I argued on Tuesday that national security issues will continue to be a cornerstone of the 2008 election and that Democrats will need a more developed message to prevail than simply being "anti-war."

A big part of that message needs to be how Democrats intend to deal with al Qaeda -- and not just al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where all the Democratic candidates seem eager to send more troops to engage in the fight -- but also al Qaeda in Iraq, where the organization has a very robust presence, is killing American troops, and will continue to foment serious problems for the foreseeable future.

Democrats seem to have an allergic reaction toward speaking about al Qaeda in Iraq. (The words "al Qaeda" were uttered only twice by candidates in the South Carolina debate, one by Clinton discussing the 2001 attack on al Qaeda and the Taliban and once by Kucinich noting the lack of a pre-war al Qaeda/Iraq connection).

Perhaps we fear that mentioning al Qaeda in Iraq would ratify the fraudulent position taken by the Administration about a pre-war operational connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. Perhaps we don't mention al Qaeda's presence in Iraq because it makes it more difficult to explain our position on troop withdrawals. Whatever the reason, continuing to deny or ignore the reality that al Qaeda is causing grave damage in Iraq plays right into the Republican attack that Democrats "do not understand the full nature and scope of this terrorist war against us."

The crazy thing about our hesitance is that we have a devastating story to tell about 1) how the Bush policies created an al Qaeda problem in Iraq when one didn't exist prior to the war, 2) how the mismanagement of the war allowed al Qaeda to gain a stronghold in Iraq and strengthen its organization and capacity, and 3) how Democrats are proposing a means for dealing with al Qaeda where the Republican strategy has failed for four years running.

Democrats ought to go out of their way to talk about al Qaeda in Iraq. Here are my talking points on this:

** There were many problems in Iraq four years ago, but at least al Qaeda did not have a stronghold in that country, al Qaeda did not have free reign to foment sectarian violence, and al Qaeda was not training a new generation of fighters how to conduct jihad. Today, we have all of these problems, thanks to the Republicans’ failed policies for dealing with terrorism in Iraq.

** There was still not an al Qaeda problem in Iraq when the statute of Saddam fell. But by failing to have enough troops to maintain order and disaffecting the Sunni population, Republican policies allowed al Qaeda to gain a constituency and a base of operations right under our noses.

** Republicans now claim that because their policies created a jihadi terrorist problem in Iraq, and they have now failed to eliminate the terrorist threat in Iraq for four years, we have no choice but to continue their failed policies.

** There is a better way.

And I will discuss that better way in my next post.