Timetable Vs “Event-driven withdrawal”

The conventional “wisdom” among policymakers in Washington is the assumption that if we were to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq the insurgents would simply wait us out and then renew their efforts to wreak havoc. Recently, the Bush League has put out the idea of an “event-driven withdrawal (EDW).” The idea being that we will begin a phased withdrawal when certain conditions are met. Further withdrawals of troops will be driven by events on the ground. This is their attempt to counter the growing popular demands to bring our troops home.
What none of the geniuses in the punditocracy seem to be able figure out is the fallacy of the conclusion in the argument that rejects the timetable. If the insurgents were inclined to wait us out, it would make more sense for them to stop the suicide bombings, lay low for a few months - until we have withdrawn the bulk of our troops and equipment - and then attack with renewed ferocity and ruthlessness to cause maximum damage.
If we’re to believe Mr. Bush (If you do so, you do it at your own risk) the “Islamo-fascists” hate our freedom and their goal is to destroy us. If that’s the case then they want our troops in Iraq where they can more easily kill them. If Bush’s premise is right, then announcing a timetable for withdrawal would heighten the urgency of the insurgency. Bush's logic (how's that for an oxymoron?) has always been flawed, and he's shown an uncanny ability to fool most of the people most of the time, but why does everybody in the media unquestioningly accept his arguments?