The issue is, that it will NEVER be enough for some people to define success.
First we were going to get slaughtered in Afghanistan. That didn't happen, the Useful Idiots maintained we weren't successful.
So we went into Iraq. They said we would get bogged down and chewed up by the Iraqi war machine. That didn't happen, they said we weren't successful unless we go Saddams sons.
We got Saddam's sons, then they said it would not be a success until we get Saddam. We got him, and it wouldn't be a success until we get Bin Laden.
If we get Bin Laden, it will not be a success, because the Useful Idiots just want to keep moving the goal.
Anyway, we will be at this for a long time, until the entire world makes terrorism a taboo.
I would like to see Bin Laden caught. However, does ANYONE seriously think the Useful Idiots who oppose military action will say things were successful if we do catch him? Anyone? It would be nice, but I don't think it is going to be any kind of significant marker on the anti-terrorism road.
"The issue is, that it will NEVER be enough for some people to define success"
If we found the huge stash in a cave with Bin Laden and wall maps of New York and DC they would still complain
Interesting- I hadn't considered the possibility that his capture would be a measure of 'success' in the sense you've stated it, and in that sense, I agree. But his capture certainly would be 'a' success, a success I'm all to happy to encourage.
> If we get Bin Laden, it will not be a success, because the Useful Idiots just want to keep moving the goal.
Bingo. Liberal whiners are never going to be happy. The war could be over with democracy and full infrastructure restored to Iraq, OBL executed, and libs would bitch about some little old lady in Tikrit who didn't get enough healthcare.
That's why our President is right to follow his own convictions and prosecute this war as he sees fit instead of holding a moist finger up like BJ.
(I just threw up in my mouth a little thinking about BJ's moist finger.... ewwwwww)