I doubt many of us on here are big fans of the New York Post editorial page, or the rest of the paper for that matter. (Although I must confess, I do enjoy their sports). Today, they were ranting about Harry Reid's statement that the war in Iraq is loss. Now there's no surprise here, and I won't recount much of it because it was basically the right's boilerplate rebuttal to any criticism of Bush or the war.
But something caught my eye.
Specifically, it was this:
Certainly the outcome in Iraq, at this point, is not clear.
The BEST that a lapdog editorial board can say in favor of Bush's war is that the outcome is not clear. This is, to me, a stunning admission. We have the best military in the world. After more than four years of fighting against the remains of country's armed forces that had suffered a major defeat in a war against us and been subject to repeated airstrikes in the no fly zone AND been subject to sanctions for more than a decade "the outcome is not clear?" Why isn't it clear? Should we not be winning this? After all, we keep hearing how the latest strategy is paying off, how the Iraqis are stepping up to fight for their freedom, how many Iraqi troops are being trained etc. If the outcome isn't clear at this point, will it ever be? Maybe this is a war that cannot have a clear outcome.