DEMOCRATS STUMBLE ON IRAQ

David Sirota points out a huge disconnect within the D.C. Democratic establishment on Iraq. He cites the recent close race of Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett for Congress:

Ultimately, the anti-war position defined his candidacy, and was the clear reason he was able to do so well in such a Republican district. That should be no surprise: polls have been telling us for months that America agrees with Hackett in believing going to war in Iraq was a mistake. Meanwhile, Americans' view of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level ever.

Incredibly, however, in a memo sent to all Democratic House Members about what Democrats should learn from the Hackett race, the DCCC makes not one mention of the Iraq War and its effect on the election. Not one. It is as if the party is going out of its way to deny the importance of Democrats taking a strong position against the war, or making the war a serious issue in their campaigns.

I have long felt that this was one of the major flaws in John Kerry's campaign for the presidency. He (and the Democratic Party) should have hit hard on Bush's failures in Iraq, the lies told to justify the war, the continuous deceptions on the success of its prosecution, and the lack of post-war planning. If, after all this time, the party is still unprepared to nail Bush's hide to his own failed policy, we can look forward to more losses in the mid-term elections. If we can't articulate what differentiates us from the Republicans in this very obvious area, what hope is there? For those who voted for the war, admit you were misled and show your outrage and indignation. For those who opposed it from the beginning, don't be afraid to say "I told you so." I'm sick and tired of listening to Repug pundits and functionaries and media personalities repeating, "But most Democrats have a hard time saying what they would have done differently." What we would have done differently, simply put, is not to invade Iraq until we had proof that we were threatened.