Nancy Pelosi says we don’t need a plan for Iraq. “We”, in this case, being Democrats. After months of demanding that George Bush explain himself, the Dems are explaining that they don’t have to.

Apparently, the Democrat position on Iraq can be summarized as “Bush is bad no matter what he does. Ignore the man behind the curtain.” This position, if one can so dignify it, admittedly does resonate with the core of the Democrat Party.

The Washington Post reports today that:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

This is a transparent ploy to keep the Rabid Moonbase on side (Nancy needs their money) without alienating voters who recognize that a timeline for pullout from Iraq is a really bad idea. And not only should the Democrats not actually have a position, they should not seek one. After all, what is a political party if not a collection of like minded individuals attempting to affect governance?

These people can’t even govern themselves.

Nancy’s rock is the core Democrat constituency, and her hard place are those sentient life forms who recognize that they cannot trust a party that refuses to acknowledge a position on the most important national security issue we face.

Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she said.

Italics mine.

House Democrats should be free to take individual positions on the War in Iraq, just like Senate Democrats were free to take individual positions on judicial nominees?

To summarize the Democrat Defense Policy: We demand a plan from George Bush that’s different from the plan he has explained to us. We cannot even suggest what a plan would be. Trust us.

“There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her.

She said her support for Murtha was not intended to forge a Democratic position on the war, [good thing, apparently] adding that she blocked an effort by some of her colleagues to put the Democrats on record backing Murtha.

Her position as leader, apparently, requires that she not lead. She supports immediate withdrawal, but she’s not about to let anybody follow her principles. While I think this is good advice, it is not clear how she can hold this position: “George Bush has the responsibility to lead. He has to explain his plan. As Democrat House Leader, I do not have a responsibility for either leadership or policy.”

Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently said Democrats were beginning to coalesce around a strategy that would pull out all troops over the next two years. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day Murtha offered his plan, “As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we’ll have a position.”

Except for the preannounced timeline for withdrawal, the lack of a timeline for even having a policy, and Dean’s conviction that we “can’t win” – Dean’s strategy looks a lot like Bush’s: Significant drawdowns probably in a couple of years. This would be in time for the 2008 elections, if I do not miss my guess.

It would be nice if we had an opposition party in this country. How about a bipartisan House resolution demanding that the Democrats have a policy by January or that they shut up about it until they do?