Maybe it's not such a good idea politically to identify yourself as an ignorant dupe

It is true that the Democrats have made inroads in public opinion with their false "Bush lied" claims. Rich Lowry, however, makes a good argument that this may not be an effective long term strategy:

Getting suckered usually is not a sign of good judgment. On the contrary, it's something to be embarrassed by. But Democrats are making the contention that they were told lies prior to the Iraq War, and believed them, central to their party's identity. They are caught between their base's conviction that President Bush lied about Iraq and the fact that the cream of the party voted to authorize the war. Nearly every Democratic senator who has higher ambitions voted "yes" — Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Kerry and John Edwards. If Bush lied, it stands to reason that they are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan. They aren't statesmen; they're victims.

Lowry is also careful to point out that the Dems can't contend that the President denied them access to the really good information, explaining their duped-ness, since they had plenty of access to lots of information. It's a good article. Read it all. UPDATE: You can find a bit more here, at Power Line, about the information to which the Democrats had access when they reached the same conclusions Bush did.