Opinion | Editorial

Editorial

Knowing our limits

April 5

    During his visit to Europe for the G20 summit this week, President Barack Obama made an effort to emphasize to many European leaders that the United States would support Turkey becoming a member of the European Union (EU). While European leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have not indicated that there are necessarily unfriendly relations with Turkey, Obama's support of Turkish membership was met with a cool reception, with many EU member states feeling that the United States should not be attempting to intervene in an organization of which it is not a part. Although we at the Daily understand that Obama's intention is to extend a hand of friendship to the primarily Muslim Turkey, we also understand that the EU is an entity beyond American control and that President Obama should take note of the protests throughout Europe concerning the United States' tendency to dictate the policies of other countries and should respect the decisions of the EU.     Although Obama has openly stated that he intends to better the United States' relations with Muslim countries like Turkey, the EU is a completely inappropriate forum in which to do this. Not only is the United States not a member of the EU, but bullying our allies and friendly countries into a decision that may conflict with their best interests does not bode well for perpetuating the cooperative, respectful, world-conscious image of the United States that President Obama values so highly. With the economy currently floundering, health care reform desperately needed and the auto industry failing, the president should have enough to concern him before Turkey's potential EU membership.     This is not to say that foreign relations are not important; after all, most of those who voted for Obama were thoroughly distressed at the former administration's foreign policy failures. This action, however, crosses the line, exhibiting an American tendency to attempt to dictate events beyond its control — exactly what the many demonstrations throughout Europe this week have been protesting. If the president wishes to improve relations with Turkey — or any Muslim country, for that matter — it should do so on its own and not vicariously through avenues like the EU.     Pushing for Turkish membership in the EU during Obama's G20 visit not only lessens the friendly and cooperative atmosphere of the summit but also puts many nations that are still gauging how to interact with the new face of the United States on their guard, despite Obama's stringent attempts to show that the country is turning over a new leaf. The world will be more receptive to American demands and suggestions when the economy is on track again, jobs are stable and banks aren't failing — and these are the problems that the summit was organized to address, not the EU membership of Turkey. President Obama needs to remember his priorities and be conscious of the image he projects to the rest of the world lest we begin anew the cycle of unilateral decision-making and alienation from the world community.

---

Editorial

Conflicts of interest

March 30

Just over two weeks ago, the Tufts Committee on Ethics formally rescinded an informal invitation to Paul Thacker, a top aide of Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), deciding not to allow him to speak at Tufts' symposium on conflicts of interest in the medical field in May. Ironically, the committee came to this conclusion because of the conflict of interest regarding the Senator's ongoing probe into a Tufts professor.

---

Editorial

Preaching to the choir

March 29

    Despite the fact that less than six months ago, the world rejoiced with many in the United States over the election of Barack Obama, it seems that old resentments die hard. As President Obama prepares for the G-20 summit in London, groups throughout Europe are preparing to protest his visit and the United States' — what they see as the source of the global economic recession — attempts to dictate recovery plans and diplomatic policy to the rest of the world.

---

Editorial

Palling around with diplomacy

March 8

    In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, President Barack Obama stated that he believes the United States is losing the war in Afghanistan and that he would be open to having the U.S. military negotiate with more moderate members of the Taliban, hopefully imitating the success of negotiations with Iraqi Sunni militants. This does appear to be an enactment of one of Obama's most controversial campaign promises — namely, to be open to negotiations with "terrorist" countries without preconditions — and while it is certainly still a large unknown, it is certainly a step toward stabilizing Afghanistan.     With the beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003, much of the attention that was devoted both militarily and politically to Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the aftermath of Sept. 11 shifted to Saddam Hussein and Iraq, especially when the situation in Iraq didn't clean up quite as nicely as was hoped. Much of the trouble in controlling Afghanistan stems from the fact that the country is in many ways disunited with a range of views and loyalties to tribes, governments and ethnicities. President Obama hopes that in opening talks with the Taliban, as General David Petraeus did with Sunni "radicals," he will be able to isolate and negotiate with more moderate and open members of the Taliban and its supporters to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and understanding between Afghanistan and the United States.     We at the Daily wholly support President Obama's openness to talks with an "enemy" of the United States — if nothing else, these potential talks present an opportunity to promote understanding, if not agreement, and respect, if not friendship. President Obama's openness to dialogue, for those who are in agreement with Gov. Sarah Palin's accusations during the presidential campaign that President Obama would be "palling around with terrorists," shows the world that his administration really is committed to reaching out and closing the cultural and political gaps that provide support for organizations like al-Qaeda. It is a demonstration that Obama is willing to go beyond rhetoric and catchphrases and bring the change he advocated for during the presidential race.     It is through the use of dialogue, the promotion of understanding, and the openness to both that the United States can hope to resolve the issues that still fester in Afghanistan and maybe, with some luck, lessen the grip of extremism and fundamentalism that clouds negotiation and taints political relations. And while this is certainly not a guarantee of peace, negotiations or even talks between the United States and Afghanistan, it is at least a step in the right direction.

