Back in Dec. 2003 I wrote,
Many “moderate” Democrats take the position that, since most of the public currently believes that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, it is therefore foolish to go against the grain and claim otherwise. Their political position is that it is not politically advantageous to disagree with a majority of the public regardless of where the facts lie on a given issue.
. . . It may be true on any given day that it is a politically risky position to contradict what the public believes. Doing so leaves you open to opportunistic attacks from those who would prefer that the public remain deceived for their own political advantage. On any given day this may be a political reality. But what happens when you take a position that is at odds with the facts — as well as at odds with the overall good of the country — and do so for short term political advantage, and then the public’s understanding of the facts changes? Doesn’t today’s convenient political position bring with it the risk that public understanding of an issue will change tomorrow, leaving you looking foolish and opportunistic? Isn’t it therefore better in the longer term to take positions that agree with the truth and facts of an issue, and the good of the country?
… As time passes the number of people supporting Bush on this issue can only decline, because the facts do not support his position.
Yes, this was after the war began, but it’s an example of what all us bloggers had been sayng for some time. And now here we are. Would Bush have been beaten back sooner if the Democrats had pushed this theme? Have they learned? I think so.