Defining "defining"

Our leader, the vile little fraud in the White House (VLFWH), has pronounced the latest round of violence in Basra and Baghdad, as "a defining moment" in Iraq's history. And he does it in his inimitable foggy way:

"I would say that this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq. There have been other defining moments up to now but this is a defining moment," the president said at a White House news conference. "It is a necessary part of the development of a free society."

Where does one begin with this moronic sound bite? How about with the meaning of the word "define." According to Webster, to define is "to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of." So Shi'ite militia running amok in Iraq is the essential meaning of the place? Or maybe he meant American money and American blood propping up a corrupt regime. Or the innocent people of Iraq again being slaughtered because they have the misfortune to get in the way of the U.S.'s imperialistic ambitions or ancient Islamic passions that motivate people such as Muqtada al Sadr and his AK-47- and RPG-toting followers. Or perhaps what he means is that "what defines present-day Iraq is the passel of blatant lies that continue to pour out of my mouth."

I'd submit that any of the above would serve far more admirably to understand what defines Iraq today than the nonsense the president spouts.

It might also be helpful to point out that "a defining moment" is by it's nature a singular event. But the VLFWH tells us there have been other defining moments. I wonder how many singular events he has in mind. Three? Six?

I don't have time to deal with his preposterous dictum that the kind of agony Iraq is going through right now and has endured for five years because of us is "a necessary part of the development of a free society."

And to think we have months more to go before he's gone.