Many Democrats apparently think that claiming they were victimized by Bush
and the neocons is more palatable than confessing to their own
demoralization with the news from the front.
Others may fear that admitting publicly that a disheartened America should
not or cannot finish a conflict would send a dangerous message to our
enemies. So while these Democrats accuse President Bush of being hardheaded
and unwavering on Iraq, they are still afraid that their own mea culpas
would send an equally dangerous message of inconsistency abroad.
Democrats need to admit the truth: that removing a dangerous Saddam Hussein
and promoting democracy in his place seemed a good idea to them in 2003-4
when the cost appeared tolerable. Now, in 2007, with over 3,000 American
lives lost in Iraq, they feel differently.
In other words, Democrats could argue that somewhere along the line --
whether it was after Fallujah or the start of sectarian Sunni-Shiite
violence -- they either lost confidence in the United States' very ability
to stabilize Iraq, or felt that even if we could, it was no longer worth the
tab in American blood and treasure.
That confession could, of course, be nuanced with exculpatory arguments
about the mistakes made by those in the Bush administration, such as: "Our
necessary war that I voted for to remove Saddam worked; your optional one to
stay on to promote democracy didn't."
Such an explanation of turnabout would be transparent and invite a public
discussion. And it would certainly be more legitimate that the current
protestations of "the neo-cons made me do it."
With America still engaged in a tough war, that kind of excuse-making just
doesn't cut it.