Saturday APSA Blogging

Robert Farley recounts an interesting-if-depressing American Political Science Association panel discussion on the future of Iraq policy. I think my perspective is closest to John Mearsheimer's (and, no, this has nothing in particular to do with the Jews):

John Mearsheimer was very direct and deeply pessimistic. Ten years ago, I doubt I would have believed that Mearsheimer's critique of US foreign policy would essentially mirror a standard leftist perspective. There are differences, of course, but on Iraq Mearsheimer is making an argument that would fit very comfortably into the netroots. Mearsheimer argued that Iraq has been and will continue to be a disaster, but that because of domestic politics and institutional dynamics we'll still be there in five years and beyond. The stab-in-the-back narrative that's being prepared by the Republican Party will succeed in scaring a Democratic president and Democratic congress from taking any decisive steps to end the war. At the same time, the senior theater leadership in the armed forces are committed to not losing, due to their perception of the institutional disaster that resulted from the Vietnam War.

This is what happens, it seems, when realists discover domestic politics as an influence on foreign policy. That said, the fault to a large extent lies with ourselves. We're right now in the midst of a presidential primary campaign which is when, as we all know, politicians need to "pander" to the insidious liberal base. And thus far, activists and voters alike are signaling that they're willing -- eager, even -- to be tricked by wannabe nominees rather than hold them accountable. If the Democratic primary electorate is happy to take statements about "ending the war" or "withdrawing combat troops" at face value even when they're immediately followed by quiet reassurances that troops will stay in Iraq for counterterrorism (i.e., combat), training (i.e., combat), and force protection (i.e., combat) then it really is hard to see where pressure to end the war is supposed to come from.

Comments

and, no, this has nothing in particular to do with the Jews

Technically, it's "Da Jews."

, activists and voters alike are signaling that they're willing -- eager, even -- to be tricked by wannabe nominees rather than hold them accountable

My sense is that this is because it increasingly feels like the fix is in. Why get angry with with HRC if she's going to be the one you have to vote for in '08? And she's going to stick in Iraq.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 1, 2007 3:03 PM

"That said, the fault to a large extent lies with ourselves."

How true, though not in the way Matt thinks. The real problem is the American people, as always, want it both ways. When asked, a majority will say they're sick and tired of the war, but a majority also say they don't want a withdrawal that might result in crisis or collapse.

Well, gosh!

We want a balanced budget, but just don't cut our pork.

We want to do something about global warming, but keep the gas cheap enough for our SUVs.

Do something to save the entitlement programs, but don't raise our taxes our cut our programs.

Our whole culture is an exercise in confronting the tough choices by always marking the box labeled "none of the above". Why should Iraq be any different?

Posted by kafka | September 1, 2007 3:11 PM

May I suggest that the best way for a Democratic candidate to bolster popular support for withdrawal from Iraq is to point out the elementary fact that we're likely to need the troops more elsewhere -- quite likely on short notice?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | September 1, 2007 3:57 PM

I don't really understand why the stab in the back narrative so terrifies liberals. Although it might have generated some great action movies, in truth, the problem with liberal foreign policy is that it is afraid of drawing the logical consequences of the disasters it has blundered into by being afraid of the stab in the back scenario. A lot of liberal hawks like to go on and on about how the Vietnam syndrome and George McGovern lost the democratic majority for a generation. This is getting history exactly backwards: what lost the Democrats a majority was Vietnam itself, a Democratic war. And how did Johnson justify that war? He continually alluded to the fear that if he did something reasonable - say negotiated with the NLF in 1965 - he would be labeled as soft by the Republicans. This cri de coeur drove him further and further into Vietnam, which, due to its massive non-necessity, its cost, and the sacrifices necessary to create even a stand-off, actually did make Johnson unpopular. Again and again, fear of short term unpopularity by not taking a testosterone fueled and completely stupid position has led to the long term loss of credibility with the Dems. They recovered as a party in the 70s by refuting Johnson, not following him. The Peter Beinartish "lets be like Harry Truman and fricasee our enemies in atomic blasts" view of what the Dems should do to be popular is simply brain dead. However, if the Dems follow a reasonable, non-psycho foreign policy, it is true that they will be unpopular with a mostly white male cohort in D.C. and distributed throughout the MSM. Notice, however, that this cohort, as well as the MSM, are despised by the populace at large. Being popular with the kewl kids, the Dixie chicken hawks on steroids, is not the same as being popular with the population at large and never has been. The popularity of almost all military interventions since WWII has a very short time limit. I'd call this the road rage rule - you can fool people into experiencing road rage for a short time, but in the end, really, they just want to get home and make dinner.

