I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. . . . [T]he Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation . . . --unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

. . . I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country. The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

. . . What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory. . . . Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ain't that peculiar? No more peculiar than Alter's latest:

The fury directed at [Lieberman] by many Democrats is rooted not just in his support for Bush's Iraq fiasco but in his annoying habit of hedging his bets, as reflected in his risk-averse insistence that if he loses the primary, he'll run as an independent. . . . But there's something psychologically deeper going on in this campaign that is both understandable and depressing--a cannibalistic distraction from what should be the top priority of Democrats, namely booting Republicans. The same Democrats who are justifiably angry with Lieberman for not holding Bush accountable are harming efforts to, well, hold Bush accountable.

Ain't that peculiar? In July Alter wrote that Democrats should take on the Republicans on Iraq. In August Alter writes that Democrats should not nominate candidates who will take on Republicans on Iraq. Because . . . primaries are . . . bad? Replacing a Dem who supports Bush's fiascoes with one who won't is um, what, exactly Mr. Alter? Ain't that peculiar?

How does Mr. Alter propose to urge Democrats to not fear the Iraq issue when they must fear the defeat of Joe Lieberman? How could Jon Alter have written this in July:

We'll see this summer if Democrats begin to get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say, "This isn't about us. It's about them." We'll see if, when Karl Rove wants to talk about Iraq, the Democrats respond with three familiar words: "Bring it on."

And then write this in August:

[T]he Senate needs collegial moderates who work across party lines. It's the only way to stop the really bad stuff. And the revival of the romance of the antiwar left is a potential disaster for the Democrats. That's what gave the world Richard Nixon in 1968, when ideologically pure liberals who had backed Eugene McCarthy in the primaries refused to rally around Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey was "complicit" in the Vietnam War machine. . . . The bloggers who have noisily intervened deny they're interested in ideological purity. They point to their support in Senate races for pro-life candidates. But on Iraq, the liberal blogs brook no dissent. . . . They're helping fuel a collective version of what shrinks call "projection," where the anger of Democrats at Bush is projected on a handy target, in this case Lieberman. But in doing so, they have neglected what FDR called "the putting of first things first." Job one for Democrats is identifying which Republican House incumbents are vulnerable in their own states and directing all available energy against them. Savaging fellow Democrats (except those who cannot win) should come after taking control, not before.

Cognitive dissonance is not a pretty thing in a pundit. Don't fear Iraq? Don't attack poor Joe on Iraq? Hard to do both Mr. Alter. Oh and Mr. Alter, defeating Joe does not mean NOT defeating Republicans. Rather peculiar of you to think of it that way.

But you seem to be asking Democrats, and Connecticut Democrats particularly, to love one who takes

Every chance you get you seem to hurt me more and more
But each hurt makes my love stronger than before
I know flowers go through rain
But how can love go through pain

Ain't that peculiar
A peculiar ality
Ain't that peculiar baby
Peculiar as can be"

Too peculiar. Must be a Beltway thing. Connecticut Democrats seem not too keen on destructive relationships with their politicians.