. . . don’t go to the New York Times. I love the second to last paragraph of their latest editorial:

What makes this all the more confusing is that in recent months there has been some tentative progress in Iraq. American and Iraqi casualties have declined, and there are signs that the central government is beginning to assert its authority against Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City and against allies of Al Qaeda in Mosul. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain cannot have it both ways: insisting that American troops must stay if things go badly, and that they must stay if they go well.

Casualties have “declined”? They’ve plummeted.

The central government is “beginning to assert its authority” in Basra and Sadr City? Two long and hard-fought victories over Sadrist militias is quite a beginning. Also, notice there is no specific mention of Maliki. The Times, long ago having written off Iraq’s prime minister, can’t figure out how to cover his recent successes.

Bush and McCain don’t want it “both ways.” They want one way: victory. It’s the Times that wants it both ways: If things are bad we need to withdraw troops. When things improve, we need to withdraw troops. This is the Times at its most befuddled. With the gains of the surge, the anti-Bush, anti-McCain rhetoricians can find no purchase in reality. Which isn’t to say they’ll stop trying.