Are we still losing World War II?

James Taranto:

...

Critics sometimes accuse the Bush administration of "moving the goal posts" on Iraq--that is, of changing the definition of victory so as to justify America's continued presence there. But on "Hardball" yesterday, host Chris Matthews redefined "defeat" in such a way as to make victory impossible:

Lots of publicity lately, and maybe it's fair, maybe it's not, that things may have calmed down over there, less Americans killed in action in the last several of months but before. But my definition of a defeat is you can't leave. If we can't leave that country in the foreseeable future, we are losing. The purpose of the American Army is to get home and be ready to defend this country against possible threats to this country.

As long as we're stuck over there, it seems we're losing.

Of course, the U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan. By Matthews's definition, we're still losing World War II.

...


I have labeled Democrats and some in the media as desperate for defeat in Iraq, but Matthews takes that desperation to new depths. You can see why the definition of the word "is" trips up some liberals. You can also see why they do not comprehend the definition of the words "lie" and "disaster." If they did they might recognize what a disaster the current Democrat Iraq policy is.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Iraq says civilian casualties in Mosul caused by ISIS booby trap, not US air strike

Liberal fascists strike against Trump supporters in Berkeley

OPEC reduces production again in price maintenance program