---

Editorial

Internships should be based on merit

March 1

By the middle of the spring semester (or, for those who are more on the ball than the average college student, the end of fall), the pressure is on as the seemingly impossible scramble for summer jobs and internships comes to the forefront of most students' to-do lists. With the downturn in the economy, it seems that no matter how many opportunities a student seeks, no matter how good the résumé, the odds are stacked against the modern college student, even for smaller unpaid internships — and the phenomenon of the paid internship seems to have faded into myth.

---

Editorial

A missed opportunity

February 25

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) was supposed to be the Republican Party's equalizer. He was supposed to exploit the weaknesses of President Barack Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night. He was supposed to step into the national spotlight in the way Obama did four and a half years earlier during the Democratic National Convention. He was supposed to be the promising young face of a party that has appeared increasingly fractured over the last few years. 

---

---

Editorial

A risky divide

February 24

Less than five years after political conservatives of all stripes spoke with certainty about a permanent Republican majority, the party finds itself out of power, out of influence and, arguably, out of ideas. As it wanders in the political wilderness, the GOP must begin to make some difficult choices about what it intends to stand for; whether it will purge itself of the ideologically impure, or whether it will cut a deal with the devil just to stay viable. The growing divide in the Republican Party today is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the debate about President Obama's economic stimulus bill.

---

Editorial

An unfulfilled promise

February 22

    This weekend, supporters of President Barack Obama who believed that theirs was a vote for change experienced shock, disappointment and disillusionment when the administration announced that it would uphold a policy of denying constitutional rights to the 600-some detainees of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan — a policy that prevailed under former President George W. Bush. This decision seems to go directly against Obama's anti-torture, pro-human rights rhetoric, the symbolic closing of Guantanamo Bay and his repeated insistence that his administration seeks peaceful relations with countries in the Middle East. This is a direct betrayal of the expectations and values of the many who supported him, and it is liable to create doubts among other nations about just how much change Obama is bringing to Washington.     Several personnel at the Bagram Air Base were investigated in 2002 and later prosecuted after autopsies revealed the deaths of Mullah Habibullah and a 22-year-old farmer and part-time taxi driver known as Dilawar — both Afghani civilians suspected of terrorist activities — to be homicide induced by severe blunt force trauma. Dilawar, it was later revealed, was found innocent.     Despite these past infractions of human rights, the administration argues that, because Bagram is located in an overseas war zone, its prisoners, who may be a threat to security, can be considered part of continuing military involvement (as opposed to Guantanamo, which is not located in a war zone). The administration also says that keeping the detention center open is a matter of security and that prisoners will be released when they no longer constitute a threat to that security (arguments that sound eerily similar to Bush's justifications for allowing Guantanamo Bay to remain open).     This is not the legacy that President Obama promised to uphold in his campaign or in his inauguration speech —in which he even addressed the issue of torture — and it is certainly not something that bolsters the United States' image abroad or fulfills the promises that Obama made at home. It is, in effect, a violation of the promises he made, an insult to the hope and optimism he instilled in his supporters and a warning sign to tenuous allies and potential enemies with whom he had hoped to build bridges. It says to the world that the United States only supports human rights when it is convenient, that inspiring words about equality and humanity should not be trusted and that change will only ever be halfway.     President Obama should remember that the United States is still fragile and bruised from recession and disappointed hopes, looking to define its future as a virtuous, prosperous nation, and that much of the outcome of that quest will depend on decisions such as this one.

