The question is "Why?"

Yesterday, Hugh pointed out a piece from Ron Brownstein in the LA Times that, in his opinion, attempts to exonerate Democrats who supported the war:

The always lefty-reliable Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times sets off this morning (along with Emma Vaughn) to exonerate the Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq. The effect, though, is to paint a picture of utterly empty Democratic opportunists who blew with the wind:

With national security then such a flashpoint in so many campaigns, many Democrats believe, the vote's timing enormously increased pressure on their party's wavering senators to back the president, whose approval rating approached 70% at the time.

"There was a sense I had from the very beginning that this was in part politically motivated, and they were going to maximize the timing to affect those who were having some doubt about this right before the election," Daschle said.

This is something I've been screaming for weeks now as we've watched another go-round over who-said-what about Iraq. The Democrats supported the war in large numbers. The question is, why?

If you take Daschle's quote to heart, it was politically expedient. Hardly inspiring. The only other alternative is that they believed what the CIA and other US intelligence agencies were saying, what foreign intelligence services were saying and concluded that it was a good idea.

If so, they don't get to walk away from their statements so easily. At the same time, such an admission puts them at odds with their base.

Either way, we deserve an explanation!