That's about the only charitable explanation I can find for this dunderheaded editorial.
I could go into detail about why this thing is so absurd, but I'll leave most of that to our readers. Please comment away.
I'll just point out this. In the middle the editorialists claim:
The long war against the insurgency in Iraq has further inflamed Mideast opinion against the United States without enhancing US security.
Toward the end they claim that Bush can point to some successes such as "the decision of Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy to end his support for terrorists."
As I recall, Khadafy made that decision in the wake of the Iraq War. Well, if Khadafy's decision enhances US security, and he made that decision after seeing what happened to Hussein, the logical conclusion is that the Iraq War has made us more secure.
But logic is hard to employ when you're taking puffs from the pipe.