Yesterday CalPundit Kevin Drum wrote that Tacitus is "wondering why the rest of the pro-war blogosphere isn't more concerned that three months after official hostilities ended the occupation appears to be close to melting down". That's not what Tacitus wrote, and far from the truth. As of this writing, there are fifty comments on Drum's post, and none has pointed out that Bush never said hostilities were over, he said "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended". In other words, operations in Iraq are no longer division-sized attacks involving fifteen or twenty thousand troops with dozens or hundreds of aircraft in support, they are occasional skirmishes involving platoons or squads or even single vehicles, with the occasional battalion- or brigade-level operation to clear out a Ba'athist stronghold. It's easy to depict Bush as a liar or a fool if you put words in his mouth.

And Bush announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln on May 1st, which is not "three months" ago, but less than two. When a commentator has so much trouble getting the simple facts right, why should we trust his judgment on more nebulous matters such as what constitutes a 'quagmire' or 'meltdown'?