This astounding paragraph from an editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal was read into the record of this afternoon's House committee hearings with General David Petraeus:
As General David Petraeus briefs Congress this week on Iraq, it's clear his surge has achieved remarkable results. The most crucial is that the U.S. can no longer be defeated militarily in Iraq, which could not be said a year ago. The question now is whether Washington will squander these gains by withdrawing so quickly that we could still lose politically.
Until I read this, I would have said that "the question now" is whether or not the Congress will continue to rubber stamp the administration's attempt to break our military and drain our coffers on a strategy that offers no endgame and whose primary achievement has been to fully appease a resettled, reconstituted, and unmolested al Qaeda. But now that I've read this article, and have come face to face with an editorial board that actually believes that there was ever a point in the past at which the U.S. military could be defeated by Iraq - a country that clearly lacked the military capacity needed to bring water to a boil - I have a new "question now": Has the Wall Street Journal's editorial board always been this daft, or is this an exciting, new sort of stupidity that Rupert Murdoch has instituted?
Support HuffPost
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.