even they, who have for so long denied all indications of progress

They (O’Hanlon and Pollack) have been consistent supporters of the war and the surge. The "even they" argument is more than a little disingenuous.

Even in most of the rabid reaction of the usual leftist suspects , was the tacit admission that senator Reid and company were not telling us the whole story.

Care to provide evidence for that assertion?

It should also be pointed out that there were a number of articles basically backing the point that there was progress in Iraq. Even the ones who didn't directly refer to the peice of Pollock and O'Hanion.

Can you cite any outside of the rightwing blogosphere and rightwing opinion media?

John Burns gave a very mixed report, which I suppose is better than an entirely negative report.

And finally, the comments of James Clyburn is stating flatly that success in Iraq was a problem for democrats, I think, was the last straw for anyone who saw them.

Way to misrepresent his statements. Did you think no one would actually look up what he actually said?
He said that if Petraeus and Crocker presented a strongly positive progress report in September and the Democratic Leadership still pushed for a timetable,

I think there would be enough support in that group (the Blue Dog Democrats) to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,

The likelyhood of a strongly positive progress report from Crocker and Petreaus in September is somewhere between slim and none. All indications are that the report will be mixed at best. If there was an honest and strongly positive progress report showing that this strategy was likely to work (a mighty big if) the Dem leadership is capable of taking the pulse of its membership and its constituency and acting accordingly.

James Joyner would like to share Michael Barone's optimism, but he doesn't really see much evidence supporting it. (Outside The Beltway)......

That would be astounding, indeed, given how few people read NYT op-eds,

It would be, if that on that hadn't generated so much traffic online. The fact of the matter is that even those who lampooned it, took it seriously on the idea that if even they, who have for so long denied all indications of progress, were ready to admit there was progress being made, there must be something to it.

Even in most of the rabid reaction of the usual leftist suspects , was the tacit admission that senator Reid and company were not telling us the whole story.

It should also be pointed out that there were a number of articles basically backing the point that there was progress in Iraq. Even the ones who didn't directly refer to the peice of Pollock and O'Hanion.

an example would be the interview with John Burns , that Hewitt did.

And of course, Keith Ellison and his comments, were right in line with that momentum.

And finally, the comments of James Clyburn is stating flatly that success in Iraq was a problem for democrats, I think, was the last straw for anyone who saw them.

I do not think the operate in the New York Times changed all of the single-handedly, indeed these all popped up simultaneously. More or less, anyway.

Is debunked the right word here?

Fair point. Correction made.

I don't see how we're "inviting defeat"

He said "accepting defeat and inviting chaos." That strikes me as reasonable enough.

But his argument that a widely debunked op-ed has rallied public opinion is sheer fantasy.

Is debunked the right word here?

I don't see how we're "inviting defeat" by recognizing the facts on the ground and understanding that our stated goal of using military force to establish a stable Iraqi democracy is wishful thinking at this point.