Submitted by Scott, Aug 6, 2007 00:06

It seems most candidates thought progress in Iraq was being made and that success was possible, but they gave no indication of defining what success was. One even suggested that victory needed to be defined. This is for a war that has been going on for many hears and that some people thought was won years ago. It is possible to interpret the authorization for military force to define success as a regime change and the clearing of WMD. Since that is done, some other criteria for success must have sneaked in. Why are there criteria that sneak? Shouldn't all this be aboveboard? Ron Paul wants to simply bring the troops home with no strings attached. Mike Huckabee wants to declare victory at some point and then bring the troops home eventually. The rest want to fight forever. (And the Democrat candidates claim to want to get out of Iraq, but will gladly rush to any other war under the flag of fear.) It seems we are stuck with a future of perpetual war.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.