Define victory. Another "Bush is skating" comment.

In his recent "Path to victory" speech Bush said "Our goal is victory -- and victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation."

That's about as far as he goes in defining what victory actually is.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207-1.html

If we wonder why Bush is going back up in the polls, we need look no farther than this. The sentence above is a marvel of rhetorical virulence. If Rove wrote it, he's back in the saddle.

My question to Dems is why we allow the Republicans to define victory in a way that is both functionally vague and politically powerful. We let Bush "define" victory in this way and we wonder why he's getting back some of his old smirk?

1. What is the strategic victory in Iraq that Bush is seeking? What is the desired outcome in terms of oil resources, America's political standing, and America's security? Let's not settle for hogwash that can be sold to the brainless. Let's have some numbers and scenarios. What's the point in saying we "can't achieve victory" when we have let Bush define a faith-based version of victory, a city floating in the clouds.

2. What's this business about "Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists..." being a criterion for victory? How did it even happen that we needed to make that a goal? Whose fault is it that this is a goal?

These folks are getting by on high sounding words again. Remember, a lot of Bush waverers were once Bush backers. Let's not let Bush give them this horse puckey to cling to. Let's make him define victory. He will fail.