Getting suckered usually is not a sign of good judgment. On the contrary, it's something to be embarrassed by. But Democrats are making the contention that they were told lies prior to the Iraq war, and believed them, central to their party's identity.That the Democrats argue they were bamboozled by Bush has to be the oddest political position ever put forward in American Politics.
They are caught between their base's conviction that President Bush lied about Iraq and the fact that the cream of the party voted to authorize the war. Nearly every Democratic senator who has higher ambitions voted "yes" — Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and John Edwards. If Bush lied, it stands to reason that they are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan. They aren't statesmen; they're victims.
I can think of nothing stranger. It's only explainable to me as a disconnect between Lowery's cream and the activist base.
It's a fissure that will devastate the party before 2008; just as Vietnam destroyed the party in 1968.
It's one reason why Howard Dean has to dodge Ken Mehlman so to avoid explaining the logic.
At some point this comes to a head and it will be a major crack up for the Dems and split them into isolationist faction, and a faction of professed fools.
That's a bad outcome for Democrats and the country