George’s latest limbo attempt with the English language comes as he is attempting to explain whether we are winning or losing in Iraq, what winning means, and why “staying the course” is our only option, except now that we aren’t really “staying the course” anymore.
Here is a comment from a reader of Dan Froomkin’s White House Briefing.
"That struck me as an unbelievable contradiction of all logic -- 'the only way we can't win is if we leave, but if we can't win, we'll leave' -- so is he saying that if we don't stay in Iraq, we'll leave? I'm confused -- what's winning?"
He’s apparently not the only one who’s confused. Here is a comment (via the same Froomkin article) from Kathleen Parker, a conservative writer.
"Bush tried to clarify what 'winning' is.
"This is a little tricky, so pay attention.
"First, 'winning' is closely tied to 'staying the course,' another term seeking definition the past few days. As of this writing, 'staying the course' means 'winning,' which means 'not losing,' but you knew that.
"And what does 'not losing' mean? According to Bush, it means not leaving. Which no one wants to hear, but there it is. . . .
"At this point, the only real question, said Bush, is whether we can help the Iraqi government succeed. 'Not only can we help them, we must help them,' he said.
"Which means not leaving. Which means not losing. Which means winning, maybe, as currently defined."
So, how confusing is that? This from the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, whose own supporters can’t even figure out how to explain what the hell this guy is talking about and what point he is making.