It can't be both...

Bush said "victory" is staying in Iraq until we have "won," yet in the next breath he says we will stay until we train the IRAQIS to "take the fight to the enemy." Which is it? It can't be both!

and leave it at that.

not attempt to...

We now take you to the bizarro outer limits of the Dubco world.

Maybe the "we" in "until we have won" is an inclusive "we" that includes the US, the UK, and many Iraqis.

Maybe the other "we" refers to the US military.

Just a thought.

He said all of the following:

"...they concluded that America can be made to run again -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences. The terrorists are mistaken. America will never run. We will stand, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror."

"Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies in the heart of their power, so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq."

"As we pursue the terrorists, we have a strategy to go forward. Our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so they can defend their people and take the fight to the enemy."

"Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. And when our commanders on the ground tell me that the Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned."

"And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."


So what IS victory?

fighters--who can? Oh, yeah, the homies we train. . . . And victory rhymes with asshole, too.

NoFederales

But is victory teaching the Iraqis to "take the fight to the enemy" (which even WE couldn't do) or is it staying until "victory" is achieved?

NoFederales