The Bush League neocons like to have it both ways.
For example, they continue to cite enforcing the will of the United Nations as a reason for the invasion of Iraq. George W. himself, in the Meet the Press interview of Feb. 8, said "U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them. And we said, there are serious consequences if you don't. That was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed."
Of course, the UN also made it plain that they didn't want the US going in, but in that case George's answer is "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."
So, when it's convenient to use the wishes of the UN as an excuse to do what he wants, Bush is more than willing to latch onto it. However, the wishes of the UN suddenly become irrelevant when they don't happen to match what he wants to do.
Bush and his apologists also like to have it both ways when talk turns to Iraqi resistance to the US occupation. When attacks on US forces in country subside, they say it's because we've been so successful at restoring order. When the attacks increase, it's a sign that our enemies are growing more desperate because we're so successful. Either way, whether attacks are up or down, they spin it into good news.
A variation on the same theme deals with terrorist attacks here. As long as there are no more terrorist attacks on US soil, they will say it's evidence that their "war on terrorism" is succeeding, and therefore we need to renew and extend the Patriot Act. If, heaven forbid, there should be another attack--as many Americans think there will be--you can rest assured that they'll say it only goes to show that the world is a dangerous place...and therefore we need to renew and extend the Patriot Act.
The same kind of doublethink pervades Bush League pronouncements on the economy, the environment, and health issues. Any good news is due to their foresight and their corporate-driven policies; any bad news is evidence that we need more of the same. Whatever happens, not only will they claim it proves their policies are right, they'll find a way to say it's exactly what they predicted and planned for. And as long as the lap-dog press plays along, the Bush League will continue to have it both ways.