Can dems counter the "no surrender" pro-war meme by claiming victory?

[CK dexter]

I was listening to some pundit go on about how McCain's pro-war position won't hurt him in the GE because the public will see the dems' position as "surrender." Why don't they just play along, and say: Bush declared the goal was to get rid of Hussein and his WMD's. Hussein's gone, there were no WMD's, so we've won, let's go home.

It seems to me that to take a weaker line (things aren't going to get better even if we stay, so let's cut our losses), not only do we play into the hands of the No Surrender Monkeys, but we also let the administration get away with its bait and switch (oh, we were there to liberate the Iraqis all along! This was never about WMD!)

Take Bush at his word and turn it against him: mission accomplished. Yes, it was a fool's mission, but it's accomplished.

[yellerpup]

1. Mission Accomplished was five years ago.

What's to lose? (Except the oil revenue)

[NoodleBoy]

2. er, no. the rightist position is exposed as stupid when you examine their claims--

1. The Iraq War has been a fantastic success and it's now a stable, democratic, peaceful country.

2. If we pull out American troops now/soon, the country will descend into chaos and turn into Iran.

The two positions contradict each other. If Iraq's a success, then we can bring the troops home. But if we bring the troops home, Iraq will disintegrate, because the American troops need to be there to keep the peace.

[CK dexter]

3. This only applies to the revisionist claim that the goal was to create a stable democracy in Iraq

The point is to hold them to the original justification for the war: get rid of Hussein and the WMD's.

The idea was to remind the public that they changed the supposed grounds for the war, and that on the original grounds we no longer need to be there.

(All of this assumes, as you say, that the rightist position is stupid--and highlights it.)