Do the Democrats know how to have a real policy position?

It's all well and good to criticize an administration that has, by anyone's measure, failed in almost all departments. But does the Democratic Party have anything better to offer?

The media is shaping the story this way: The Democrats have at least three or four positions on the Iraq War. There's the Murtha wing, with a decorated Congressman with standing with the military declaring the need for an imminent pullback, now being joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Then there's the acerbic yet pandering Joe Biden, who says Bush's latest speech lays out a good start, yet, according to David Broder, resembles Bush in his stay-until-Iraqis-are-ready trajectory. Of course, we've got Joe Lieberman, still Bush-like hawkish. Somewhere in the mix is Hillary Clinton, repackaging her own position as close to an imaginary middle as you can get, now taking responsibility for her yes vote on the Iraq Resolution while demanding responsibility from Bush for his failures enabled by her vote and now saying "Maybe we don't need more troops to get the job done right." Instead she now advocates a withdrawal with no timetable. 'kay. What?

Zbigniew Brzezinski is perfectly willing to offer Democrats a vision they can embrace, and I for one hope they'll listen. It's time the Democrats offer a clear, coherent alternative to the Bush fiasco. If that means copping to a weak performance during the run-up to the war, then so be it. We'll admire those who tell the hard truth more than those who weasel their way toward the center.

Late update: CNN's Anderson Cooper anchored a story on the Iraq War entitled "Democratic Disarray." Now that's how the Dems can lose on a winning story. It's not about our dead sons and daughters. It's about how the Dems don't have a plan. They can and must learn to speak with one voice, albeit nuanced shades of a singular vision.