Four years ago, a month before the start of the US war in Iraq, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and I attempted to introduce a resolution we hoped would be debated at the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee. Our resolution, among other things, noted that despite signs the administration was moving headlong into a war in Iraq, the President had not been clear about the costs, consequences and terms of commitment for the US military in that war...."Armed with these concerns, our resolution simply called upon Democrats to insist that President Bush be more active in the pursuit of a diplomatic solution, and be fully transparent with his plans for Iraq.

Despite our best efforts (including an op-ed "Democrats Must Lead or Risk Losing," which appeared in a number of US papers) to push for an open debate on the drive toward war, party leaders would not allow the resolution to be discussed or voted on at the winter meeting. I was given the opportunity to speak on this issue at the executive committee meeting. My remarks were well-received, but no discussion or vote was allowed.

What this meeting is best remembered for, of course, was Governor Howard Dean's stirring challenge to the party delivered only a few hours after my frustrated effort to have a debate. It was at the opening of his speech to the assembled Democratic activists that Dean asked "...why in the world is the Democratic party leadership supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq?"

From the pressure I was subjected to in the days leading up to that meeting, I had already learned, first hand, the answer to Dean's question. It was, political calculation. Democrats lacked the confidence to confront the president on an issue involving national security. Despite the public's ambivalence about President Bush and his march to war, Democrats would repeat the tired mantra: "We stand shoulder to shoulder with the president in the defense of our country." Some Democrats wanted to appear strong on national defense, ignoring the reality that "strong" and "smart" are not always the same thing.