Whenever people point out that some war critics in Congress actually seem to want the U.S. to fail, they are accused of exaggeration. But James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal's Web site points to an example of a couple of legislators, and it's hard to interpret their remarks any other way. First, there is Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda, who stepped out of a hearing room so she wouldn't have to hear testimony about progress in Iraq:
When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane's description of Iraq "as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation--things are going so well--those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, 'Here's the reality of the problem.' "
Then there is this guy:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. . . .
Trying to bring up the other side of the issue -- the idea that the U.S. might be making progress, which isn't exactly the same as winning, but is a good thing -- would "divide" the country. A positive report on progress is bad because it would "impede" efforts to end the war. Don't even talk about winning, we're too busy making sure we lose.