This is one of those stories where one is better served reading between the lines. The story notes that Durbin etal have praised the surge, and implies that this represents some material change in their positions, or that they're repudiating previous estimations of the facts of the ground.

So what were those previous positions and estimations? Well, the story doesn't tell us. It creates the impression of repudiation through the elision of their senators' stated positions. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that the senators actually had claimed that military action, no matter how successful in its own terms, won't win the war in the absence of meaningful political progress by the Iraqi government.

In other words, I'd hazard that there is no change whatsoever in position by the senators, and that the AP is trying to create news through artful omission.

And this is what I find troubling about the conservative media critique: all too often, the critique is forgotten the moment that the media wind blows its way. (am I being naive here? I guess I shouldn't have assumed a principled stance where political strategy is equally explanatory. And none of the foregoing at all means that folks on my side of the aisle don't conveniently forget their own critiques when it cuts against their political position)