Tomorrow, the GOP will launch attack ads saying Democrats are waving the white flag in Iraq by saying a military victory there is not possible for US forces.

There's some debate about how to respond, a lot of noise out there, but I think this dairist on Kos has it right.

The idea here is not to get Bush. Bush isn't up for re-election. Don't use Republican statements (Hagel, et al) to try and create a bipartisan cover for anti-war Dems. We don't need it. This is about contrast, people. We've got the public consensus on Iraq. The occupation is not suddenly going to get popular because of an ad campaign. Americans aren't going to change their minds and decide they like the war, but they may change their mind about who they want to lead them out of it.

Democrats need to provide a compelling rationale as to why they, not the GOP, should have the job of ending the US occupation.

The message is simple. Republicans (not Bush, Republicans... make them point out the difference; it confuses them to be divided against their leader) are fixated on an impossible military victory in Iraq. They are profiteering off this war, and they lack the will, courage, and insight to understand how to best Al-Qaeda. Then play the Bush speech about how he doesn't think we'll win the war on terror. Republicans, obsessed with Iraq, soft on terrorists.

Democrats understand that real victory in Iraq is up to the Iraqis, and that US troops there are providing a strategic benefit to our real enemies in Al-Qaeda. We want to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to fund what has become a giant terrorist training camp. We want to stop putting our troops in harms way guarding an occupation based on lies and misinformation. We want to bring our occupation of Iraq to a close so we can get back to Job #1: shutting down international terrorist networks.