I think this maybe Reid's attempt to have his cake and eat it too.  Afterall Democrats are in no position to actually have hearings on Iraq.  So far the toughest questioning on Iraq has come frm John McCain.  Thus Reid can look like he wants to hold the administration responsible for withholding information without causing the problem you raise.

Tactically, the politics of Iraq are bound to play differently in different states/districts anyway. So, again, why not agree to disagree? If the war's still on by 2008, the disagreement (if it still exists) can be hashed out in a primary.

That would make it the second straight Democratic primary that was dominated by Iraq.  Nobody votes for Democrats based on foreign policy.  Or, to put it more correctly, no one who isn't already firmly in the Democratic fold votes for Democrats based on foreign policy.  So we have a primary dominated by Iraq, and the real strength of the party -- domestic policy -- takes a back seat to the same old argument between the angry left and the center, while the primary candidates are forced to zigzag back and forth to keep credibility with the Angry People, for whom Iraq is just about the only issue, and with the broader electorate, many of whom would like to see firmness on Iraq, but aren't much interested in a Gene McCarthy/Howard Dean/George McGovern, one-issue candidate.  

Someone is going to have to compromise; the war issue is going to have to be resolved and compartmentalized so the party can focus on its strengths, or the Democrats are going to lose in 2008.  

Based on your recommendation, I've seen two episodes of LOST now.  WTF?  What is it you see in this again?  Are these representative of the series you've been hyping?

Great. The intellectual genius for pre-schoolers suddenly realizes that Democrats are not united in a plan for "success" in Iraq. Could it be that there is no solution to Iraq that will be good for the US and, what should have always been more important, for the Iraqi people?

Why not admit that as a big-balls, dick swinging kinda guy, you helped get us into this mess,  because you were part of the right kind of Democrat back in the day? If your track record is anything one should be guided by, I sure do hope no one in the Democratic party is fool enough to align him/herself with what you consider to be the way out of this mess. Your strategy then was stupid and intellectually and experientially void; we're supposed to trust you now?

Come talk to me when you've learned how to grow some vegetables in your beloved Washington DC. 

And that goes for your cohort Mr. Marshall, whose mentor, Kenneth Pollack, of The Threatening Storm fame, might be intimately involved in the current AIPAC scandal. What a stellar crowd! 

I think the only reason someone like Harry Reid makes a fuss is to get on television.  Some of our representatives just plain seem to like to be the center of attention.  I noticed this as all too obvious during the grilling of John Roberts.

Of course I also think it backfires, because even if the representatives believe their own temper tantrums, the majority of the American public does not, they see it for what it is, a temper tantrum and a childish need to be the center of attention.  With a dash of self righteousness i suppose.

Getting back to the "agree to disagree", which is a very grown up stance to take, doesn't it also make sense to continue the same logic and only attack the GOP and try to win elections on the issues that are in agreement?

The Democratic Party has the "right to remain silent" on issues that are (largely) not in agreement.  I think doing so is nothing less than political savvy and maturity. 

P.S.,  I still believe both wars, Iraq and Afghan, will be the Bush Administrations' only successes.  So quote me here and now on this as proof of my intuitive skills.  Since I'm only armed with a bachelors degree in business, from a run of the mill university, and I'm not well read.  But I'd put money on the line in a bet against any of the university professors out there who are more qualified but just plain incorrect in terms of what the future holds.  Sure my betting on this outcome won't gain me any popularity on this blog - but I have nothing to gain by getting on the anti war bandwagon, therefore I would also suggest my forecast is more objective than many.

Not that even I don't have questions - such as the biggie - will we really withdraw or will there be U.S. military bases left in Iraq (which I think is a huge mistake as I advocate a false jihad strategy which I have commented on elsewhere.)

I love this stuff. The Democrats get heat for not addressing the Iraq issue, but then really, they are in no position to address the Iraq issue. If thats the way its going to be presented, then I see no problem with trying to have his cake and eat it to.

Perhaps Democrats will win more elections when they stop pretending they can actually solve Iraq's problems and start focusing on solving the actual problems here in America.  When they begin to solve problems on the local level, they will win statewide elections and when they solve problems at the state level, they will win national elections.  Whining and bickering out of frustration actually solves nothing.  Protect American lives, jobs, and opportunities from the real threats of the world.