As Yglesias points out, conventional wisdom of "liberal hawks" and "liberal not hawks" regarding Iraq is basically about the same. We need to get out. The latter emphasize the importance of "getting out now" while the former epmhasize "getting out as soon as we can subject to things being better in some undefined way," but the positions aren't really so different. The "hawks" are just more wedded to the idea that we have to be able to "declare victory" while the "not hawks" think that little chest beating is not actually all that important.
But, none of these people are George W. Bush. As we know, but no one talks about, we have no intention of getting out now or ever. If the "liberal hawks" or the "maverick conservatives" or whoever actually wanted to have a bigger impact on actual Iraq policies, they'd spend more time focusing on pressure points that could actually achieve some change - you know, the Republicans and George Bush - rather than certain overweight filmmakers and cootie-infested liberal groups and the horrible evil party "base" and "grass roots" who should just STFU.
It's time for the Biden Democrats, in one of the infinite Sunday show appearances, to raise the issue of the administration's long term intentions in Iraq. If the stubborn George W. Bush intends to leave troops in that country forever, then no talk of getting out, either on a rigid or flexible timetable, is any relevant.
Sadly, it's only the ones who advocated this clusterfuck who are given any credibility by our media. It'd be nice if they used that credibility and the platform it offers to actually try to achieve something instead of just using it to position themselves as the guys with the biggest balls on the block.