Posted by roger | September 1, 2007 4:17 PM

It's a scary view that I think is at the back of every mind. If you want to stay -- what for -- want to leave -- well enough is enough -- but to sense that no matter what, we will be in Iraq -- ought to make us look around.

And then there is the "good war" as the NYT calls it -- ya, Afghan, catch Obama war. The Dems went down a blind alley: Bush Admin. took its eye off the real enemy, the Obama crew. Hell, that leads us into a bigger better war in Afganistan -- can't get enough of losing in this country. And you know it is not losing, it's the culmination of Pain and Agony that is destruction.

Posted by dunnage | September 1, 2007 4:23 PM

It's a scary view that I think is at the back of every mind. If you want to stay -- what for -- want to leave -- well enough is enough -- but to sense that no matter what, we will be in Iraq -- ought to make us look around.

And then there is the "good war" as the NYT calls it -- ya, Afghan, catch Obama war. The Dems went down a blind alley: Bush Admin. took its eye off the real enemy, the Obama crew. Hell, that leads us into a bigger better war in Afganistan -- can't get enough of losing in this country. And you know it is not losing, it's the culmination of Pain and Agony that is destruction.

Posted by dunnage | September 1, 2007 4:23 PM

Hell, I'd flip the script on our whiny fake bitch pResident and his miesrable stepford followers and call for more troops in Iraq to really get the job done...Put their sorry lying ass on the defensive for once. Up the ante, call for 250,000 more troops and say it's clear 160,000 ain't getting it done and we need more. Have those sorry liars explain why there are enough troops even though it is clear there aren't enough....Double-down on the skunks, I say...

Posted by Hank Essay | September 1, 2007 4:29 PM

RE "I don't really understand why the stab in the back narrative so terrifies liberals "
------------
Actually, it doesn't terrify liberals -- it terrifies some Democratic leaders. And they're not so much afraid of Republican politicans and Fox News as they are terrified that certain billionaires will desert them.

So , to protect the money stream that is necessary for their careers, they send the sons of their constituents off to die in an unnecessary war. And they finance that war by stealing $Trillions from Social Security and Medicare -- all the while loudly proclaiming that financing of the Trust Funds "is not a problem". Even though the slightest look at the finances shows that they are lying through their teeth.

THEIR deceitful behavior is the REAL "stab in the back".

Posted by Don Williams | September 1, 2007 4:37 PM

Re "the stab in the back", I always had trouble understanding how Hitler was able to convince millions of Germans to support him.

Then I realized that the Democratic leadership of today --with the exception of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and a few others -- is like the deeply corrupt Social Democrats of the Weimar Republic. Always willing to cut the expedient deal at the opportune moment if it was of personal benefit -- and screw the large mass of common citizens sinking deeper and deeper into misery and deep poverty.

Hitler was able to gain the support of the German people -- in spite his insanity and his obvious faults -- because he exterminated the Social Democratic leadership. At that point, even some socialists were cheering him on.

Posted by Don Williams | September 1, 2007 4:47 PM

The contemporary leftist narrative does not accept general societal decadence. A shoddy man like Bush could never have been elected prior to the Reagan era, the inflection point of America's decay. The American nation's prolonged, and largely unearned, post WWII affluence has led, predictably to moral ruin. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo exist because America accepts them. Torture R Us.

Bush will not be impeached because he is the distilled essence of the rot that exists throughout our Paris Hilton society. The war will not end, because it is the national act of theft that speaks for our dishonest Lotto/Las Vegas culture.

The sweet, pure, noble mass of Americans has not cried out to depose the tyrant and save the innocents of Iraq. This nation will trade blood for oil, as long as its wickedness is shown to be rewarded.

