that we have Caligula as president.

  by Dar Nirron on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 06:34:17 AM PDT

•  Given the damage Bush has done...

  to this country and our children's future, he must be working for a foreign government, consciously or robotically.  But which country could that be?

  by djohnutk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 06:41:37 AM PDT

  •  HE WHO CONTROLS THE OIL, CONTROLS THE WORLD!

    Which country would you think that would be? Not so much oil in Afghanistan, it is all in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, interesting don't you think. With China, with our help, growing by leaps and bounds and requiring more and more black gold, all oil men in this current administration, you draw your own conclusion.

    by Vera Lofaro on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:06:53 AM PDT

    •  The US is no higher than third in Bush Loyalties

      Father or son, the US is behind Israel and Saudi Arabia  (possibly other Persian Gulf oil states) in their loyalties.  

      As far as balancing Israel and the Saudis, it's tough but pays well.

      by Bronx59 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:20:42 AM PDT

•  "Middle East" is the hardest "country" to hold

  because it borders so many others. A RISK aficianado should be expected to understand that.

  by ticket punch on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:34:10 AM PDT