See How They Run!

Sometimes you look at the words of the world's smartest people and you wonder - are they stupid or just corrupt?

The New York Times has an editorial attacking McCain's speech yesterday in which he outlined his vision for where we'll be at the end of his first term. The following observation is included:
Mr. McCain said he would achieve victory in Iraq by 2013, for instance, without a glimmer about how he would do it. The Democratic candidates know that the next president’s task will be to extricate the United States from an unwinnable situation as cleanly as possible, not to hold out for an impossible final victory.
Is it possible they're so constitutionally offended by the notion of American power that they can't see that a president elected on a promise of withdrawing troops on a predetermined, arbitrary schedule has effectively rendered his own plan unworkable? That a commitment to weakness, no matter how appealing the notion may seem, does not hold the promise of being allowed to withdraw from the fight? That John McCain is dramatically better positioned to bring things to a close, and successfully, than is Obama?

It's likely that the Times' editorial board is blinded by emotion, that their insistence on an end to the war in Iraq by turning and running has not been thought through and is a conclusion arrived at out of sheer petulance. But it is also possible that they are lying to their readers, just as Barack is lying to voters when he promises a timetable, simply to sell newspapers.

'Extricate the United States - An unwinnable situation - Impossible final victory.' Why does the language of defeat so warm the hearts of liberals?