James Zogby has recently pointed to the public dispute between Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice as yet another way in which the Iraq war has become “Strange and Troubling”:

And so here we are, nearly three years after “mission accomplished,” many dead and injured later, Iraq imploding, the US floundering, the public turning against the war they once supported, and fingers pointing all around.

All the while, Democrats, the opposition party, remain torn between their anti-war base and some opportunistic leaders who either believe the better course is to remain silent while the Administration stews in its own broth or fearful to provide a direct challenge, not wanting to be accused of being weak on defense issues.

I suspect that the Democrats have been afraid to plainly speak out against this despicable war for another reason:  they have been hedging their bets.   Ever since day one, they have feared that this war, despite its false rationales and incompetent execution, just might amount to something.  If it did, they didn’t want egg on their faces. 

Hence, their collective failure, until recently, to demand an immediate withdrawal of U.S.  troops.  However one might characterize this approach, it cannot be called leadership.