Jen Rubin infers from this post:

If Obama fails to “capitalize”–to take advantage of circumstances his opponent helped create and he opposed–is he guilty of only excessive pessimism? Or has he proven himself to be inflexible, unmoved by new facts, unwilling to admit error and divorced from reality?

He hasn't proven himself to be anything yet, except someone who opposed this war to begin with, understandably didn't give the administration the benefit of the doubt after its grotesque mishandling of the occupation, and now should adjust his withdrawal strategy to the always-changing facts on the ground. Those new facts are indeed due in part to the surge, but also to an array of other factors, many of which, we should always remind ourselves, remain unresolved.

But, yes, if Obama blindly insists nothing has changed, has no interest in reality on the ground, refuses to hear dissent, and does not acknowledge the surprising progress that has occurred there recently ... he would be George W. Bush in reverse. I see no reason to believe he is, but share Jen's hope that he isn't.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.