It's a fine line between an effective squeaky wheel and a counterproductive whiner.

Beltway conservatives are an especially whiny lot, but on the whole, pretty effective.

By periodically complaining that even right-wing presidencies are not right-wing enough, they can move the entire parameters of debate far to the right.

(Especially when Democrats and liberals are not consisently countering that pressure with comprehensive ideological critiques of their own.)

Yesterday, the carping from neoconservative foreign policy crowd was crystalized in a front page W. Post piece.

This might seem like a moment to savor, watching the GOP fracture in public over the heart of Dubya's legacy.

But it's quite the opposite.

Because conservative critics are not doing any sort of self-reflection, or any adjustments to their foreign policy vision.

Instead, they are seeking to link Bush's failures with Democratic foreign policy approaches. From the W. Post:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a bid for president, called the administration's latest moves abroad a form of appeasement.

"We have accepted the lawyer-diplomatic fantasy that talking while North Korea builds bombs and missiles and talking while the Iranians build bombs and missiles is progress," he said in an interview.

"Is the next stage for Condi to go dancing with Kim Jong Il?" he asked, referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the North Korean leader.

"I am utterly puzzled," Gingrich added.

Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms-control official who is close to Vice President Cheney, said he believes foreign policy innovation for White House ended with Bush's second inaugural address, a call to spread democracy throughout the world.

"What they are doing on North Korea or Iran is what [Sen. John F.] Kerry would do, what a normal middle-of-the-road president would do," he said. "This administration prided itself on molding history, not just reacting to events. Its a normal foreign policy right now. It's the triumph of Kerryism."

The insults "lawyer-diplomatic fantasy" and "Kerryism" are both intended to malign Democrats and the multilateralism and negotiation that Democrats tend to take seriously.

"WWIII" Newt and "Cakewalk" Adelman surely know that there is no sincere multilateralism and negotiation going on with Iran or North Korea (at least, they would if they watched Fox News).

But like many other neocons, they are antsy and impatient -- tired of watching their grand designs fail miserably, desperate to push some more buttons in hopes of salvaging their credibility.

So they are pressing Bush to cut short his phony muliateral stage and get on with it.

At the same time, they lack shame and refuse to acknowledge that we are in our current mess in large part because of their own Republican "preemptive war-glorious liberation fantasy."

So they cast blame on a Democratic "lawyer-diplomatic fantasy," hoping no one will notice how ridiculous they look.

And they might get away with it, if Democrats don't clearly articulate what their foreign policy principles are, and how what Bush is doing has absolutely nothing to do them.

Part of that would involve talking about building diplomatic coalitions and engaging in good-faith, principled negotiations with Iran and North Korea.

But it also means noting that Bush's efforts to engage Iran and North Korea are done in bad-faith.

By sending signals that regime change is on tap, Bush intentionally undermines his cosmetic efforts, giving the two nations disincentives to deal away the ability to get nukes.

LIke everything else in politics, if you don't define yourself, your opponent will do it for you.

Democrats already suffer from a lack of a clearly understood foreign policy vision. The neocons are on the verge of making the problem worse.