Tom Friedman: Still a Clown on Iraq

Tom Friedman has a column (behind the subscription wall) in today's New York Times, titled Only Halfway There. Here's the central point of Friedman's column, in his own words:

But if Democrats really want to be taken seriously on foreign affairs, they need to recognize that they have only half a policy on Iraq.

I don't know about you, but my jaw just about hit the floor when I read that. Can you think of anyone less entitled "to be taken seriously on foreign affairs," less qualified to be giving foreign policy credibility lessons in the wake of the Iraq debacle, than Thomas Friedman?

But hey, "don't play with matches" is good advice, even when it comes from an arsonist, right? So let's see if Friedman has a point, despite having served as one of the most influential cheerleaders for the disastrous Iraq war and notwithstanding his near-perfect record of total misjudgments concerning Iraq since 9/11.

Here is Friedman's first paragraph, in its entirety:

I’m glad Democrats are keeping the pressure on President Bush for a withdrawal date from Iraq. It’s the only way to keep him and Iraqis focused on the endgame. But if Democrats really want to be taken seriously on foreign affairs, they need to recognize that they have only half a policy on Iraq. And it’s the easy half.

So Democrats need to come up with the "other half" of the Iraq policy in order to be taken seriously on foreign affairs. And what would that be? Friedman purports to answer his question in the following paragraph:

You can’t be in favor of setting a date to withdraw from Iraq without also being in favor of a serious energy policy to radically reduce our dependence on oil — now. To call for withdrawing from Iraq by a set date, no matter what the situation is on the ground there — without a serious energy plan here — is reckless. All we would be doing is making ourselves more dependent on an even more unstable Middle East, because any U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is likely, in the short run, to be destabilizing.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

First, "being in favor" of a serious energy plan to "radically reduce our dependence on foreign oil" is very different from actually reducing America's dependence on foreign oil in the near-term. The Democrats -- who have just re-taken the House and the Senate and do not control the White House-- don't have the ability to implement a radical change in energy policy in the short term. Can Friedman really not understand this? I am tempted to think that Friedman's emphasis on Democrats "being in favor" of his preferred energy plan is a concession to this reality.

Incredibly, Friedman never makes clear whether he is saying that (1) Democrats cannot credibly advocate withdrawal unless they also advocate Friedman's energy plan, or (2) any credible Iraq plan must make withdrawal contingent on first implementing Friedman's energy plan. But it doesn't really matter, since both arguments are basically absurd, for essentially the same reason.

For either of the arguments Friedman might be making (i.e., (1) or (2)) to make sense, it would have to be the case that staying in Iraq somehow mitigates the effects of lacking Friedman’s preferred energy policy. In other words, not having (or not advocating) Friedman’s preferred energy policy only counts as a reason not to leave Iraq (or not to advocate leaving Iraq) if staying in Iraq somehow compensates for not having (or not advocating) Friedman’s energy policy.

After all, Friedman isn’t just saying “Hey, I have a good idea for a new energy policy.” Rather, he’s saying, “It doesn’t make sense to leave Iraq unless you also implement (or advocate) my ideas for a new energy policy.” But… why? Whether or not Friedman’s ideas about energy policy are good ones, why should accepting them be pre-conditions for leaving Iraq? Here’s the best that Friedman can manage:

All we would be doing is making ourselves more dependent on an even more unstable Middle East, because any U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is likely, in the short run, to be destabilizing.

But how would leaving Iraq make the United States more dependent on Middle East oil? It's almost certainly true that any U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is likely to be destabilizing in the short run. But how does short term destabilization entail increased dependence on foreign oil? Put differently: how is it that staying in Iraq makes the United States less dependent on Middle East oil than it otherwise would be? None of this makes sense.

Thomas Friedman, ladies and gentlemen. Still a clown when it comes to Iraq.

David Broder: So Dumb it Hurts to Read His Stuff

David Broder has a columm in today's Washington Post titled "A Chance for Unity on Iraq". The title tells you all you need to know about Broder's worldview: Broder thinks the constant goal is "unity," that "partisanship" and "divisive debate" are bad. Broder's take on Bush's Surge plan? Cut out the divisive debate and get with the program!

