[lehighguy]

I think what he means is that disagreement should be done in private, and that a consensus view should be presented to the public. Say, the way a Japanese company is run.

This requires that both sides listen to eachother. Since Bush doesn't listen, Dems can't have a voice, so they go to the public.

Of course, one could say Dems don't want to have a voice, but rather want to bring it to the public for political gain. After all, what is thier alternative plan for Iraq, if they have one they need to bring it to the table and let people see it. What is their alternative plan for Iran and terrorism in general? They don't really have one (plans are harder then criticism). They want to be for and against the war at the same time so they can take credit and assing blame either way.

What Dems really want is for things to continue going badly, for Bush to get the blame, and for Dems to use it to win elections at home. Both a withdrawal or success are bad for them. A dream scenerio is that we are still in Iraq during the next presidential election and that things are going wrong. No one cares about Iraq, even Bush. All American foriegn policy is executed in order to gain political advantage at home for the personal benefit of the candidates.