I read a compelling article today at realclearpolitics.com by Jack Kelly that helps crystallize the problematic relationship Democrats have with the Iraq War. Specifically, the article discusses Democrats' puzzling rejection of Gen. David Petraeus and open embrace of retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who presided over the war's biggest failures (the rise of the insurgency) and disgraces (Abu Ghraib):

It does seem odd that Democrats would excoriate Gen. David Petraeus, architect of the strategy that has turned things around in Iraq, and embrace Gen. Sanchez, especially since it was Democrats in Congress who led the criticism of him during the Abu Ghraib affair.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson puts it this way:

"In all these cases there is a dismal pattern: a mediocre functionary keeps quiet about the mess around him, muddles through, senses that things aren't going right, finds himself on the losing end of political infighting, is forced out or quits, seethes that his genius wasn't recognized, takes no responsibility for his own failures, worries that he might be scape-goated, and at last senses that either a New York publisher or the anti-war Left, or both, will be willing to offer him cash or notoriety -- but only if he serves their needs by trashing his former colleagues in a manner he never would while on the job."

For me, what is depressing is how Democrats choose to embrace those who speak to their instinct rather than their intellect.