Bloggers love contradictions. Also, they hate them. Whaaa?

I was reading the waste-o-bandwidth blog, otherwise known as Atrios's Eschaton, and came across a post from this rocket scientist:

They were discussing the Iraq war. O’Reilly in his usual abrasive way asked Letterman “do you want the United States to win in Iraq?” To my surprise (and dismay), Letterman appeared totally unable to answer the question and paused, as if really having to ponder the options. O’Reilly then added that “it’s an easy question.” Letterman, in what may have seemed like a good response to daily Kossacks but in my mind was rather pathetic, replied “it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.”

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to win in Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody.

I think Jonny McDumbass, who wrote the post, doesn't completely comprehend English. Letterman pondered O'Reilly's questions, didn't answer immediately, then said it was difficult to answer because he's "thoughtful". And how does Sammy VonRetard describe Letterman's response? "reactionary, simple-minded..."

Quick vocabulary lesson: A reactionary and simple-minded answer would've been an immediate "yes". In other words, what YOU think he should've done.

The fact is, you CAN NOT WIN IN IRAQ. There is NO winning. Sure, one side could come out with more points, but it won't end the game. The only way the US could truly "win", is if Iraq becomes a full democracy, Islam completely changes its beliefs so that they no longer resent our presence in the Middle East, and Osama bin Laden starts farting daisies.