Broder writes:

The change of command in Iraq offers an opportunity to move past the divisive domestic debate over the deployment of more troops to Baghdad and instead put the pressure where it belongs -- on the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

That's Broder for you! While others debate the actual Iraq War debacle, Broder is busy hunting for an opportunity to "move past the divisive domestic debate over the deployment of more troops." "Moving past" the substance of the Surge proposal is a good thing, because it ends "divisive domestic debate". "Divisive domestic debate" is inherently bad, because it is inconsistent with achieving "unity." How do you achieve unity in circumstances where the President is hell-bent on escalating a catastrophic and massively unpopular war that has just been specifically repudiated in an election? Why, just cut out all the divisiveness and support the President's policy!

Here is Broder's argument, in detail: if the Democrats and those Republicans who have abandoned Bush start supporting the Surge plan and Bush's conduct of the Iraq War, then Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki could be threatened with the loss of that support if he doesn't accede to American demands. Got that? Start supporting the War, so we can use the prospect of the loss of that support as leverage against the Iraqi government. Broder writes:

In effect, [General] Petraeus is offering a way to convert the opposition to the war that is growing in both Republican and Democratic ranks into leverage on Maliki. Together, they can hold the prime minister to his pledge to go after all the combatants -- Shiites as well as Sunnis -- and to provide the troops for the fight.

Yes, that's Broder's argument. "Convert the opposition to the war" into "leverage," i.e., convert the opposition to the war into support for the war, which will yield "leverage."

Here is Broder's concluding paragraph:

The challenge is immense, but for a change, there is a chance to get the full weight of our government pulling in the same direction. Congress ought to seize the opportunity.

There you have it. Broder always thinks the goal is to achieve "unity," to have "the full weight of our government pulling [sic] in the same direction." Broder doesn't particularly care what that direction is -- he doesn't care about the actual policies, except to the extent that they present an "opportunity to unite."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it speaks volumes about the state of political punditry in America that a guy as vacuous as David Broder is widely regarded as the "Dean of Washington journalists."

Maureen Dowd's Latest: Vicious Meme Queen Strikes Again

Maureen Dowd's column in today's New York Times, titled "Monkey on a Tiger," is an unbelievably dumb "pox on both their houses" piece about how both Democrats and Republicans just can't help themselves and keep "reverting to type", i.e., Congressional Democrats keep being a bunch of weak, ineffectual, fence-straddling feminist hippies and leading Republicans (Bush, McCain) keep plowing ahead on the Iraq war.

In addition to being characteristically twitty and substance-free, Dowd's column is also an occasion for her to promote vicious memes about Democrats. And that's the nature of Dowd's power, her special gift: even though she plainly isn't knowledgable (or even well-informed) about politics or public policy, she is a very, very talented crafter and promoter of successful memes, or images, about politicians and political parties.

Here's Dowd's opening paragraph:

There was a touch of parody to the giddy Democrat takeover this week: Nancy Pelosi indulging her inner Haight-Ashbury and dipping the Capitol in tie-dye, sashaying around with the Grateful Dead, Wyclef Jean, Carole King, Richard Gere, feminists and a swarm of well-connected urchins.

This is how Dowd portrays Democrats: ridiculous, San Francisco-based, childish, unserious, self-indulgent, beholden to feminists and movie stars and stoners. Needless to say, Dowd's opening paragraph is entirely gratuitous and totally substance-free -- but it sets the stage for any discussion of Democrats by Dowd: first, they must be ridiculed.

After the ritualistic mockery, Dowd makes stuff up in order to promote the idea of Democrats-as-hypocrites:

The first act of House Democrats who promised to govern with bipartisan comity was imperiously banishing Republicans from participating in the initial round of lawmaking. Even if Republicans were brutes during their reign, Democrats should have shown more class, letting the whiny minority party offer some stupid amendments that would lose.

This is pure, unadulterated bullshit. The Democrats did not campaign on a blanket promise to "govern with bipartisan comity." Rather, Pelosi and Congressional Democrats explicitly campaigned on a promise to enact new legislation to "drain the [GOP] swamp" within the first 100 hours after assuming control of the House!

