Is today’s economy in good shape? Is global warming a real threat to our future? Can America prevail in the war in Iraq? Depending on who you ask, you may get wildly different answers to these questions. And yet, serious people can usually agree on the facts they use to help them reach their conclusions.

Economic data, for example, are generally agreed upon. When the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the unemployment rate is 4.6%, we can all feel confident that that figure is accurate. Similarly, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announces that the global temperature has risen 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 25 years, we can feel pretty confident about that figure, too. And when the Pentagon releases death tolls from Iraq and Afghanistan, only the goofiest Moveon.org types think they're lying.

The point is that in nearly all political debates in this country, the real disputes are not over the facts, but over the interpretation of said facts.

Let’s look at that unemployment number again: as of August 2007, the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.6%. In 1996 it was 5.4%. But people like John Edwards will tell you that the economy was better then than now, in spite of the fact that the unemployment statistics – along with a host of other stats – undercut his argument.

Of course, there are facts that support Edwards’ opinions, too. The national debt, for instance, is over 9 trillion dollars today. Back when Bill Clinton was re-elected, it was only 5.25 trillion. Obviously, the economy would be in better shape if our debt was more like what it was back in ’96.

So, while basic facts are widely accepted, the conclusions we draw from them can differ based upon such things as which facts we find to be most significant. Knowledge of the facts and understanding the difference between fact and opinion are vital, then, to legitimate, intelligent debate – which in turn is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

Unfortunately, though, Democrats now seem ready to put the blinders on and refuse to accept the cold hard facts about the war in Iraq . General David Petraeus is slated to deliver his report on the “troop surge” to Congress in a few days, and before they even know what the report will say, Democrat leaders are challenging its’ validity, calling it the “Bush Report.”

This not-so-subtle swipe is meant to call into question Petraeus’ integrity, and therefore the reliability of the data contained therein, and to confuse the public about what’s really going on in the war. It is despicable, and undemocratic.

It’s also unsurprising. Recent polling data suggests that Democrat voters don’t know what their party’s leaders stand for. Given their penchant for obfuscation, how could it be otherwise?

And don't think for a moment that Democrats are above ignoring the truth. Recall the recent incident when Congresswoman Nancy Boyda stormed out of a Hearing featuring General Jack Keane, whose "descriptions of an improving situation in Iraq... were apparently too much to bear."

There are legitimate reasons to oppose the war in Iraq , and to support a fairly rapid withdrawal of our troops. But you’re more likely to hear rational arguments for that opinion coming from William F. Buckley or George Will or even Ron Paul than from anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle.