Do you ever hear a member of the administration or supporters of the war say "The next six months in Iraq will be the most crucial" and think you're experiencing deja vu? Don't worry, you aren't. They just keep repeating the same phrase over and over.

The Center for American Progress has compiled a time line documenting the promises of "just a few more months" that have been made since the first days of the war.

Sometimes it's "the next few days" and others it's "the next year," but the most common time frame seems to be six months. And it's usually used in the context of portraying opponents of the war—or even those who would like to see a different strategy—as close minded and short sighted. It's not that the strategy is ineffective or that it was poorly planned from the beginning, they say; the real problem is that we are rushing to judgment and trying to change course when we're on the brink of success.

But it's been six short months, many times over. The latest benchmark is September—we're told assessing the effectiveness of the surge any sooner than that wouldn't be giving it enough time to work. This comes straight from Petraeus.

Fine. September is approaching, and I can wait another month. But if an analysis doesn't show that the surge is bringing serious positive results, don't tell me to give it another six months. Come up with another more effective strategy to stabilize the country, with political and economic solutions in addition to a military one, or get out.

Fool me once, shame on you. But you're not going to fool me again.