---

Editorial

North Dakota threatens Roe v. Wade

February 18

    On his second day in office, President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to protecting abortion rights by marking the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. He said the ruling "stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters."     The statement stood in stark contrast to the remarks made by former President George W. Bush exactly a year earlier when he told March for Life participants he was "proud to be standing with" them.     But as the state of North Dakota proved yesterday, neither the new president nor Supreme Court decisions are going to hinder the progress of pro-lifers and their march toward entirely eliminating abortion rights in this country.     In a 51-41 vote, the North Dakota House granted fertilized human eggs the same rights as human beings, ruling that "a human being includes any organism with the genome of Homo sapiens."     State Rep. Dan Ruby (R-Minot), the bill's sponsor, argued that the legislation does not automatically ban abortion but merely defines the time at which life begins. Essentially, he asserted, the bill is completely compatible with Roe v. Wade and is "not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that [he has] proposed in the past."     But of course it's aggressive. Direct or indirect, the legislation challenges the very tenets of the 1973 ruling.     Rep. Ruby is seriously fooling himself if he thinks pro-choice proponents — or really anyone — will buy this argument. The very fact that the North Dakota House defined life as beginning upon fertilization inherently bans abortion from occurring within state borders. If the Senate passes the bill, any abortion carried out within North Dakota will be considered murder.     It could not be more simple.     With one vote, the North Dakota House has put a bill in front of the state's Senate — which will likely vote in the next two to three weeks — that will effectively force the state government to "intrude on our most private family matters."     But that certainly won't be the end of it. Ruby may claim the bill goes hand-in-hand with the Roe v. Wade ruling, but it is no secret that provided the Senate passes the bill, North Dakota will challenge the basic principles underlying the decision President Obama was celebrating just a month ago. It will likely cost the state millions of dollars to defend — a fact that concerned many critics of the measure.     We at the Daily hope that it doesn't come to that. Let's hope the Senate has enough sense to see the bill for what it is: a direct threat to Roe v. Wade.

