Joan Vennochi completely misses the point in her piece today, taking the Democrats to task for being too timid on Iraq.

Democrats still fear dissent on Iraq

Democrats are able to stand against Roberts because the interest groups opposing him, while extreme, still have goals that characterize the mainstream of the party's activist base. On Iraq, the fact is that they can't articulate a vision because they have none that's any different from what the Administration is already doing that the vast middle of America will accept -- a phased, objective-oriented stand down that preserves whatever it is we've achieved (a subject for another post). Standing up with Cindy and the "anti-war" movement puts mainstream politicians in with the worst elements of the extreme Left -- the America-haters, the anti-Semites, the defeatists...and worse if you can believe it. There's simply very little respectability out there where politicians who want to be critical on Iraq can hang their hats. It's not cowardice, it's self-preservation -- and a surprising measure of wisdom.

That's why, quoting Vennochi, "Only two Democratic officeholders -- Representatives John Conyers of Michigan and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia -- planned to be anywhere near the antiwar rally scheduled this weekend in Washington." McKinney is an anti-Semitic America-hater. Conyers a Leftist with a large Arab constituency. No national figure who watched what happened to John Kerry would get anywhere near it, and that's as it should be.

The press tries to paint over the flaws of the groups that stage these rallies and constitute the foundation of the anti-Iraq War movement by cropping the photos and white-washing the worst elements. It doesn't work as well as it once did, though, and the truth does find a way of getting out. No politician wants to be photographed with people holding "No blood for Israel" banners, nor do they want to be associated with groups who's membership is made up of such people. The press whitewash only achieves so much.

When I did my post "A Judenhass Horse," on Cindy Sheehan's anti-Semitic connections, which was very widely linked in the "conservative" blogosphere, only ONE lefty blog was dumb enough to link and fisk it, and that was a very small outfit with few hits. I thought when I wrote it that it might attract a bunch of negative comments and attempts at refutation...but facts are facts, and the Cindy supporters know that the only defense was for as few eyes as possible to fall on it.

So it is with mainstream politicians and the "anti-war" movement -- such as it is. "The movement" is a cesspool of hate and bizarro pathologies all the King's horses and all the King's psychologists couldn't sort out. It soils anyone uncautious enough to get near it.

You want politicians to be stronger and more outspoken against the War? Articulate a message that fills your numbers with regular, respectable people and doesn't attract flies, allowing you to push aside the weirdos, not use them and imagine you can air-brush them out and hope no one will notice. The fact that this has not been done, and I believe cannot be done, is a very important indicator to those of us who believe we need to keep up the fight -- that we are right.

Vennochi chastises the politicians for being "reluctant to challenge President Bush on Iraq, no matter how ugly the news from Baghdad," but the fact is that the news is not all ugly from Baghdad -- though Globe readers may not be aware of that fact -- and those trying to peddle that stilted line have lost much of their credibility, while those twisting the news and focusing only on the negative for political gain risk losing votes, donations and respect.