Defeaticrats Redefine "VICTORY"

Oh here's a shocker: The reality challenged Defeaticrats who never stopped trying to define the meaning of the word "is" are now trying to redefine "VICTORY."

Well, we all know that these Orwellian delusions are about all they have left to cheer themselves up these days. But this one really takes the cake.

It's Not Whether You 'Win' or 'Lose' . . .: In recent months it has become common practice to talk about what it will take to 'win' -- or what it would mean to 'lose' -- the war in Iraq.
...
But what if all of this vocabulary -- winning, losing, victory, defeat -- is simply misplaced? There are, after all, wars that are not actually won or lost. There are wars that achieve some of their goals, that result only in partial solutions and that leave much business unfinished.
...
There are wars that end ambivalently -- wars, for example, such as the one we fought in Korea.
...
Iraq is not Korea, of course, and the Middle East is not Asia. But it is perfectly possible that the two conflicts might eventually resemble one another in the ambivalence of their conclusions.

To be fair to Applebaum, she does point out that the lack of VICTORY as defined by General MacArthur, left a virulent communist regime in the North which currently threatens another generation of American children with nuclear annihiliation.

33,000 American troops died for that partial victory and still, there is NO EXIT STRATEGY for getting them home more than fifty years later.

President Bush has laid out a clear strategy for VICTORY in Iraq. A VICTORY that will continue to generate positive developments throughout the entire region. To suggest in any way that we could accept a partial victory with the attendant risks in today's world is evidence that Defeaticrats are too irresponsible ever to be trusted with power again.