Here is a wonderful tour de force of the Fred Hiatt editorial in the Washington Post. The main point of the piece is to show that Hillary Clinton, despite what she wants Democratic voters to think, actually supports the Bush-Washington Post line of muscular foreign policy heroism. But along the way Hiatt manages to set up such a surge of straw men that he ends up arguing that Hillary, senate moderates and even President Bush all share one position, which is the Baker-Hamilton Commission position. And they all stand against 'Democratic primary voters'.

Here are the two key grafs ...

In other words, Clinton ascribed to what might be called the consensus, Baker-Hamilton view: Pull out of the most intense combat but remain militarily engaged by going after terrorists, training and advising Iraqi troops, and safeguarding at least some regions or borders. It's the position set forth in the proposal of Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed and in the compromise proposal of Republican Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar. Last week President Bush said it's "a position I'd like to see us in."

If everyone agrees, what's the problem? Bush and the Democrats have very different ideas of the conditions needed to move to Baker-Hamilton. (So, by the way, did Republican Jim Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton when they co-wrote the report.) Bush thinks U.S. troops can pull back only after they have established, with their new counterinsurgency strategy, sufficient peace to allow Iraqi factions to begin making political compromises.

Did you know that Carl Levin and President Bush were both part of the consensus on Iraq? I'm tempted to say that this is classic high school debating society logic -- both clever and ridiculous, simultaneously. But given the author, isn't the key here a rather disingenuous effort to expand the circle of people who agree with his terribly discredited position?