Winning the Iraq War

Just what is it that conservatives think is so bad about the 124 billion dollar Iraq Supplemental Funding bill passed by congress a few weeks ago? Here's what the bill does:

The bill would establish strict standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops before their deployment and lay down binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government, such as assuming control of security operations, quelling sectarian violence and more equitably distributing oil revenue. If progress is not made toward those benchmarks, some troops would be required to come home as early as July. In any event, troop withdrawals would have to begin in March 2008, with all combat forces out by Aug. 31, 2008.

So do conservatives disagree that the troops should be rested, trained and properly equipped? Do they disagree that the Iraqi government should assume control of security operations? Haven't we been promised for at least the last two years that this is exactly what they would do? Do conservatives disagree that progress should be made towards those benchmarks? I doubt any of those things are what they disagree with. Conservatives want our troops to remain in Iraq until we "win" the war. Unfortunately, they are unwilling or unable to define what "win" means. Look how the definition of "winning" the war in Iraq has changed over the last 4 years.

Somebody has to have a plan and take charge of this disaster. Bush certainly isn't capable of doing so. Now Bush is looking for a War Czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is surprising seeing how Bush loves to point out that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Isn't he the "War Czar". His Sec. of Defense, Sec. of State, and Joint Chiefs aren't enough?