Bad Alibi

I want to get something straight.

1) The Democrats wanted to get out of Iraq because it was a "quagmire" we couldn't win.

2) But it's become clear we're winning.

3) If the Democrats are intellectually consistent, shouldn't that make them want to stay in Iraq?

4) But, instead, they're hysterical because winning undermines their argument for leaving Iraq.

But how can that be? If their reason for leaving is losing, their reason no longer exists. Why are they still so insistent on leaving? Because it has undermined their argument, but not their reason; which are clearly not the same.

They have a reason for wanting to pull the troops out of Iraq that they are not expressing. The argument was for public consumption...a front, a fiction.

It can't be otherwise, or the looming victory would make them happy. But they're angry. Angrier and more desperate to pull out of Iraq than ever. They can't defend their position based on their argument. And they can't confess their real reason.

Conundrum.

It's an interesting plot-line: A murderer sets up an unimpeachable alibi that inadvertently puts him at another murder scene. And now he's going down as the perp on a crime he didn't commit. He can either cop to the murder he committed to get out of the one he didn't, or go to jail for a crime he didn't do.

The Liberals are in the same position: They can either admit that the reason they are against the war isn't because it's a "quagmire we can't win"; or they can change their position in line with their argument and profess to no longer having any objection to the war, since we're winning. They lose either way.

And so we see them twisting in the wind...that wind of victory. Unable to articulate a rational argument, as theirs as been demolished by facts, they're reduced to sounding like Left-Wingers with Tourette Syndrome blurting: "Bush Lied; People Died!" and "No Blood for Oil!"

Sad really.

The Gunslinger