---

Editorial

Public art is a must

February 18

    On Jan. 24, Shepard Fairey visited our campus. Invited by the Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) program, he covered the wall by Jumbo Express with his signature street art. Talking with my peers, I gathered that there was a mixed reaction to his work. Some felt that it was out of place; the bold red and black color scheme seemed to signify something ominous. Others decided that it was cool to have a celebrity come to campus.     Whether or not his mural pleases everyone's artistic tastes, Fairey gave us something more important than just a colored wall: He gave us dialogue, character and public art. On a campus that lacks public art of any kind, Tufts should be grateful for this bold addition.     Since coming to Tufts, I have felt that the campus lacks a cohesive character in terms of art and architecture. The buildings on the academic quad harmoniously interact with one another, but the view of '70s-style Miller Hall strikes a discordant note. Yet, campus cohesion does not necessarily mean a single unifying style. Cohesion lies in buildings and space interacting together to create a welcoming atmosphere. Where we live, and the buildings and people we interact with, touch each person's life intimately. Whether we are in the slums of Mumbai or the polished apartments of the Upper East Side, our built and decorated environment has an impact on us.     The idea of space is both an abstract and concrete one. By setting up walls and buildings, humans change and construct the space they occupy. Our perception of that wall or building, however, can define the space. The outcome of these barriers may hold cultural or political implications. Take Baghdad for example. The walls surrounding the Green Zone are heavily protected. They are almost impenetrable in order to protect the international agencies and government offices inside. Though the area may be secure on the inside, the immediate area surrounding the Green Zone, the Red Zone, is perceived to be the opposite. The security may be keeping out threats such as insurgents, but one must also consider that these intimidating walls also separate the Iraqi citizens from international help and their government. This separation of space may have a negative effect on the psyche of the Iraqis. Ultimately, this has contributed to the Balkanization of Iraq, creating a divided and not cohesive city.     The definition of a wall is something that divides space, but it can also reconstruct space. The fortified walls around the Green Zone created an enclosed enclave which excludes the rest of the city. Fairey's mural on the campus center wall reconstructed the space surrounding it. One could hardly call the patio outside Jumbo Express anything besides a corridor or the place where the shuttle from Davis Square stops. It was stale. That wall's only function was to hide the dumpsters behind it. But now, public art has redefined the underused space as a marker for Tufts.     Consider Union Square in Somerville. It can hardly be thought of as a square, as it is the intersection of several major roads. It is inaccessible by the T but reachable by the 80 bus line. Union Square would otherwise be a busy and impersonal intersection, but it is filled with little cafés.     Even so, a collection of cafés does not define a place. Davis Square is a large brick patio. Harvard Square is characterized by the architecture of its namesake university. Newbury Street is known for its brownstones. What is Union Square known for? The vibrant collection of murals that decorate many walls. According to a friend, the murals are markers signalling that you are in Union Square. Once the murals disappear from sight, you know you've left the area. In other words, the wall art is the glue to an otherwise potentially disjointed space. The street art has involved the Somerville Boys & Girls Club and the residents of the area. The murals have not only given that space an identity but also have created a community.     On the Tufts campus, the Shepard Fairey wall will give our school more definition and physical distinction. Although the mural is only projected to last for up to four years, it has already given our campus a refresher and a stimulator. Just as the mural is glued to the wall, the mural will serve as a type of glue for the campus, bringing our ideals and ideas together. "Obey Peace" is a simple and powerful message. The reworking of Communist propaganda reflects Tufts' constant goal to innovate and make better what already exists.     We need more public art to spruce up this campus. When the trees have lost their leaves and the flowers have crawled underground during the winter, the bright points of this campus that remain will be the art. The statue of Jumbo outside Barnum is great, paying homage to our mascot. People interact with it, climbing on top of it in the middle of the night. The cannon is a beam of color and communication, drawing people in to connect with it and each other over its next coat of paint. And the little elephant statue outside of Tisch Library reminds me every day of my community.  Tufts needs more bright points. The barren Res Quad and other empty, underused lots around campus are screaming to be included in the everyday life of this school.      We need to start thinking about public art not as just a pretty sitting duck, but as a catalyst of dialogue and community. Public art can be dynamic and active. As a university that stresses active citizenship, our physical campus also needs to reflect our ideals. Fairey's mural is a poignant reminder of art and space.

---

Editorial

Correction

February 18

Yesterday's article "EPIIC to kick off annual symposium tonight" quoted Institute for Global Leadership Director Sherman Teichman saying that of the four class years represented in this year's Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship (EPIIC) colloquium, the senior class is the one with the lowest representation. Instead, the article should have reported that he said that this year's colloquium includes fewer seniors than in years past.

---

Editorial

Bosworth's visit an encouraging sign

February 11

While most students on the Hill rightfully place their focus on the enduring U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq — and the danger that terror camps and violent extremists pose there — when contemplating the regional and global threats that the United States faces, the dilemma posed by North Korea's nuclear threat often goes overlooked.

---

Editorial

Simple, but refreshingly optimistic

February 2

    It was a privilege to host the Right Honourable Tony Blair yesterday at Tufts. For many students and faculty members, the opportunity to hear Britain's former prime minister speak was surely a memorable one — perhaps more for proximity to the man himself than for the content of his speech.     The topic of the Fares Lecture Series — the Middle East — is always relevant and, especially after the last few weeks of fighting in Gaza, Blair's lecture had particular resonance.     Given the downward spiral Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have taken since the Second Intifada began in 2000, the tenor of Blair's speech proved academically interesting and perhaps even reassuring. The failure of the 1990s peace talks has undoubtedly cast a pall over an issue that for some seems unsolvable. The Israel-Palestine conflict may continue to plague the region and the world for decades to come.     But Blair, currently serving as a Middle East Quartet representative, seemed unusually optimistic. He indicated that the answer is tenable — that the two-state solution is not impossible and did not perish with the Camp David summit in 2000 and Taba in 2001. While these comments should be evaluated critically, it was still refreshing for a major world leader to speak about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in such positive terms.     His concluding references to the necessity of global alliances for solving the world's most challenging problems seemed to hint at the potential this country now has to restore old friendships under a new administration. And this, combined with Blair's final praise of the final outcome of the country's recent presidential election, proved encouraging, especially in the context of a lecture on the state of conflict in the Middle East.     Beyond this, however, the audience would have been better served if Blair had been slightly more concrete and specific in his proposals and opinions. Blair stated that we need reinvigorated political negotiation and a combination of both hard and soft power to deal with a conflict that he defined as the most important factor in stabilizing the Middle East.     He did not delve much deeper than this. And for an audience full of students and scholars, that was a shame. Although Blair clearly could not begin to appropriately give this conflict its due in a 40-minute speech, his words, though reassuring and strong, barely skimmed the surface.     Nonetheless, Blair was surprisingly witty and interesting — in both his manner of speaking and the subject matter in which he delved — a combination that lent itself to a positive, though perhaps academically underwhelming, experience for the Tufts community.

