In an August 9 article about Ned Lamont's victory over incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney suggested that the Democratic Party is “still struggling to arrive at a unified position” about Iraq. But just eight days earlier, Nagourney began an article with a reference to the Democrats' “unified statement” in favor of a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq.

From Nagourney's August 9 article in The New York Times:

[E]ven before the results were known, the accepted wisdom in political circles was that a victory by Mr. Lamont would signal there is little room in the Democratic Party for Iraq war supporters, an unwelcome event for a party still struggling to arrive at a unified position about the war, and elevate the influence of bloggers.

From Nagourney's August 1 Times article:

Leading Congressional Democrats, after months of division over Iraq, have called on President Bush to begin a phased redeployment of troops by the end of this year, a unified statement signaling they have concluded that the war could hurt Republicans in the midterm elections.

The letter called on American forces in Iraq to make a transition to a ''more limited mission'' dealing with counterterrorism and training and logistical support of Iraq security forces.

[...]

[T]he fact that most of the Democratic leadership had unified around a position -- and presented it so forcefully -- strongly suggests that the politics surrounding the war are changing.

Nagourney's August 9 assertion also contains a logical flaw: Nagourney described the “accepted wisdom” that there is room in the Democratic Party only for opponents of the Iraq war -- and that the party is “struggling to arrive at a unified position about the war.”

Which is it? Is the party “struggling to arrive at a unified position”? Or is there “little room ... for Iraq war opponents”? Or are both statements simply mindless recitation of flawed anti-Democrat storylines?