Matthews' position is based on the presumption that the democrats ran on the promise of ending the war in iraq and the public voted for them precisely for that reason above all others. The implication by Matthews is that now that the democrats are in office it appears to him that they are breaking that promise. It's politics as usual.
Indeed Matthews is being quite disingenuous here because those that voted Democrat were primarily voting "against" Republicans for the Democrats never did present a united plan for addressing the crisis in iraq; nor did they individually run on a vote for me because I'll end the war in iraq platform. Matthews is not only demanding that the Democrats do what they never promised as a party, he's creating the myth that such promises were made.
In the process of attempting to absolve himself from a failed foreign policy which he never previously challenged he demands the democrats end the chaos in two years took republicans and acquiescing democrats six years to create. The logic becomes more fractured when Matthews's claims or else the democrats won't win in 08 begging the question who will win? The same republicans that created the crisis?
Let's play hardball Chris given the current reality in iraq one in which ninety percent of the people claim that life was better under a man that was just executed for war crimes why not ask the hardball questions now: was the intelligence faulty if so then who is responsible for such incompetence, was the intelligence cherry picked if so then who is responsible for such deadly deceit, and how should we hold this administration accountable?