"Zeitgeist" refers to the ethos of a cohort of people, that spans one or more subsequent generations, who, despite their diverse ages and socio-economic background, experience a certain world view, which is prevalent at a particular period of socio-cultural progression.
Well, I don't know how many generations it's going to take to wrap up this particular example, but how Americans view war and foreign entanglements has never been simple. Devilstower's remembrance of David Halberstam reminds us that there are always a "best and brightest" group of architects that "make lethal decisions on our behalf", and the role of the press is to inform the populace of said decisions and fact check the rationale (see Pentagon Papers). These days, however, the press seems somewhere else altogether. The most famous current leak isn't so much about informing the populace as it is about using the media to screw the dissenters, as ably documented by Marcy Wheeler. While there are legitimate first amendment issues that can and will be debated as to why the media took the stance it did during the Libby investigation, anyone still defending the disgraced (and summarily released) Judith Miller's role as an unbiased reporter only interested in pursuing the truth about Iraq by accepting leaks from convicted felon Scooter Libby is on someone's payroll (this administration has gone that far with "reporters" as well).
With that background, it remains of interest whenever the journalism elite covers the war. Whether it's an apologetic "no one could have anticipated..." or a pugnacious "well, we were wrong about everything else, but we are right about [fill in blank] now..." or even a plaintive "don't listen to the uncouth barbarians out there, they've cheapened the dialogue and aren't talking about our issues from our elite viewpoint", the talking heads are quickly being reduced to irrelevancy by events on the ground. The latest incarnation of a safe position seems to be "well, Bush is so low in the polls, he's free to do what he wants without consequence", currently being test-driven on the Libby commutation, but soon to be applied to Iraq.
In the meantime, the headline writers get the drift.
The failing Bush policy is not going to last without challenge until September, as planned, nor will it engender a quiet justification for stay the course. As the able posters here have demonstrated, paying lip service and voting to change policy (however it's done) are separate issues, but Iraq supporters can't even count on the lip service any more. That's a change that should be recognized.
In the end, being jerked around for six years may actually have an upside for the press. They have an opportunity to write the stories and headlines that should have been written, with less fear of reprisal from a weakening lame duck administration hostile to the truth. They can write about the politicization of every aspect of governance. They can actually do some fact-checking and investigative journalism about how we got here. Who knows? Bush's low poll numbers may turn out to be "liberating" for more than just George W. Bush.