Dems Keep Betting on Failure in Iraq

John Fund has an important piece on the many problems the Dems have with their policies on Iraq:

During last week's congressional debate over the war in Iraq, critics of the Bush administration's policy made three arguments: that President Bush more or less lied when claiming Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that no progress is being made in the war there.

All three assumptions rest on shaky ground, so it is remarkable how much critics have seized on them with such fervor and certainty--the very vices of which they accuse the war's supporters. Indeed, one wonders how Democrats would react if real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, say the discovery of chemical weapon shells, surfaced. Would they step back and re-evaluate their assumptions, or would they accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence as part of a Karl Rove-inspired pre-election dirty trick? Far from politics ending at the water's edge, today's partisan battles seem to take on added ferocity when they concern foreign policy.

It's a lengthy piece, but well worth the time. The Dems have many, many problems with their stand on Iraq (not to mention mouthpieces like Murtha who as one blogger says, is sounding more like Grandpa Simpson every day). Investing in America's defeat is not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of voters.