Victorious Generalizations

I've asked this multiple times to multiple conservatives: What do you think victory in Iraq is?

The typical response is usually some bliteringly vague set of phrases that tend to lean more toward what "defeat" could potentially mean if in fact there wasn't a decisive victory. But at no point has any conservative that I have spoken with or any on television, in print, or online has ever been able to enumerate precisely what victory is.

Apparently Sean Hannity must know because he seems to think we gained victory in Iraq.



If one can draw any sort of conclusive statement from this, apparently Hannity's metric for victory means that the Iraqis can now enjoy a new future. Talk about generalizing the issue. I think even Sarah Palin could do a better job than that. So if Hannity calls destabilizing what was already a fragile region to begin with, paying off insurgent groups so fighting would subside momentarily while a "surge" of troop were sent in to create the illusion of clearing out all remaining groups and quelling the violence to a minimalist extent so conservatives could call THAT a "success", and validating removing a man from power who had nothing to do with Sept 11th ( and who actually was one of the first world leaders to contact the US and offer condolences for the attacks ) but was the "enemy" of Bush's father, then that's a really poor victory to latch onto.

But conservatives have never been able to clearly define a real victory that will benefit America as a whole, they're too concerned with telling everyone what failure is.