Exactly, Obama is trying to make a virtue of necessity, and trying to sell it as the "success." I wonder though, if the immunity issue was deliberately sabotaged by Obama's negotiating team because he really wanted to withdraw completely and needed a cover of "non-negotiable conditions" to accomplish that. Maliki might have played along, it would make him look tough for his factions - this would be a win-win for Obama's and Maliki's real goals.
Additionally, he is trying to tie the notion of "full withdrawal" as the "end of the Iraq war" which we all know is a lie.
We have won several wars in Iraq, first over Saddam and his forces, and later - using Iraq as preferred field of battle - to demolish the remnants of al-Qaeda and new recruits, which made winning the "war in Iraq" their main goal and holy jihad. Unbeknown to most, the "war in Iraq" became a mousetrap / flypaper / "roach motel" for the al-Qaeda and their recruits who went there to die in large numbers instead of being a fertile breeding ground for worldwide terrorism. This was an overwhelming success that was over well before Obama became the President.
Another problem, that I didn't see being commented on, is that if the "end of the war" requires a full withdrawal of troops from the country whose former regime / government has been defeated, then the U.S. is still at war with Germany, Japan, Italy and in Korea (where NoKo somewhat resembles Iran) because the U.S. keeps the bases and troops there.
Victory has no connection with the "full withdrawal" but Obama is trying to tie them together so he can claim the credit for both "ending the war" and "winning the war" at the same time. Media, of course, bought the tie-in. Of course, Bush failed to take credit for either, so they were on the table for Obama to claim.