---

Editorial

Obama stimulus a positive step

January 28

    President Barack Obama's administration put the centerpiece of its early agenda into play yesterday when the House voted 244-188 in favor of an $819-billion stimulus package meant to jump-start the nation's downtrodden economy.     Whether or not the new plan will create three million new jobs over the next several years, as Obama said after the vote, remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: We are currently sitting at a macroeconomic crossroads in which the evidence for the success of a fiscal stimulus is ambiguous at best. And Pulitzer Prize-winning economists sit in both camps. There have been just two instances in which this type of stimulus has been tested — the United States during the Depression and Japan in the 1990s — and neither country emerged in the manner originally intended.     While the debate over the impact of the New Deal has raged between Keynesian and non-Keynesian economists for decades, both of whom have logical opinions, the House did the right thing yesterday by passing the stimulus package. The economy has continued to deteriorate despite the Fed having cut interest rates to nearly zero, and this type of economic stimulus is one of the few tools still available to lift the country from the financial doldrums.     The credit crunch has made it nearly impossible for most home and business owners to borrow, and this new package will enable the government to assist that kind of demand; the package is also intended to restore consumer confidence, which will in turn increase spending.     Anti-stimulus economists are concerned the package will result in wasteful — and perhaps Democratically tinged — spending, while weighing down the economy in the future and taking away resources from the private sector. These concerns, though certainly founded, do not outweigh the potential benefits of the package. It's worth the risk.     The 647-page package will use government spending at the national, state and local levels to immediately impact the economy. At the same time, temporary tax cuts will help households and businesses pay off debts and ultimately spend money, strengthening the private sector and restoring life back into the economy for the long term.     As such, Democrats hope to pass off the package to President Obama by Feb. 13 in order to get the ball rolling as soon as possible. It is possible the stimulus will not have the overwhelmingly positive results Keynesian economists are hoping for, but it's better than nothing.

---

Editorial

No room for corruption

January 26

Massachusetts Speaker of the House  Salvatore DiMasi announced his resignation yesterday amid charges of financial impropriety involving influence-peddling with friends and lobbyists. DiMasi had represented the North End since 1978 and was heavily involved in legislation supporting gay rights and health care reform in addition to his opposition of Governor Deval Patrick's bid to bring casinos to Massachusetts.

