"History tells us that logic is false"

Like truth and reality, logic is a major casualty of the "war on terror." As I suggested a couple of days ago, one risks one's sanity attempting to understand what the Bushies' are saying. WIIIAI seems fully sane to me, but you can tell that the Bushian nonsense is starting to wear on him:

It's the pretense of pragmatism that irritates me. The pro-war spin on the semi-declassified NIE focuses on the sentence, "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." I'll concede that premise, which seems common sensical enough, but, even putting aside the countervailing number of jihadists created every day the war continues, how does this add up to a case for continuing the war to make us safer from terrorism? Have they never heard of cost-benefit analysis? Let's say that pulling out of Iraq would mean 1,000 fighters "inspired to carry on the fight." Hell, let's say 10,000. If we dealt with them through traditional means--intelligence, security, phone-tapping, satellites, etc--we could spend $100 million to combat each fighter, and still come out ahead.

It's like interpreting puke as art. You may think you see patterns, contrast, symmetry, balance, symbolism, or whatever in it, but it's still just puke. WIIIAI attempts to find logic where there is none. Bush even has an answer for him, which WIIIAI quotes in his next paragraph: "History tells us that logic is false." (To be fair, which I think also left the building with reality, I believe that the emphasis in W's sentence was on "that," a reference to some logic he doesn't like. Then again...)