Yesterday's New York Times op-ed by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollock suggesting that the Iraq war just might be headed for victory has drawn tremendous note, more for who published it than for its ground-breaking conclusions. After all, J.R. Dunn preceded the two Brookings Institution scholars by almost a full week in arriving at that conclusion.  But the Times, after all, has become so heavily identified with opposition to Bush that it now turns heads when it reports something which might reflect positively on his stewardship.Still, I do give credit to the editorial board for allowing a heterodox opinion. As I give credit to the paper for employing John Burns as Baghdad bureau chief, and credit to Burns for doing the tough work of being a war correspondent with integrity and skill of a very high order. Now that the prospect may be looming of a positive report by General Petraeus, is the Times hedging its bets? Maybe so. But as James Taranto points out, the paper's lede...(Read Full Post)