As always, Hitchens is lucid, intelligent, and deferential to reason... mostly. He just can't stay away from the red herrings! Honestly, what liberals or Democrats WANT us to fail in Iraq? I want examples. I agree that such a position would be unpardonable, but no one serious takes such a position. If you look far enough out on the fringe, then sure, you can find any straw man you want to take on. But back in the real world, the Democrats in Congress have not cut off the funding for the war, and many of them voted for the authorization. Can you really paint these people with the same brush as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky??

Obviously, the idea that Libs want America to fail (in Iraq, economically, as opposed to Europe...&C) is obviously a perception and may be incorrect. The question is, why do so many people share this perception if it isn't true?

Well, as I said, there is SOME truth to it, but only out on the fringe; just as most stereotypes have an element of truth to them, but the rest is extrapolation. Same thing. And that popular right-wing media sources like Fox and talk radio repeat this nonsense constantly certainly doesn't help either. So it's understandable that a lot of people have this perception, but that doesn't explain why Hitchens does. Why many people believe it is a different question from why Hitchens believes it. He is pretty impervious to the opinions of others.

And what you perceive as a behavior relegated to the fringes is really much more prevalent than that. A quick view of the Democrat debates and what they had to say about the state of action in Iraq shows that even mainstream Democrats are turning a blind eye to progress there preferring, instead, to pretend that we are in a hopeless condition over there that can only be cured by an immediate surrender.

It's in democrats' interest to declare the war a failure, even prematurely (which they have done many, many times), because they need to come of anti-war-ish without being accused of "not supporting the troops."

None of that demonstrates that anyone WANTS us to fail. Believing that we are failing and wanting us to fail are different. You're too quick to say they're the same thing. Hitchens himself says that reasonable people can be skeptical. But when anyone expresses skepticism, they're "turning a blind eye to progress?" Give me a break. Name me one Democratic statement - ONE - that demonstrates a desire to be defeated, as Hitchens suggests. You can't, because none exists.

When skepticism is so entrenched that it cannot be swayed by facts, it becomes defeatism. At best, the Democratic Party suffers from a sort of profound political depression that prevents them from seeing hope. If you want to try to paint that as a kind of healthy vigilance against over-optimistic government propaganda out of Iraq, that's alright. But, as Democrats continue being "skeptical" while reasonable people see progress, I don't know how Democrats can hope but to appear to be rooting for failure. And, as Democrats saw with Kerry, the nuance defense doesn't work as well as one might think. It's hard to say, "sure, we look defeatist, and we shrug off progress while looking for alternate reasons for what only appears to be progress, but we really hope for the best deep down."

I agree that we liberals are slow to accept improvement in Iraq - but it's not wanting us to fail, it's a well-deserved skepticism that things really are improving. War supporters have been wrong for 4 years that things are getting better, pardon me if I wait a little longer to agree each time.

That said, the profound changes we've seen in the mentality of Iraqis are very positive and, to me, were the missing piece of the puzzle that I didn't think would ever fall into place. Those of us on the left need to embrace this as positive.

But it galls me that conservatives will crow about it without admitting that the criticism of the Bush administration, the demands of a change in strategy, far from being treasonous, share in the credit for any improvements. Yes, there are some on the fringe that will never be happy. But many of us were truly hoping to see improvement.

We also need to make sure that the conversation stays framed appropriately - the Bush Administration has been successful in reducing expectations, to the point where now any improvement is seen as a validation of the war in general. I hope we continue to discuss whether this was worth it; I don't think any amount of improvement makes this war worth it, the price we've paid already far outreaches any realistic outcome, even if we get out tomorrow.

Again with the straw man! The Democrats LIKE good news from Iraq. It bolsters their case that we can begin a withdrawal.

I've still yet to see a single example cited here. I'm hearing a lot of kneejerk reactions to the defeatism of "the Democrats." If you can't give me an example, then you're argument doesn't hold water.

But what changes in strategy has the left forced? They were skeptical, at best, of the U. S. military partnering with former insurgents. They were against the surge. They dismissed the assessments of General Petreus. Their main strategy suggestions, as far as I can tell, have been to pull out, since three years ago.

The above sounds more dismissive than I mean it to. I'm really interested in what you think the strategy changes have been that find their source in the Democratic Party.

It's a perception. It's the perception that counts -- this is politics. Hitchens sees it. I see it. Many people who aren't dogmatic liberals see it. If you don't see it, then it's up to you and your Party to convince us that you're other than our perceptions of you; it is not up to us to convince you of why you strike us that way.

By the way, you illustrate, here, the hubris that has cost the left so many elections. You expect the country to explain why it don't like you, rather than explaining to the country why it should.

"They were against the surge. They dismissed the assessments of General Petreus."

Here is the thing Max, we AGREED with the assessments of General Petreus when he wrote the manual for counter insurgency. that is why we opposed the surge because it violated his own strategy papers. It was too little and too weak to make any lasting difference. All it did was put a temporary lid on the violence. The Iraqi government has made none of the necessary advances in becoming a legitimate force in the country. The real reason for the drop in violence is that the militias have already emptied their neighborhoods of unwanted elements. Millions have been driven from their homes to avoid religious cleansing and now you claim that as a victory?

Well, there are plenty of criticisms to be made of the Democrats. But that they WANT US TO LOSE is not one of them. Joe Biden has had a plan for Iraqi federalism that has been completely ignored by the administration. There are plenty of suggestions and strategies on the left that go well beyond just accepting defeat. (By the way, getting rid of Rumsfeld and bringing in Patraeus never would have happened had the Democrats not won the 2006 election. Still think the left hasn't forced a change in strategy)?

Look, I could do the same thing to you. After 9/11, Jerry Falwell said America had it coming. I didn't then say that all Republicans and conservatives were defeatists who wanted to just sit around and wait for the second coming. That's would be the equivelent of this nonsensical argument that tries to pigeonhole Democrats as defeatists.

I'm still waiting for the example you haven't been able to find.

Each side wants to show they were right all along. Was it right to leave Iraq alone, or was it right to try to remake the region? Can it be wrong to have whacked Iraq's hornet's nest, but right to continue on the course we've inexorably set?

Now the Republicans have it relatively easy: they simply maintain support and hold on to their base. It's the democrats, once again, who have trouble defining a position. It's a completely understandable, even honorable, predicament--but one that makes elections harder due to its "nuance."

Where is the evidence? We can all see the reduction in violence, which is obviously a necessary first step for the government to become effective (it's hard to govern while you're being bombed). We can't all see the ethic/religious cleansing that your side constantly claims, so where does that information come from?

By the way, a dogmatic desire for consistency is the absolute best way to find a terrible leader. Democrats have both criticized the Bush administration for refusing to change tactics in Iraq, while simultaneously critiquing the administration and the Pentagon when it does change tactics; oddly, you do this regardless of the outcome, good or bad. It makes it hard to take anything that comes from the left seriously, and contributes to the image of the left as defeatist.