When is winning losing and losing winning? (Revisited)

Last September in the post When is winning losing and losing winning? I wondered if a Bush win would be a long term loss for the Republicans and a win for the Democrats. I quoted Andrew Sullivan:

I wonder if either candidate has pondered the benefits of actually losing this election? If Kerry wins, you can see how the Republicans would then blame all the inevitable mess in Iraq on his vacillation (even if he doesn't budge an inch), and marshall a Tet offensive argument that implies that if only Washington hadn't given up, the Blessed Leader would have seen the war to victory. Kerry wouldn't be able to win, whatever he does. And because he'd be more fiscally responsible than Bush (could anyone be less fiscally responsible?) he wouldn't have much in the way of domestic goodies to keep his base happy. But if Bush wins and heads into a real, live second Vietnam in Iraq, his party will split, the country will become even more bitterly polarized than now (especially if he's re-elected because he's not Kerry) and he'll become another end-of-career Lyndon Johnson. The presidency of the U.S. is never an easy job. But it could be a brutal one these next four years. Which sane person would want the job?

Saddam is no longer in power, and that's all the Bush administration and the neocons are going to get. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives latter all we are going to get is an Islamic Republic and years of civil war that will spill over into the rest of the middle east. The loss for the neocons is more than the loss in Iraq but a loss of credibility for the foreseeable future. The loss for Bush is his legacy, a legacy of failure.