George,

Democrats in Congress, especially Harry Reid, are establishing the groundwork for a Democratic defeat in the 2008 presidential election, especially if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

Voters really resent broken promises. Bill Clinton ran in 1992 with the firm promise to resolve the health insurance problem. One of the major factors in the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 was Bill and Hillary's failure to pass health care legislation. As President, Bill had the bully pulpit in 1993 but he did not fight for the Clinton health insurance program. Bill and Hillary did not have the political skills nor the political will to defeat Harry and Louise.

The voters handed Congress back to the Democrats in 2006 largely on the promise to get our troops out of Iraq. Nancy Pelosi has held up her end of the bargain, but Harry Reid has not. Almost nothing is getting through the Senate. The job ratings of Congress are at an all-time low.

In the August 31st Washington Post, Harry Reid said he is ready to give up on a withdrawal deadline. Voters are learning once again that Democrats do not have what it takes to keep their promises.

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, who is going to believe her if she says she will get us out of Iraq? She couldn't push through her health insurance program in 1993, and she won't admit she made a mistake in voting for the 2002 resolution which handed Bush a blank check to invade Iraq. Hillary carries too many failures in her baggage to be attractive to a majority of voters in 2008. Couple that with voters' feelings toward a feckless Democratic Congress and you have the makings of defeat.

The voters may not support any of the major Republicans contenders either since none of them seem willing to face reality in Iraq. An Independent candidate perhaps? Remember, when neither party addressed the major issues of the day in 1992, Ross Perot had around 33% support in the polls before he pulled his out and in again thing.

But you say, Harry Reid is up against the 60 vote rule in the Senate and a Presidential veto. First of all, there is no 60 vote rule in the Senate. It is all based on bluff. Whenever the Republicans say they are going to filibuster, Harry caves in and assumes a filibuster-proof (60 vote) majority is needed. He should call their bluff and let the Republicans go ahead and pull a real filibuster. Let them get out the cots and bring the Senate to a halt for days on end until they (and the American public) tire of it. Let the Republicans show clearly day after day that they want the Iraq war to continue without end. Instead, Harry Reid staged one of the most ill-conceived stunts I have ever seen. He pulled a filibuster-like all-nighter himself. Did he really think he could use rational suasion at 3:00 AM to get some Republican support?

All he succeeded in doing is making Democrats a laughing stock and having Democrats blamed for getting nothing done.

And as far as a veto is concerned, the President cannot veto a zero. If Congress were to pass zero funds to continue to "calm" the civil war in Iraq, there is nothing Bush could do. (Congress would pass just enough funds to pay for a pull out.)

Harry Reid cannot take all the blame. Right now a number of Democratic Congressmen are showing signs that they will not vote to pull out, but instead will let General Petraeus continue his "tactical momentum" long after September. A number of Congressmen, including Jim Moran of Virginia, have seen the General's PR presentation at the American Embassy in Baghdad and have been swayed by it. The point of the "surge" was not to continue "surging" -- which is what Petraeus is selling -- but to allow the Iraq government "breathing space" to build a government of national unity. In September many Democratic Congressmen will overlook the fact that there have been no political accommodations with the Sunnis and no significant political benchmarks met. They will not take heed of the fact that the major source of the violence -- the animosity and jockeying for power between Sunnis and the Shiites -- has not been resolved at the bargaining table. Rather, they will be persuaded by the knight in shining armor (General Petraeus, PhD) who thinks we are making military progress. (At the end of this piece, I list all the times that Congress has been duped by the Bush administration about Iraq. In September many Democrats will be duped again.)

Some may argue that if the Democratic Congress were successful in getting all troops out of Iraq before the 2008 election and if the civil war there becomes even worse than it is now and if neighboring countries send in troops, the Democrats will look bad for letting this happen.

When the American people no longer get daily reports of American troops being killed, they will forget Iraq even if the civil war continues there. Some Americans may feel guilty -- "we broke it, we should continue to try to fix it". We tell the American people (rightly) that it is an Iraqi problem -- an Iraqi civil war. We cannot fix it. Only the Iraqis can do that by negotiating a solution among themselves. Why should we feel guilty when Iraqi leaders have failed to even talk to each other and keep walking out on their parliamentary and ministerial responsibilities?

If neighboring countries invade Iraq using troops across the border, then we should do another "Desert Storm". This kind of battlefield war is what our armed forces are trained and equipped to do, and we could repel invaders as quickly as we did in Desert Storm. (This means that many troops should be kept in the area -- say Kuwait -- after we withdraw from Iraq.)

As for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqis will want them gone. The Sunnis already are going after them in Anbar province. Many Al Qaeda are in Iraq to kill Americans. With Americans gone, most will leave or fade away. Oh my! I forgot. Bush says they will follow us here. How?

I don't know. Will they book seats on airlines and fly here? Or is it that they will use their air force and navy to get here? Land from submarines off the coast of Kennebunkport perhaps.

I am amazed how quickly Democrats fall for Bush propaganda. One of the latest is "We can't leave now because it will take so long to leave".

How long did it take Bush's father to build up a huge force for Desert Storm? How long did it take to get them home? (Answer: over 500,000 troops and their equipment in less than two months.)

And then there's this one: The "surge" was designed to concentrate most military power in Baghdad to bring calm there. The success that the Bush people keep talking about these days is not in Baghdad at all, but in Anbar -- and that is being accomplished mostly by local tribal sheiks. The "surge" has been successful, say the Bush people -- even though the success is in Anbar and performed mainly by Iraqis.

How many times can Bush pull a bait and switch in Iraq? Answer: As many times as the Congress will let him.

First, Bush set the bait with: "Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction." When that fabrication was exposed, Bush said: "Never mind. We're spreading freedom and democracy and fighting Al Qaeda." (Of course, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we invaded.)

Next Bush set the bait in August 2005 with: "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Two years later we are still waiting for enough Iraqis to stand up so that we can stand down. Indeed, rather than standing down, we have sent a "surge" of more troops.

In October of 2005, a referendum was held on an Iraqi Constitution even though it was not finished. (It left out key provisions that would protect Sunni rights and interests, for example.) Bush promised that the Constitution would be finished (amended) later -- after the referendum. We are still waiting for those amendments.

In his State of the Union speech on January 24, Bush said that Iraq's leaders had committed themselves to a "series of benchmarks" (and Bush explicitly mentioned some of them). Now we are being told that the benchmarks are really not that important and the Iraqis will not have to meet them.

The American people see through all this and realize that Iraq was a big mistake and that they cannot trust Bush. They want out of this mess.

But Congress continues to take the bait and be duped. When is Congress, especially the weak-kneed Democrats (and the weak Reid), going to finally wake up, see the reality of Iraq and stop falling for the Bush propaganda? In November 2008 the majority of voters will vote for the candidate who they believe will end this fiasco by completely pulling out. If Democrats in Congress get us out before that, whoever our nominee is will win in a landslide.

- David RePass (electronic mail, September 4, 2007)