Mark said on his blog today that he doesn't know whether or not we should try and win the war or get out. Torquemada05 has continuously said that Mark believes that we should get out.
I believe that Torquemada has continuously ascribed to Mark the opinion that we should get out. Should he (Torq) apologize?
I saw that post and was fairly puzzled by it. Mark has previously stated (and I can dig up the proper citations if you desire) that the US can do no more good in Iraq, that our presence in the country has made us less safe, and all the other standard tropes for cutting and running in the manner of Brave Sir Robin. I suspect that the answer here is either that his views on the subject are not terribly well-developed or that this is something of a red herring. The entire post is tailored to Mark's triangulation uber alles style of writing and attempts to plant him on the "middle ground" based on the fact that he doesn't have a set position on whether we should send in overwhelming force or cut and run. I call BS here because he has previously used this same type of argumentation tactic to cite himself as being more reasonable that supporters or opponents of the war ... while simultaneously embracing any and every anti-war argument that he can possibly find.
If Mark has indeed changed his position on Iraq back to agnosticism I will be extremely pleased since it indicates (among other things) that all of his stated concern for the future of the Chaldean community was more than just a rhetorical club. I'm not holding my breath though, since I believe that he is too ideologically committed to his creeping paleoconservatism at this point to accept anything less. His all-embracing hatred of Michael Ledeen and all his works as expressed here would seem to require nothing less, IMO. But it would certainly be a welcome development.