Don't Run from Oversight
There's going to be a lot of hand-wringing from both the Beltway press (the Washington Post being a prime example) about the Democrats coming in and launching all kinds of investigations into past conduct. The first is whether it's justified (two Whitewater's don't make a right); the second is whether it's politically advantageous.
First and foremost, the voters rejected the president's handling of Iraq. In order for Congress to help correct that course, and the failures over there, it must ensure that it has an accurate picture of the situation over there. The message to the media and the other side should be that the fact-finding will be thorough and unapologetic. Make them explain why they don't want to know about war profiteering. Why should we pay halliburton 30x when if we didn't, we could do everything we needed for 15 x and have funds left for proper body armor? And why should we have to apologize for doing that?
Thus, for example, both parties should agree that the politicization of intelligence helps no one. If we are continuning to get half-baked reports of the situation on the ground in Iraq, or in other parts of the world (greeted with flowers in the streets in Iran, perhaps?) because it might be politically inopportune, the country suffers. Anyone who truly cares about fixing the situation we're in must understand how we got there. That's a nonpartisan talking point. (It just so happens that the people who got us there are all Republicans).
With respect to investigations, a "golden rule" mentality would be politically appealing, particularly if issued from a vet (other than Kerry). If it were a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, then any candidate could easily say that the same rule ought to apply. Fallujah's do. A number of talking points could be framed this way.