Posted by HH | September 1, 2007 5:05 PM

This whole Iraq debacle began in part as an exercise in domestic politics. Remember Andy Card saying you don't sell cars in August? The carefully constructed conflation of Afghanistan with terrorists with Iraq? The conflation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons into WMD? The list goes on, of course. Do people as smart as those on that panel think its news that we're trapped there now because of domestic politics? Does anyone who has looked at the situation think otherwise? We bombed Iraq, not Saudi Arabia for chrissakes. This is pure domestic politics with the additional bonus of graft to rich folks. This has been the case since the beginning of the Bush Administration and the failure of the Democrats to behave like an opposition has led us to the perilous state in which we exist. Both parties stabbed the republic in the back. The Republicans use a curved blade so they can look us in the eye while they do it.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 1, 2007 5:50 PM

Then I realized that the Democratic leadership of today --with the exception of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and a few others -- is like the deeply corrupt Social Democrats of the Weimar Republic. Always willing to cut the expedient deal at the opportune moment if it was of personal benefit -- and screw the large mass of common citizens sinking deeper and deeper into misery and deep poverty.

Hitler was able to gain the support of the German people -- in spite his insanity and his obvious faults -- because he exterminated the Social Democratic leadership. At that point, even some socialists were cheering him on.

Whuh? I'm not sure what you're talking about, or if you really understand the Weimar Republic at all, but here's what happened:

1) In 1928, after five years out of power, the Social Democrats do very well in parliamentary elections. However, as always, it is impossible for them to form a majority coalition without non-Socialist parties (note that this is a major difference from the Democrats in the US). Their leader, Hermann Müller, forms a "Grand Coalition" government, including also two Catholic (the Center and the Bavarian People's Party and two Liberal parties (the left liberal German Democratic Party and the right liberal German People's Party).

2) In 1929, the Depression hits. The solution of the non-socialist parties is austerity and cutting back social services. The Social Democrats disagree.

3) March 1930, The German People's Party and the right wing of the center party withdraw their support for the government unless Müller and the Social Democrats will support cuts to social services as part of an austerity plan to meet the emergency (note that austerity plans were the solution of most politicians to the Depression in most countries). The Müller government resigns.

4) President Hindenburg, a right wing general, appoints Heinrich Brüning, leader of the right wing of the Catholic Centre party, as Chancellor, supported by the non-socialist parties in Müller's coalition - the Centre, the BVP, the DDP, and the DVP. I.e., a government of the moderate centre-right.

5) Because the Social Democrats are now in opposition, Brüning's government does not have a majority. The Social Democrats refuse to support any of Brüning's austerity measures. He therefore requests, and obtains, a dissolution of parliament. Brüning hopes to get a working majority through the success of new conservative parties which have broken from the increasingly radical German National People's Party, heretofore the main party of the German right. (That is to say, moderate conservatives broke with the Nationalists, and Brüning hoped they would do well enough to give him a majority).

6) New elections are held in September 1930. The new elections are a disaster for the Brüning government. The new moderate conservative parties do terribly, and the Liberal parties (DDP & DVP) also lose substantial votes. Moreover, there are enormous gains for the Nazis and the Communists, neither of whom are plausible members of a coalition government. The Social Democrats also lose votes, meaning that even the grand coalition no longer offers a stable majority (although it remains nearly a majority - and perhaps the addition of a few small parties could have made for a majority.)

7) Basically what happens is that the Social Democrats remain unwilling to join a government that is devoted to opposing all of its principles. At the same time, the only plausible alternatives (either a government including the far right, or new elections in which the Nazis and Communists would probably do even better) are even worse than the Brüning government, they basically agree that they will allow the Brüning government to stay in power, and carry out its program through presidential emergency decrees. If this is what Don Williams is describing, his description is deeply unfair. The Social Democrats were acting not out of some desire to help themselves politically - almost certainly their stance hurt them politically, at the expense of the Communists. They were trying to behave responsibly in order to prevent a far worse outcome. If they'd joined with the Communists in all out opposition (note that SPD+KPD was still nowhere near a majority; that the KPD position at this time was, in any case, to oppose the SPD as "Social Fascists" and refuse any degree of cooperation; and that no other party would possibly join an SPD+KPD coalition to provide it with a majority), all they would have done was to strengthen the far right.

8) This situation continues for two years. After Hindenburg is re-elected president thanks largely to Social Democratic votes (again, the Social Democrats voted strategically to prevent the far worse outcome of Hitler's election as president), the president, increasingly influenced by a far right Kamarilla of officers and the like, fires Brüning and appoints a government of far right bureaucratic hacks. This government is led by the far far right wing Centre Party member Franz von Papen, but he is disavowed by his own party and kicked out for disloyalty to Brüning.

