Dan Senor reminds us of Joe Biden’s ill-fated partition plan for Iraq — a plan opposed by Iraqis and rejected as unworkable and unwise by just about everyone. As Abe noted yesterday, Senor concludes that none of this has slowed down Biden, who continued to tout his plan last week on Meet the Press:

On Sunday, when Mr. Biden was asked about the current progress in Iraq, he managed to take the lion’s share of the credit: “I’m encouraged because they’re doing the things I suggested . . . That’s why it is moving toward some mild possibility of a resolution.” But we should be grateful that Iraqis did not do as he suggested. Mr. Biden’s frustration with the looming Iraqi civil war in 2006 and early 2007 was understandable. The U.S. was on the verge of total defeat and Iraq was at risk of collapse. But Mr. Biden’s plan would have inflamed Iraq’s already volatile situation.

There is something increasingly bizarre about the Democrats’ effort to reinvent the past and wriggle out of the implication of their own positions. But none is stranger than insisting that a policy universally panned and never implemented is responsible for the vastly changed scene. Granted, the Democrats are in a pickle. Biden voted for the war — something Obama told us for months and months was a disqualification for the presidency — and both opposed the strategy which did prove effective.

But one wonders if they worsen their own standing and stretch their own credibility beyond the breaking point by conflating a limited issue (i.e. Iraq policy) into a greater one ( i.e. credibilty and judgment on national security more generally) when they resort to arguing the “Biden Saved Iraq” view of history. It sounds, well, delusional.  It is little wonder that voters have concluded the Democrats aren’t serious about national security.