Even for those of us who initially supported the war, it has become impossible to continue to do so. If the Republicans lose Congress, the war will be one big reason why.

(I did support the war early on, at least agnostically. I trusted that there was real unseen knowledge of WMD, not just worse-case conjecture. I trusted that a plan was in place to rebuild Iraq as the regime was being displaced. I trusted that contingencies were in place for insurgent and factional activity. Of course it's apparent now that that trust was misplaced and I was wrong; conversely, those against the war then were right, even if for the wrong reasons.)

Did I say impossible? Jeff Jacoby continues, at least rhetorically, to support the war by comparing it to other wars: the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War II.

Iraq is not the first war to plummet in popularity. At the start of the Civil War, many Northerners giddily anticipated a quick victory. Secretary of State William Seward "thought the war would be over in 90 days," writes historian David Herbert Donald in his biography of Abraham Lincoln. "The New York Times predicted victory in 30 days."

Jacoby doesn't mention Vietnam. By his reasoning we should still be fighting that war.

Joan Vennocci writes about media coverage of the war and concludes that it's better to know painful things than not. I think we can do without the enemy's perspective but I agree with her general point. After all, despite a lot of great reporting from the field, a good deal of the early support for the war was based on the media coverage. And who knows, maybe it was Judith Miller's great grandfather who made that "victory in 30 days" prediction.

UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis also chose today to write about the evolution of his position on the war and, needless to say, he does it much more eloquently.