How about when Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and any other person you call your leaders say the same words: “jihadists admit defeat, violence is down, political reconciliation is moving forward, oil production is up” as well as “we were wrong to admit the war is lost.” “We were wrong to try to end this war before al Qaeda was defeated there. We admit that if we had gotten our way and ended the war in early 2007 that it would have meant a major victory in Iraq for al Qaeda and we’d be well on our way to seeing a new powerful, jihadist caliphate rise up, hell-bent on reigning terror on the US. By failing to stop the surge, we instead find al Qaeda’s dream of jihad completely crushed. We were wrong. Bush was right. He has likely scored a major victory on the war on terror and we are grateful to him and Dick Cheney for their unwavering leadership in the face of great adversity.”
Michelle - If I was gay, I could fall in love with you! But since I am not, I will just say that your post is excellent! I salute you! Five stars is not enough!
Many of us no longer see anything that skip has to say, since he insulted the memory of a soldier killed in Iraq.
You have no response. You can’t say what “victory” is. You can and do enthusiastically attack people for not cheering for “victory,” but when asked what it is, all you can do is make unfounded claims about my attitude towards the president.
I have told you what I believed a “win” or a “victory” is before now, Vlad. No matter how many times I do, you claim that I didn’t.
Once more, for the record: Victory means a stable, at least somewhat Democratic Iraq. (I say somewhat Democratic because there are many forms a pluralistic government could take, some more or less democratic than others.)
conspicuous in its absence is vlad’s definition of victory. Losers generally don’t know much about victory so leave us not hold our breath waiting for Vlad’s august opinion on the matter.
Oh, please. I can just hear the president going on TV and solemnly announcing, “Armed forces of the United States and its allies have now begun the assault that will remove Saddam Hussein from his sadistic reign of power. Coalition troops will remain until there is a stable and at least somewhat democratic Iraq.”
Sorry, that is not a definition of “victory.”
So, Vlad, what is it you want here? You ask for a definition of victory but when I give it to you, it’s not good enough. Perhaps no definition of victory is good enough for you? Perhaps you hate the war so much that nothing could make it a success in your eyes? Perhaps you are so invested in a world view wherein the United States is the evil imperial agressor, and success, to you, means a humiliating defeat to teach us a lesson?
I submit that you reject my definition of victory because we are not on the same team. Well, allow me to be more clear: Victory for the United States means a stable and democratic Iraq.
I don’t know what victory means to those, like you, who won’t be happy unless we fail.
Once more, for the record: Victory means a stable, at least somewhat Democratic Iraq.
Oh, please. I can just hear the president going on TV and solemnly announcing, “Armed forces of the United States and its allies have now begun the assault that will remove Saddam Hussein from his sadistic reign of power. Coalition troops will remain until there is a stable and at least somewhat democratic Iraq.”
Sorry, that is not a definition of “victory.”
Actually the President has said on a number of occasions that his goal is to leave Iraq a “free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself” and be “an ally in the War on Terror.”
You ask for a definition of victory but when I give it to you, it’s not good enough. Perhaps no definition of victory is good enough for you?
Well, it’s got to be better than “a stable and somewhat democratic Iraq.”
I don’t know what victory means to those, like you, who won’t be happy unless we fail.
I’m sure you don’t know what victory means to me. For those like you, it’s Americans dying because you won’t admit a mistake.
(Laughter)
What was the “mistake” about toppling Hussein? Bush’s predecessor-a Democrat-wanted to do the same thing. And when the evil Bush went to Congress to get them to sign off on it they did-even many of the Democrats, including the one who was the Dem’s 2004 nominee and one of the Dems running for the job this year.
I noticed that earlier you mentioned Randy Newman. You forgot to mention that Randy is a well-know Leftist, who has written songs like “Political Science”, where he matter of factly states that America is hated the world over. And one of his new songs criticizes the war on terror. No wonder you like the guy.
Then tell me Vlad, what does victory mean to you? Huh? If victory to you doesn’t mean failure for the United States in Iraq, what does it mean?
Can you answer that one question?
A US victory in Iraq is vindication for Bush’s going in there in the first place. And vlad will never accept that Bush could be right about anything.
vlad is between a rock and a hard place on this one. If, as he says, we should “declare victory and bring the troops home now”, then he’s admitting we won the Iraq War with Chimpy as Commander in Chief.
Then tell me Vlad, what does victory mean to you? Huh? If victory to you doesn’t mean failure for the United States in Iraq, what does it mean?
Can you answer that one question?
Victory means a stable, democratic Iraq, with no violence, and an end to terrorist attacks around the world. Does that work for you? It works for me. I think it would be a wonderful thing.
I also think it would be a wonderful thing if Israelis and Palestinians all held hands and sang “We Are the World,” and if no puppies had to be put to sleep at animal shelters any more. Don’t you? What, you hate puppies?
It’s probably a mistake, but I’m going to try to glean some seriousness from your post, vlad. I think you’re making the point that victory defined as a stable, democratic Iraq is ludicrous. Iraq will never be stable or democratic, although there may be incremental progress toward stability and democracy over time, thereby necessitating our permanent presence there to ensure continued progress.
Anybody talking about a “permanent” or “open-ended” military presence in Iraq is admitting that the war was begun on deceptive grounds. Perhaps the Bush administration never specifically said when the troops would be home, but there was never a hint of a suggestion that we were entering into an indefinite occupation.
There is simply no logic to this statement at all. This makes no sense at all, but hey consider the source.
I noticed that earlier you mentioned Randy Newman. You forgot to mention that Randy is a well-know Leftist, who has written songs like “Political Science”, where he matter of factly states that America is hated the world over.
Do you remember why I mentioned Randy Newman? Let’s go through it again, maybe a little slower this time. Randy wrote a song, about 30 years ago, called “Short People.” The refrain is “Short people got no reason to live.” Some people took him very seriously. There were even some group of short people who organized protests, and some states actually tried to ban the song.
They didn’t get the joke.
In “Political Science,” he sings, “They all hate us anyhow, so let’s drop the big one now.”
You didn’t get the joke.
See, because when vlad makes a joke, and it’s offensive, it’s not his fault. Nope, it’s because people didn’t get it. Vlad, you should really get acquianted with this thing grown-ups call personal responsibility. Or abandon the John Kerry-esque sense of humor. Either would improve the quality of your posts immensely.
