In the upcoming fight over the language of "victory", the Democrats may soon have the best set of communications skills in the field.
Michael Kinsley has the backdrop, in a piece I missed earlier.
In fact, President Bush laid down the standard of success when he announced the surge more than a year ago: "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." At the time, there were about 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Bush proposed to add up to 20,000 more troops. Although Bush never made any official promises about a timetable, the surge was generally described as lasting six to eight months.
...
Just lately, though, General Petraeus has come up with another zen-like idea: he calls it a "pause." And the administration has signed on, meaning that the total number of American troops in Iraq will remain at 130,000 for an undetermined period.
The rest is equally succinct, straightforward, and clearly reasoned. A must-read from the week, probably.
[One can just hear O'Reilly, et. al., trying to prod Russert into sucking up, wittingly or otherwise, one of their attacks: Senator Obama, Senator McCain has asked if we want to "win" in Iraq. Do you want to win? It's a simple question."
Better reply than even Letterman's? "No, it's a simpleton's question, and I'll tell you why, Bill."]
