Bridging on Paul Gessing's last blog, the level of mendacity among war boosters is now officially off the charts. They are trotting out ever sophistical, specious arguments to support the "surge," hoping that something will stick.

Sean Hannity, talk show host and consistent shill for Compound W, was interviewing a person who opposes the war. Raising his voice, Hannity asked, belligerently: "Don't you want us to succeed in Iraq?" The guest said something like, "I'm not sure what you mean by 'success'." Hannity shouted him down, "Answer the question."

This, of course, is easily seen through. Like most of the English language, the word "success" is squishy. For example, if "success" means the US troops stay in Iraq for 10 years, refereeing a Sunni/Shia Civil War until no militia are left, then, NO, Mr. Hannity, I don't support success. The Iraq War is like fruit from a poisoned tree. It was a mistake from the get-go, based on false premises. It was a set up for failure in my book. Of course, I want to get US troops out of harm's way. I don't want them to die or to be maimed in a cause that I find completely inappropriate.

There IS NO success here. This is a case of making the best of a bad situation. Yes, it's probably helpful that Saddam is out of power, though his hanging was -- by my values -- unwarranted and barbaric.

The Hannitys of the world don't seem to have the integrity to answer the most basic question: What is your definition of "success"? If they won't do that, then they are not engaging in civil discourse. The only word I can think of is "propaganda" to describe this rhetoric.

-Robert Capozzi