Has anyone in the Bush administration stated what would have to happen to end the war (or call it a victory)?

Question

Has anyone in the Bush administration stated what would have to happen to end the war (or call it a victory)?

Answer 1

A war without an aim is bound to be a war without an end.

Answer 2

Yes, the Iraqi people will greet our troops with flowers, and monkeys will fly out of d**k Cheney's butt.

Answer 3

Yes.  There must be a democracy, the nation must be self-sufficient, and their military must be at full strength.

Answer 4

Yes, where you been?

Answer 5

Pretty much there now.  The Iraqis are taking over more and more of their own security; a compromise deal with the Sunni's and Shia's is in the works in their Parliament.  Just today they announced a deal to withdraw all US forces by 2011.

Answer 6

this is to It's that guy:

It seems people forgot what WIN and LOST means. You will sit there and say we lost the war? That is so far from the truth. There are many rules to follow in war now. If Iraq and Afghanistan was a true threat, we would take a few of our bombs and wipe them off the face of the earth. It just takes too long with the rules of war now.  If we lost the war, you would be fighting for your life right now in our own country. It is very disrespectful to our Service men and women over there right now, fighting and following the rules of war. You can sit there and say we lost? you make me sick. go back to your 9-5 job and talk more ****.  

Answer 7

Yes, every single week since march 2003.

Answer 8

Not lately.  One of the ways we know the war is lost is that the Bush administration can't even really define 'victory' anymore.  At first they said they wanted to oust Saddam, to create a constitution and elect a government.  But they did this and it's pretty obvious to everyone that the job is not finished.

Then Bush suggested the 'surge'.  Now the surge is over and Republicans and conservatives insist it was successful, even though it's clear we are no further along towards peace than we were before the siege.  

And when Democrats or 'liberals' point out the obvious truth, that we aren't making any real progress and haven't for several years now, Republicans are unable to answer that charge except to attack the critics as subversive.

Finally, Bush keeps shifting the focus to Iran, blaming them, saber-rattling, and accusing them of nuclear development, the same stuff he did in the run-up to the war in Iraq.  This is what you might call a 'weapon of mass distraction'.

It seems clear to me that the Republicans' only strategy here is to keep the war going, keep insisting that we're winning, until the Democrats take it out of their hands and end it.  And then for decades they will claim that we were WINNING in Iraq but the Democrats made us LOSE, that rather than win the Democrats chose to surrender.  This is exactly what happened after WWII in the case of China, the 'who lost China?' talking points of Richard Nixon et al. And this is why John McCain isn't allowed to admit the war is a losing proposition or promise to end it.  He has to pretend we're winning so future historians can't point out that the very next Republican to run for president also saw that the war was not winnable.

Answer 9

They have done this several times.

Where have you been?