---

Editorial

Top Ten | Homegrown athletes from Arizona and Illinois

November 3

    After months of mud-slinging, name-calling and petty negative attacks, the day is finally here: Top Ten's take on the the Presidential election. With Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama squaring off today, we at Daily Sports wanted to throw our two cents in on the greater electoral chaos.     So in honor of today's presidential dust up between the great senators from Illinois and Arizona, Top Ten dives headfirst into the best that each state has to offer to the greater world of sports. 10. Doug Mirabelli (Ariz.). The former famed catcher of Tim Wakefield's knuckleballs was born in Kingman, Arizona. Currently a free agent, Mirabelli has given his services to four different MLB teams and is most known for his years playing in Boston, where he was a part of both the 2004 and 2007 championship squads. 9. Sal Fasano (Ill.). Another mediocre catcher, this time from the Prairie State. Career batting average: .221. Career home runs: 47. Career moustaches: one. And it was awesome. 8. Ted Danson (Ariz.). Danson played the famous character Sam "Mayday" Malone on the TV sitcom "Cheers" from 1982 to 1993. Malone was a washed-up, but supposedly once-decent, relief pitcher for the Boston Red Sox whose potentially great future was ruined by alcoholism. In real life, though, Danson grew up outside Flagstaff, Arizona and hasn't battled alcoholism, though his love affair with Whoopi Goldberg probably had the same effects. 7. Dick Butkus (Ill.). The once 6'3", 245-pound Chicago native did just about everything right in his career, garnering numerous Pro Bowl selections, NFL Player of the Century considerations and a Pro Football Hall of Fame nod. His only mistake was becoming the XFL's director of competition. 6. Henry Cejudo (Ariz.). At the age of 21, this wrestler from Phoenix, Arizona, became this summer the youngest-ever American to win an Olympic Wrestling Gold Medal. Cejudo, the son of undocumented immigrants, was able to turn a passion for wrestling into a life-changing opportunity — one on which he capitalized. 5. Rickey Henderson (Ill.). Simply put, he's the greatest of all time. Just ask him. 4. Ian Kinsler (Ariz.). The young second baseman for the Texas Rangers, born and raised near Tucson, might as well have been the "Lone Star" on his team in the second half of the season, as Home-Run Derby standout Josh Hamilton saw his star status dwindle after the break. 3. Jim Thome (Ill.). One of the most feared hitters of the past decade, the Illinois native has knocked out 541 pitches to the bleachers, ranking 14th on the all-time home runs list. Among MLB's elders, Thome is 38 years old, making him eligible as a write-in candidate in today's election if you're hankering for someone from the Prairie State not named "Barack." 2. Phil Mickelson (Ariz.). The undisputed second-best, or second-most renowned or second-highest paid golfer in the world, Phil Mickelson has had quite a career. Raised in Arizona, he attended Arizona State University on a golf scholarship and was America's top golf prospect for at least — well, actually, Tiger's always had him beat, despite being five years younger than Phil. 1. Jackie Joyner-Kersee (Ill.). Hailing from scenic East St. Louis (yes, it's still in Illinois), Joyner-Kersee is one of the all-time best in the women's heptathlon and long jump. With three gold medals to her name, she was arguably one of the best things to come out of Illinois since Honest Abe.

---

Editorial

Powell's bipartisan decision

October 19

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on "Meet the Press" yesterday morning, calling Obama a "transformational figure" and criticizing the McCain campaign for its negative tone. He also stated that, in his mind, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) is not "ready to be president of the United States," should calamity befall Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) while in office. Once considered a likely candidate to be the nation's first African-American nominee for president, Powell told host Tom Brokaw that his choice had nothing to do with race.

---

Editorial

Some illuminating ideas

October 19

Blackouts rarely make for a good time. They make it impossible to charge phones, computers and iPods (every college student's nightmare), sneakily reset clocks and turn even the simplest tasks into arduous chores. These issues, however, pale in comparison to the inconvenience of last Sunday's blackout, which came complete with closed dining facilities (except for Dewick), pitch-black residence halls and malfunctioning key fobs.

---

Editorial

The only person that matters

October 13

Two years after Representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) stepped down from Congress due to a sex scandal involving House pages, his Democratic successor has become embroiled in a scandal of his own.

---

Editorial

Give victory a chance

October 13

Defeat, as defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary, is "frustration by nullification or by prevention of success" or "an overthrow[,] especially of an army[,] in battle" or "the loss of a contest." This same dictionary tells me that success may be described as a "degree or measure of succeeding" or a "favorable or desired outcome." Lastly, and most importantly, victory is "the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist." Why am I giving you dictionary definitions, you ask? The above three words — defeat, success, victory — have been used with such great frequency in respect to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that one needs to understand when and how they may be used. Politicians on each side have preferred words, of course, most notably the Democrats who hail the war as a disastrous affair with impending defeat (some claim the defeat has already happened) and the Republicans who tell the American public that the war is a success, that in some ways we have already won. How is it possible that something of a concrete and tangible nature can have two incredibly different results?

---