Was Maureen Dowd actually unaware of the Democrats' 100 Hours pledge? Or did she know about it but choose to misrepresent the facts instead, to conform them to the vicious spin she was promoting? And which would be worse, rank incompetence or gross dishonesty? For what it's worth, the Democrats' 100 Hours platform was hardly a secret -- here is an excerpt from an AP article by David Espo published in the Washington Post on October 10, 2006:

WASHINGTON -- Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats _ in her fondest wish _ win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To summarize: Maureen Dowd misrepresented the facts -- just invented her own facts -- in order to portray the Democrats' fulfillment of a clearly-articulated campaign promise as hypocritical and lacking in "class." Could Maureen Dowd possibly be a bigger hack?

Here is Dowd's concluding line about Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats:

Perhaps the Democrats’ power-shift into overdrive is a neurological disorder, or neuropolitical disorder.

Now that's rich! Maureen Dowd -- vacuous, vicious and utterly indifferent to the truth -- thinks that the Democrats suffer from some sort of "disorder."

Maureen Dowd is a Sexist Idiot

The vicious, superficial, Gore-bashing, Democrat-baiting, GOP-meme pushing, High School Kewl Kid pundit Maureen Dowd is back in full form. Her column in today's New York Times, titled "Squeaker of the House" (subscription required), is a hit piece on Nancy Pelosi that recycles all the inane (and GOP-friendly) memes elite Beltway pundits have been repeating ad nauseam about Pelosi and Democrats in the past couple of weeks, with a heaping dose of sexism thrown in for good measure.

Dowd leads off her column by repeating Botox jokes about Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton:

Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and eloquent Republican lawyer who argued the Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court, was warming up the rabidly conservative Federalist Society crowd for John McCain with a few sexist cracks about Botox.

The new Congress could amuse itself, he said, by “searching for any sign of movement in Speaker Pelosi’s forehead.” The Senate, he added, would be entertained by “the expressionless, Pelosi-like forehead of Senator Clinton.”

Let's be clear about what Dowd is doing here: she's circulating these sexist memes about Pelosi and Clinton. Her column isn't about the "eloquent" Ted Olson or the "rabidly conservative Federalist Society Crowd" -- it's about Nancy Pelosi. And these are the ideas Dowd chooses to push in that context. Of course, immediately after pimping the Botox jokes, Dowd adds:

It reminded you of just how idiotic Republicans can act sometimes.

Idiotic? I'm not so sure. Rather, I'd say these "rabid conservatives" have Dowd's number -- they know they can count on her, and twits like her, to repeat and promote this hateful stuff.

Dowd continues:

The only thing worse than hearing the first female speaker of the House filleted in such a lame way was seeing the first female speaker of the House flail around in her first big week in such a lame way. It reminded you of just how idiotic Democrats can act sometimes.

Nancy Pelosi’s first move, after the Democratic triumph, was to throw like a girl. Women get criticized in the office for acting on relationships and past slights rather than strategy, so Madame Speaker wasted no time making her first move based on relationships and past slights rather than strategy.

Here's Dowd's argument: Even worse than Ted Olson's sexist cracks about Pelosi and Clinton is the fact that sexist stereotypes about the shortcomings of women in professional settings are actually true of Pelosi, judging by Pelosi's conduct to date as Speaker-elect of the House of Representatives. The sexists are right about Pelosi! Politically speaking, she "throws like a girl." Wow! That's quite a charge. But here's what Dowd comes up with by way of evidence for this startling claim:

Instead of counting votes behind closed doors or even just choosing the best person for majority leader, Ms. Pelosi offered an argument along the lines of: John Murtha’s my friend. He’s been nice to me. I don’t like Steny. He did something a long time ago that was really, really bad that I’m never, ever going to tell you. And I’m the boss of you. So vote for John.

Let me be charitable about this: Maureen Dowd has no idea what she's talking about. Let me be uncharitable about this: Maureen Dowd is a sexist idiot.

Dowd stumbles across the phenomenon of politics, as if for the first time. Had she given this a moment's thought, or had she consulted with someone with an actual interest in politics, she would surely have discovered that loyalty is an exceedingly important factor in making political decisions, that "just choosing the best person" is not a meaningful option in this context, any more than it would be in the context of choosing a husband or a wife.

