Democratic politicians have to some degree relished the political fight over the Iraq war, which they have seen as a boon to the effort to elect Democratic politicians. They’ve stood firmly–even stubbornly–in support of withdrawing American troops from Iraq, regardless of the realty on the ground. The American people have been so disappointed in the Iraq war that Democrats who favored a pullout can only benefit, politically. But the war will end, someday. And when it winds down, it will lose its salience as a political issue. And when that happens, both Republicans and Democrats must have a plan to offer the American people for dealing with the next phase in the war on terror. Today Michael Barone points out that the American people are beginning to focus on that question:
Democrats seem to have allowed their positions on terrorism to be defined as whatever George Bush opposes. If he favors warrantless surveillance of terror suspects abroad, it’s bad–even if it was OK when Clinton was doing it. If he favors maintaining a presence in Iraq, it’s wrong. If Bush argues that Iran is a threat, we must absolutely promise not to attack Iran. Where is the Democratic plan for the war on terror that is not defined by being ‘not Bush?’