9) The new government is essentially rejected by virtually the whole Reichstag - its only support comes from the Nationalists. Papen calls for a new election, in July 1932. The new election noticeably worsens the situation - now, the Nazis become for the first time the largest party, and the Nazis and Communists between them have a majority in the Reichstag. Papen's government still has the support only of a derisory minority in the Reichstag. The Social Democrats remain firmly in opposition. About this time, Papen and his cronies launch a coup against the government of Prussia, the largest German state (comprising about 2/3 of the country), which was a Social Democratic/Centre Party coalition, and install right wing hacks there as well. The Social Democrats protest, but are unable to do much - and, indeed, the Prussian government coalition had lost its majority in the most recent elections.

Now the basic problem is that no majority government is possible without either the Nazis or the Communists. Efforts at a Nazi/Centre Party coalition (which would have had a majority) founder on the unwillingness of either party to really be interested in the idea. No other potential majority combination is even plausible.

At this point, Social Democratic types actually are trying to get the Communists to see reason and ally with the SPD to oppose the Nazis. It was a supposed "conspiracy" with the Communists which was the pretext for Papen's coup against the Prussian government, for instance. But the Communists continue in their rejectionist position.

10) When the new parliament meets, every party once again condemns the Papen government, and he immediately dissolves it and calls a new election. The new election basically sees gains for the Communists and the Nationalists, and major losses for the Nazis. However, there's still no plausible majority coalition - now, with the losses of the Nazis, even a Nazi+Centre Party coalition won't work. There is much maneuvering behind the scenes. Papen's failure leads to his replacement by the general Kurt von Schleicher, who tries to work a deal by splitting the Nazi Party and then getting the dissident Nazis to join in a coalition with the Social Democrats. This, needless to say, fails. Meanwhile Papen, working behind the scenes, works out a deal for a Nazi-Nationalist coalition led by Hitler (still no majority, but at least not based on a totally derisory coalition). Schleicher, his own schemes having failed, asks for a presidential coup to suppress both Nazis and Communists. Hindenburg goes with Papen.

11) Hitler comes into power in a coalition government with the Nationalists. He immediately requests, and receives, a dissolution. The election campaign which followed was marked by major repression by the Nazis, especially against the Communists. In the result, the Nazi+Nationalist coalition wins a majority, the Communist totals recede greatly, and the Social Democrats, rather amazingly, more or less hold on to their previous strength - in working class areas, they were well-organized enough to maintain most of their support.

12) Hitler uses his new majority to do what he likes, and wins the Centre Party's acquiescence in a 2/3 requiring "Enabling Act" which makes him absolute dictator. The Social Democrats are the only party to vote against it. All parties other than the Nazis are swiftly banned.

I'm not sure how any of this fits with the idea that the Social Democrats betrayed their principles to get ahead. If anything, standing by their principles and refusing to actively support Brüning is their major step that helped bring Hitler to power.

Posted by John | September 1, 2007 5:58 PM

Bush will not be impeached because he is the distilled essence of the rot that exists throughout our Paris Hilton society...

Gary's Corollary To Godwin's Law:

As an online discussion on the topic of "what's wrong with America" grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Paris Hilton approaches one.

Posted by James Gary | September 1, 2007 6:01 PM

Yglesias wrote:

If the Democratic primary electorate is happy to take statements about "ending the war" or "withdrawing combat troops" at face value even when they're immediately followed by quiet reassurances that troops will stay in Iraq for counterterrorism (i.e., combat), training (i.e., combat), and force protection (i.e., combat) then it really is hard to see where pressure to end the war is supposed to come from.

Heatkernel responds:

No, the Democratic primary electorate is NOT happy to take these statements at face value. But when the only candidates who truly favor withdrawal are either weak tools of the Party establishment only in the race as "pressure valves" (Richardson and Kucinich), or outsiders constantly derided by every media outlet (including even "progressive" bloggers such as Yglesias) as loony (Gravel), what choice does that electorate have?

