No (D) Position on the War- Good or Bad?

....for the (R)'s that is. When I first heard about Rep. Nancy Pelosi's comments yesterday my id high-fived my ego and I felt a little bit sunnier about the GOP's chances in 2006. Then I realized that they might finally be taking the right advance. I think Rahm Emmanuel's got a gameplan that might get them to the majority, and a big part of that would be avoiding getting his new guys bogged down in foreign policy and war on terror debates. He's running around the country "practically kidnapping candidates (according to one Democratic friend of mine)" and maybe he's promising them they won't get painted as some anti-war "nut."

At the same time, if there is angst about the war (and there is) and unease about Bush's handling of it(which there is, but probably not as much as the Post would have us believe) shouldn't the Democrats be taking advantage of that in their last chance to run against President Bush?

Of course, Pelosi forced herself into this weird diversity-of-message position by even stepping out on Iraq in the wake of Jack Murtha's statements. Howard and Nancy really messed it up for the Democrats. You had Jack Murtha, a genuine American hero, and undoubtedly, a staunch supporter of our troops and the military, turning into an outspoken critic on the war. We were never going to be able to hang the cut-and-run label on a guy like Murtha (especially considering he wasn't even calling for a cut and run) but we've already done it to Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, and many other liberal Ds who are all to eager to make rash and harmful statements for the cheap pops of the left wing audience right in front of them.

In the end, I think no unified democratic position on the war in re: the midterms is a smart move. What does everyone else think?