Someone break this down for me:
Meanwhile, as usual, Limbaugh’s been busy quoting other people out of context. He listed me by name alongside other so-called traitors who are rooting for the defeat of American troops in Iraq, because I said Sheehan’s success gave war opponents “reason to be optimistic about the administration’s unraveling in Iraq.” From that he concluded I was “rooting for the administration’s unraveling in Iraq … that’s exactly what they’re doing! They are actively urging our defeat!” (Thanks to Media Matters for the transcript.)
Let me break it down for Limbaugh, and for his allies like Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney, whom I debated Tuesday night on the “News Hour With Jim Lehrer” (you can watch it here): I’m not rooting for the defeat of our troops. When I hail the administration’s “unraveling,” as the piece made clear, I’m referring to the unraveling of public support for the war, which is tied to the unraveling of the administration’s ever-shifting stories about why we went to war — some call them lies — and now, the unraveling of its claims about what we’re fighting for. No longer are we promised a democratic Iraq — my piece linked to a Washington Post article in which unnamed administration officials confessed that the best we can expect in Iraq is some sort of Islamic republic. That’s quite an unraveling.
The way I read that, it says ‘I’m not rooting for a loss in Iraq, I am just giddy about the prospect of domestic political gain that comes with a loss in Iraq.’
Am I misreading that?