Well, the choice not to continue being a Democratic electorate at all. Only when the Democratic Part politicians feel their political survival is threatened will they change. And it seems that will only happen when it appears their base might make the rational choice of deserting en masse and using their formerly dependable votes to punish said Democratic politicians rather than to sustain them.

Posted by heatkernel | September 1, 2007 7:52 PM

"May I suggest that the best way for a Democratic candidate to bolster popular support for withdrawal from Iraq is to point out the elementary fact that we're likely to need the troops more elsewhere -- quite likely on short notice?"

Yeah, we need them for Iran.

Oh, wait, that's why they're IN Iraq - to get ready for Iran. It just seems to have cost more than we thought to position them there.

Only problem - Bush and Cheney don't care what it cost - or what it will cost to add Iran to the mix. THEY didn't pay anything for this effort, right? Nor will they, ever. Even Israel will end up paying more for this mess than Bush and Cheney ever will.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 1, 2007 8:38 PM

Justin Raimondo has been saying for years that we have only one party in this country: the War Party.

Seems clear that the BEST possible outcome of Election 2008 will be to bring that fact home to the public.

The Democrats support the war in Iraq and the upcoming war in Iran. They simply differ from the Republicans in who should be in charge of the wars and thus profit from them.

Any further questions?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 1, 2007 8:51 PM

The problem lies with what is a 'realist' about Middle Eastern policy after say 1945; Is Wahhabism
a realistic system for Felix Arabia; a misogynist,
totalitarian, anti-modernistic theocracy with a deep animus towards Jews and Christians that goes back to Mohammed's earliest encounters in the 7th century. we weren't allowed to really even ask that question; except possibly in the last four years. Mostly through the influence of the Saudi lobby; whose chief spokesman was St. John Philby; and who was helped enormously through the efforts of ARAMCO. A system that has propagated itself with an army of lobbyists like Fulbright, Dutton,
KIm Roosevelt, Ray Close, Akin, et al. It financed
the PLO to large part; with the Soviets as silent partner. The Venezuelan contribution to industrial
resource policy; OPEC was wielded as a weapon; although the gusher of funds; only entrenched the
ruling families corruption; subsequently causing a chasm between them and the Ilkwan families like the Quahtanis, Ghamdis, Uteibis, et al that compose the AQ leadership cadres in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Chechnya et al.

When did Nasserism (even the watered down form under Mubarak) seem a rational system for 60 million people. The ground was set by the likes of Copeland, Eichelberger at the CIA and Caffery at the State Department in the '50s; but that seemed wrong even then. This misbegotten theory ended up driving Palestinian nationalism in the 50s and 60s and shaping the first generation of Baathists exiled from Iraq. Not surprisingly that system foundered under Arafat's rule and likely under Abu Mazen & Salaam Fayad It's polar opposite the Salafi current of the Muslim Brotherhood is as equally inadequate; under Qutb, Al Banna & Ramadan; it devolved into AQ, Hamas, & other political pathologies. The militant nationalism of the Sr. Bhutto and the islamic militarism of Zia; seem equally inappropriate systems. Yet Walt and Mearsheimer focus on the only secular, modern society, Israel, and its efforts to survive anihilation by its neighbors.

Posted by narciso | September 1, 2007 10:19 PM

"Only problem - Bush and Cheney don't care what it cost - or what it will cost to add Iran to the mix. THEY didn't pay anything for this effort, right? Nor will they, ever."

No, they probably won't, unfortunately.

Now, as to what else we may need those troops for: the odds that we could use them against Iran's very real nuclear program are shrinking rapidly, thanks both to the fact that we've both exhausted our strength in the Iraq tarbaby and exhausted our international credibility by yelling Wolf there. But I'm not willing to quite abandon the possibility that a combination of diplomatic/economic and military force might be able to keep the Mullahs from getting their very own Bomb, which (as with every other new nuclear dictatorship) still strikes me as highly desirable, thank you.

As for thosee other possible uses for troops: it's too late to keep N. Korea from getting the Bomb. And since the government there is quite open in indicating that they're terrified of an uprising by their own people and so are willing to use the Bomb to try to extort enough economic aid from the rest of the world to stay in power permanently, the logical course of action for the US there is to announce that we're not willing to spend a penny to actually help keep them in power, but that we ARE willing to provide them with any aide they need to give up power peacefully without getting (rightfully) massacred by their own people). But, of course, to do that -- even with the aid of the rest of the world -- we'll need a large supply of troops capable of occupying and (genuinely) peacekeeping) NK if the Kim regime ever DOES give up power. (We'll also need more international believability than we have right now. See above.)