Dowd takes this mundane reality about politics and the political process -- that loyalty and a history of cooperation are important factors in forging political alliances -- and renders it in crude, sexist terms for the sole purpose of belittling Pelosi. Consider Dowd's trademark manufactured quotes. Apparently Pelosi said something "along the lines of" "He’s been nice to me. I don’t like Steny." Where does this come from? It comes from Maureen Dowd. Maureen Dowd literally invents quotations to mock Pelosi as an irrational schoolgirl! Could Dowd be more of a hack?

Dowd then considers Nancy Pelosi's opposition to Jane Harman as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Dowd writes:

Everyone in Washington was perplexed at Ms. Pelosi’s ham-handed effort to sabotage not only Mr. Hoyer but her former friend and fellow Californian, Jane Harman. In what looks like another self-defeating personality clash, she has been maneuvering to bypass the senior member of the House Intelligence Committee and give the chairmanship either to the ethically challenged Alcee Hastings of Florida or a compromise candidate, Silvestre Reyes of Texas.

Everyone in Washington was perplexed by this? Of course, that is an outright falsehood. Pelosi is widely known to disapprove of Harman's performance on the House Intelligence Committee, on the grounds that Harman has been insufficiently partisan and has demonstrated a Lieberman-like propensity to defend the Bush Administration, notably over the warrantless wiretapping program. That Pelosi doesn't like the idea of Jane Harman -- a prominent Democratic hawk and feverish early supporter of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy -- as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee indicates good judgment on Pelosi's part. It doesn't make sense to entrust the leadership of key House Committees that will be tasked with investigating the Bush White House to Democrats who have been fellow-travellers of the Bush Administration and whose reputations could be damaged as a result of these investigations.

And what does Dowd offer up by way of evidence that Pelosi's opposition to Harman amounts to nothing more than a "self-defeating personality clash"? She quotes "one top Democrat who knows both women". Here's the quote:

“Jane was very aggressive about going on TV; she was on TV so much she could have gotten a SAG card,” said one top Democrat who knows both women. “Nancy resented that and felt Jane was leeching attention away from her leadership role. That had a lot to do with poisoning the relationship.”

What do you even say about this kind of stuff?

So we've come full-circle. We're back to the good old Bill-and-Monica, War-on-Gore days. Maureen Dowd is back, in full form. Yuk.

UPDATE @ 6:00 PM

A few of Maureen Dowd's Greatest Hits:

* Maureen Dowd comlains that Gore and Kerry "allowed themselves to be painted as girlie men" -- having herself been an incessant portrayer of Gore and Kerry as girlie men.

* Maureen Dowd makes up the phony "Who among us doesn't like NASCAR" quote.

* Maureen Dowd writes that Kerry is struggling to prove his manhood to George W. Bush.

* Maureen Dowd says that Kerry is coming off as "Bush's woman" on Imus.

* Maureen Dowd writes of Gore that he "has to pay a fortune to a woman [Naomi Wolf] to teach him how to be a man," and generally makes stuff up to push the meme of Gore as a phony.

* Maureen Dowd ridicules Gore's beard in 2001, likens him to Pepe Le Pew.

A Reminder: This Election Really Matters

While the conduct of Dem leaders in the Geneva Conventions debacle has been pathetic, it would be a huge mistake to pretend that this election doesn't matter, that Dems are just as bad as Republicans, or that things are so screwed up that nothing matters anymore.

For starters: Republicans want to stay in Iraq, bomb Iran, suppress the basic oversight function required to be served by Congress in the American system of government, transform America into a police state (and yes, it could get much, much worse than it is now), cement America's post-9/11 adversarial relationship to most of the world, weaken the UN, dismantle social security, further stack the federal judiciary (not just the Supreme Court) with lunatics, further erode the separation of Church and State, amend the Constitution to entrench discrimination against homosexual Americans and roll back already insufficient environmental protections just as it becomes clear that the global warming crisis is far more severe than most of us had realized. It's so painful to watch Dem leaders blow it precisely because the stakes are so high.

In 2000, lots of people supported Nader on the theory that there was no meaningful difference between Gore and Bush. That's looking like a pretty dumb call right now, isn't it? Wouldn't punishing the Dems for their incompetence by staying home on election day be even dumber, now that everybody has the benefit of hindsight?

UPDATE: Edited to change "function ... played" to "function ... served".

