"The Democrats can't have it both ways. Either they believe that Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror or they agree with the intelligence community and the terrorist themselves that the outcome in Iraq is important to the War on Terror. Truth is the Democrats used the NIE to mislead the American people and justify their policy to withdraw from Iraq," he said.Let's be clear about this: It is possible, even realistic, to see the Iraq war as a distraction, and as an unnecessary front in Bush's war on terror. Bush used 9/11 for partisan purposes, attacked a country that had nothing to do with al Qaeda, thus creating more animosity toward the US than existed before 9/11. At least that's what 16 different US intelligence agencies are saying in the report that Bush tried, but failed, to suppress.
Like most of Bush's lies, this one carries a smidgeon of truth. The Democrats have failed, during years years of failed Republican policy, to deliver their own coherent plan for Iraq. One on hand, you have Hillary Clinton and other "liberal hawks" calling for more troops, more commitment, more blood. On the other, you have the John Murtha wing, backed by numerous retired generals and intelligence analysts and even conservative voices, calling for withdrawal.
It's harder for the party not in power to put up a united front. There is no clear leader of the opposition party, as have the Republicans in Bush. The Republicans can continue to fragment, as they have, but Bush's mewling still counts are the party line. As weak as Bush is, he is still perceived as stronger than the party not in power.