And as for Pakistan: the best way to try to cajole that nightmarish place into peaceful behavior would be to immediately lift our restrictions on importing Pakistani textiles conditional on the nation's continued good behavior. If and when things really go to hell there, however, we're going to need a lot of troops on a very short notice to try and get our hands on at least part of that nation's nuclear arsenal before You Know Who does -- even given that, in that case, the world itself is likely to go down the toilet in any case.

So, yeah: if you define trying to keep human civilization from getting blown to bits as a form of imperialism, then I'm an imperialist. Like Bertrand Russell in the late 1940s, in fact.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | September 1, 2007 11:20 PM

And thus far, activists and voters alike are signaling that they're willing -- eager, even -- to be tricked by wannabe nominees rather than hold them accountable. If the Democratic primary electorate is happy to take statements about "ending the war" or "withdrawing combat troops" at face value even when they're immediately followed by quiet reassurances that troops will stay in Iraq for counterterrorism (i.e., combat), training (i.e., combat), and force protection (i.e., combat) then it really is hard to see where pressure to end the war is supposed to come from.

Matt always seems to assume that liberal primary voters want something like the Yglesias/Richardson position: complete withdrawal by tomorrow or sooner. I've seen no evidence this is actually true (although I would be curious to see polling numbers). My impression is that there are plenty of liberals (including myself) who actually want what Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are selling. A real withdrawal, but a cautious one. The argument for rapid and complete withdrawal is hardly unassailable.

We obviously don't know what will happen when the US withdraws from Iraq. There's some sense in retaining the tactical flexibility to respond if it does get really ugly. A rapid and complete withdrawal would make redeployment difficult politically, if not logistically. The Yglesias plan seems to be based in either the arrogance to think we know what will happen after withdrawal or the indifference to not give a shit. Neither of those sit well with me...

Posted by JB | September 1, 2007 11:34 PM

JB,

I think that it was Matt's point that your candidates, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are not "selling" "rapid and complete" withdrawal. AKA "cut and run" or "precipitous retreat" and the other GOP talking points that you have internalized.

That not withstanding, it seems to me that both you and they are avoiding the issue as long as possible. First, there is no way to remove our presence quickly. It will take a long time; first in the planning and then in the execution. You may think otherwise, but my sense is that until we acknowledge the need for such a plan, it will not be created. The longer we pretend that to acknowledge that is the abandonment of cherished dreams of hegemony, the longer it will be before anything is done. If you don't start, you will never finish and George Bush IS NOT GOING TO START unless he is compelled to do so.

As to "tactical flexibility", whatever that is, you and your preferred candidates owe, I believe, an explanation of exactly how a situation that is not being managed by 120-130,000 troops is going to improve with 20-60,000 hunkered down in fortresses with targets painted on them, at the end of hundreds of miles of logistical difficulties. Did G.A. Custer use the term tactical flexibility when he divided his command?

Let's be clear. Your apparent preferred position is to continue a charade with Bush to enable him to leave office with the war completely intact. Then, assuming that one of your preferred candidates assumes the presidency, they are faced with a further deteriorated Iraq and the necessity to deal with what they have permitted Bush to avoid. I am sure all patriotic Republicans will flock to your banner to help solve the problem...

Somehow I doubt that installing the latest version of the Shah or another authoritarian US-supported Saddam is going to solve the problem any more than a "I want to end the war, but refuse to actually take any steps that would cause that to happen" campaign.

Posted by central texas | September 2, 2007 11:13 AM

And thus far, activists and voters alike are signaling that they're willing -- eager, even -- to be tricked by wannabe nominees rather than hold them accountable.

Are you watching the same polls I am? People who want this war ended have no patience for the excuses made by the leaders they voted in last November. Congress's numbers tanked when they rubber stamped George Bush's war funding. And they tanked again when they rubber stamped his FISA law.

Voters believed Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi when they said they'd change the course in Iraq and they are furious they were lied to - and certainly aren't willing and eager to be lied to again.

If Democrats cave again, say goodbye to the Democratic majority.

Posted by Jinchi | September 2, 2007 12:26 PM