Reply #5: Seems to me that there's an obvious Dem rebuttal

[EarlG]

"Victory" as defined by Bush is completely meaningless and shifts with the wind (it used to be finding Saddam's WMD's, now it's democratizing the Middle East - next week it could be an iPod for every Iraqi, who knows?). Bush's trick is to keep throwing the word around as if it means something. Therefore I would suggest something like the following:

"Democrats are totally committed to victory in the war on terror and victory in Iraq. It should be obvious to everybody by now that the president and Republicans in Washington are not capable of bringing us that victory."

Or to sloganize it for 2006: "Want Words? Vote Republican. Want Victory? Vote Democratic."

I think I'm going to call this my "D for Victory" campaign.

Our definition of "victory," of course, is somewhat different to Bush's (ie. it involves bringing the troops home as opposed to leaving them there to be slaughtered, among other things). But taking a leaf from the Bush playbook, it appears that one doesn't actually have to explain what "victory" is in order to achieve it. If anyone asks you how victory will be achieved or what your definition of victory is, you just call them a defeatist who must hate America.

The only flaw in my plan is that it's much easier for Republicans to pull this shit off than it is for Democrats, because we actually have a conscience.