Ever since Iraq war began(perhaps even after 9/11) an artificial divide has been imposed upon the general public. According to this concept when it comes to Iraq there are only two camps: George W. Bush and the neocons who blindly insist on pursuing the fantasy of democratisation and the appeasers of jihad and leftist moonbats hooked on the post-modern multiculturalist utopia(but in a slightly different manner then their supposed neocon counterparts). Anybody refusing to tow to the party line and present things the way they are is labeled "unpatriotic" by the former and "islamophobe" by the latter, depending on which parts of the discourse they cherry-pick.
That this need not be the case and that genuine, patriotic dissent is indeed possible is best shown by this comment from Hugh Fitzgerald from Jihadwatch. In the text Fitzgerald plainly and in an easy-to-understand manner how the Iraq experiment failed and why, sticking to point blank facts and real-life civilisational reasons, not to conspiracy theories and "Bush is evil" rants like those coming from the liberal left.
The sad thing is that sane criticism such as this one is relegated to the blogosphere while mainstream publications still prefer propagandist tracts of various Kristols, Kagans and Michael Moores.