Andrew Sullivan says the "neocon right" is uninterested in debating foreign policy in a serious way, yet he dismisses the notion that such a debate should include further discussion about the surge. It's not surprising that any issue that Sullivan happens to be wrong about is not part of a serious debate in his mind. Consider that yesterday his site omits any discussion of reports that Iraq hit 15 of its 18 benchmarks. Not long ago, Sullivan was echoing Harry Reid's talkers, citing the failure to meet benchmarks as a basis for calling into question the success of the surge. So is this part of a debate or not? Why won't the sole arbiter of seriousness chime in?