Overtly, you will notice that the talk a good game saying things like, non-binding resolutions do not support the troops, or that suggesting we bring the troops home is tantamount to aiding and abetting the terrorists.
But really, you need only look so far to see how we should all know that "victory" in Iraq is neither going to be realized in the near term, nor will it be possible to proceed as is if we are to retain a modicum of face in this matter.
Exhibit 1: The W, Rove and Co is setting up the next administration to carry on:
Q Tony, I just wanted to follow on what you were saying before, about the President -- with the resolutions flying around the Hill, what the President is doing. He's focused on trying to, you said, leave tools in place to fight the war on terror for the next President.But to what end?
MR. SNOW: Correct.
Even his advisors suggest that W is simply putting off the declaration of defeat. The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.So, the bigger questions remain. If things are so bad, why does the W, Rove and Co. insist on it's flag waving, patriotic rhetoric in the face of opposition to their current plans?
Would it be wrong to declare defeat and move on, not unlike declaring chapter 11, and retool the whole operation? Given how much the W, Rove and Co has been wrong about Iraq so far, might they also be wrong about what would happen if we pull out the troops?