It marks the first time since the war began four years ago that he's not used it repeatedly in his commemorative speech.....
2007-03-22 18:37:31 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8996577&ft=1&f=1001
2007-03-22 18:39:26 · update #1
He knows people are sick of the war, they want our soldiers home, and he now has to find a way to end his term positively or at best neutrally.
By omitting the word, he can just circumvent the whole "are we winning or losing" thing and focus on finding somebody else to blame for his folly.
2007-03-23 00:54:37 · answer #1 · answered by astreastar 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's no war in Iraq, there's a police action to keep the peace.
Are the police in America losing, since crime continues?
You can't claim "victory" over criminals, there will always be disenfranchised sects in a free society. And, in Iraq, those segments of disenfranchised have always been violent.
It's not like violence and bombings are new to Iraq.
2007-03-22 18:44:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
He is running short of excuses now and thats why avioding such words that he can not explain by his lies !! as the world is no more blind !
2007-03-22 19:34:34 · answer #3 · answered by ★Roshni★ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know why slugger, it's because the initial military objective has been achieved.
Now it's all about managing the victory.
Wake up and smell the jihad.
2007-03-22 18:46:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well that depends on what benchmarks he set for victory.
Was it to get WMD? ....well there were none of those
Maybe it was to get Saddam? ....well we got him and now we are still there
Wait, wait, wait it was to get those Al-Qaeda guys.... nope can't find any of them there either.....
Hell.....what is victory?
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!! YAY!!
2007-03-22 19:13:58 · answer #5 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He may have stopped using words he cannot define.
2007-03-22 18:43:05 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