the politics of a horse's ass
today's sun blows (bloviates?) just about a third of their page 3 on a nonsense rant about the distinction between "allies" and "americans" on omaha beach in order to pick fault with the recent SOTU address. the first and only thing of which this reminds me is how quickly the idiots of this particular partisan bias wanted to whine "allies" when it suited their de facto unilateral disrespect for our own (i.e. only congress can declare war) and international (go look up "soveriegnty" some time) law. (yeah, that's right, it was ALLIES who were all up in that iraq thing).
last i checked, d-day was considered a single invasion, not five separate ones, and when referring to canadians and british as "allies", it's more than a bit disingenuous, if not outright wrong, to suggest that we, the americans in that fight, weren't "allies", too.
i'm also not quite sure what is meant to be suggested by "do they teach world war II at harvard? or do they just teach about wars we lost?". i'm not aware, considering my scant comparative education, that we as a country have ever officially lost anything that's been officially called a war... (since, after all, the subject today is the careful splitting of semantic hairs...) are you?
oh, there's been a conflict here and there (e.g. korea) where the outcome has been left undetermined (korea is still just a "ceasefire" over 50 years later), or historically been deemed less than favorable, (i.e. we did strike our colors over saigon), but a war?
perhaps the horse's assistant can do some fact checking and get back to us.