This op-ed by self-proclaimed Democrat Orson Scott Card is making the rounds.

He starts out wondering if we might be witnessing the end of the Democratic party (um...no), and does a fairly good job of debunking the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, though he rambles on about the conspiratorial aspect of the media (which is mostly overblown silliness). But here's the central nugget of the thing:

Am I saying that critics of the war aren't patriotic?
Not at all--I'm a critic of some aspects of the war. What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.

Patriots place their loyalty to their country in time of war ahead of their personal and party ambitions. And they can wrap themselves in the flag and say they "support our troops" all they like--but it doesn't change the fact that their program is to promote our defeat at the hands of our enemies for their temporary political advantage.

Think what it will mean if we elect a Democratic candidate who has committed himself to an antiwar posture in order to get his party's nomination.

Ah, but I think the real problem with the Democrats is not that any of the serious candidates have really committed themselves to an antiwar posture just to try to get the nomination. As I've pointed out with Dean, he's not really anti-war after all. The problem is, they want to have it both ways.

I think the Dems strategy, which is doomed to failure, is to try to appeal to those who opposed the war in Iraq, but still try to demonstrate that they will be strong on terrorism, able to defend the country against threats, and willing to use military force when needed.

The problem is, Dean supported American militarism in Bosnia, for the sake of humanitarianism, but apparently would not support action against Iraq on the same standards.

And Kerry gave the President permission to use force, but now uses the ludicrous excuse that he never meant for the President to actually use it (and nobody's going to buy that one).

The problem is not that they're anti-war, but that their stance on the war on terrorism is hopelessly vague and muddled. And in a country that still feels the residual effects of 9/11, a muddled message on national security and the use of force isn't going to fly.

But on another note, I never would have pegged Card as a Democrat, and from some of the discussion around the blogosphere, few others would either. I'd be interested to know why he considers, or considered, himself one.