Originally posted by coolbeans326
Either way, I thought Letterman did a good job responding to the question, even if he didn't answer "the question." Though technically, we already won the war with Iraq. Now what we are doing is trying to stabilize Iraq so that way they can take over. This isn't a "war" that we're fighting now, its more of a peacekeeping force with occassional raids here and there, but we cannot win the "war", only the Iraqi's can do that now.
ANSWER THE QUESTION>>> YES OR NO?....... ha.. just kidding c.b. you nailed it... oriely will not get an instant one word response to that question from someone who actually thinks about it, and he knows it, and twists(or SPINS it) into being indecisive ... like i said, it was a loaded question... a no answer = oooohh... you hate america and you want us to LOSE.. a yes answer would be resonded to with something like "then why do you disagree with (insert disasterous policy here) if you want us to win you'll let the president do "what needs to be done" and quit being critical." he could've asked "do you want us to lose" and he would have gotten a one word answer. "winning " is not the only alternative to losing...
what is the goal.. "enter iraq with force,and disband their army so we can find and destroy their stock piles of wmds...?" oh.. wait..nevermind ummm how about.. "remove the brutal dictator of iraq?"... answer.. hell yes.. oh wait.. then we already "won" game's over lets go home..... hmmmm. i guess that wont work either....
that's orielly's style.. he makes sure to ask questions that don't have a "yes or no " answer and demands one, and uses it to show his audience (the choir) how "idiotic" thinking people are... i've heard hannity do the same thing...