Stuff to Feel Good About

In the wake of the Geneva Conventions debacle, here is a partial list of Things to Feel Good About, adapted from a comment I left on Glenn Greenwald's excellent blog, Unclaimed Territory. To be clear, this is not a "There's a silver lining in every cloud" type of post. There are no silver linings here.

(1) The 50-state project and the rebuilding of Democratic Party infrastructure on a national scale. I give Howard Dean tons of credit for seeing the importance of this project so clearly and for executing the vision.

(2) Moveon.org and, more generally, the development of political institutions of the Left (or what is considered "Left" at this moment in American political history). Over time, these may rival or prevail over the incredibly effective machine the Right has assembled.

(3) Media Matters for America. David Brock deserves a ton of credit for this.

(4) Crashing the Gates, the left blogosphere and the emergence of a new self-conscious political community, capable of sharing messages and, in some cases, organizing. DailyKos, Firedoglake, MyDD, etc.

(5) The re-emergence of the tradition of the politically engaged public intellectual (different in kind from the professional columnist and TV pundit), primarily though not exclusively through the medium of blogging.

Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness

This article from the Onion, written last February, perfectly captures the tenor of today's Geneva Conventions debacle for Democrats. Consider this "quote" from Nancy Pelosi:

"In times like these, when the American public is palpably dismayed with the political status quo, it is crucial that Democrats remain unfocused and defer to the larger, smarter, and better-equipped Republican machine," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said. "If we play our cards right, we will be intimidated to the point of total paralysis."

Cue nervous laughter...

Torture Debacle Post Mortem

The Democratic leadership blew this one in a huge way. Hiding under the bed on this was just unbelievably stupid and reinforced the worst stereotypes of Dems as weak and standing for nothing.

What hurts the most is not that we lost the Geneva Conventions battle, it's that we lost it because our leaders froze up and wet themselves, even though we wanted them to fight and would have supported them to the hilt if they had.

I don't think there's anything more to say by way of a post mortem.

Looking forward, it's hugely important that Democrats win back the House, at a minimum. Even when the leadership gets rolled in the most embarassing way, rank and file Democrats need to stay motivated to win this thing. There are massive differences between Democrats and Republicans. For starters, Republicans want to stay in Iraq, bomb Iran and transform America into a police state.

Heckuva Job, Harry

This is horrible.

The substance of the Geneva Conventions "compromise" is going to be the stuff of nightmares. And good luck to the Dem leadership selling this as an instance of Rubber Stamp Republicans caving and going along with Bush!

By sitting on the sidelines throughout this whole piece of Kabuki, our national Dem pols let the GOP frame crystalize: this was Courageous Rebel Republicans led by Straight Talking Maverick Saint John McCain standing up to the Bush White House. And the story isn't going to come out "McCain Caved"... it's going to be "Fearless Saint McCain Stared Bush Down".

Just yesterday, Harry Reid told the AP that the Dem leadership was "sitting on the sidelines watching the GOP catfights." Having called the debate about whether Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions should be edited by Bush a "catfight", how is our Dem leadership now supposed to argue that McCain caved on a matter of supreme importance? Having decided to sit on the sidelines as if this was just all a process story about intra-GOP squabbling, they just can't do it. Can they argue that the whole debate was phony, that this was all Kabuki? Well, they could have argued that... LAST WEEK! But that ship has sailed.

I want the Dems to win the House back so badly it physically hurts. Judging by the lunacy coming out of the White House and the op-ed pages of our major newspapers, it looks like winning the House back is literally the only way to prevent a new war with Iran, let alone wind down the one in Iraq. But the Dem leadership has got to shake off this stupor they're in and get in the game.

The war for control of the House isn't lost -- far from it. The odds are we'll win. But there's no way we should be saying "Heckuva job, Brownie" to Reid, Pelosi and Emmanuel for this. By hiding under the bed and letting the GOP run this play unopposed, they blew this battle BIGTIME.

If Not Now, When?

I wrote this post as part of a discussion/debate I was having in the comments section of Matthew Yglesias’s blog . I was responding to another commenter’s argument that I was wrong to suggest that Democratic leaders were making a huge mistake by sitting on the sidelines while Republicans fight out the Geneva Conventions issue among themselves. The other commenter’s view was, to paraphrase, that you have to pick your battles, that the Geneva Conventions issue is for Democrats what the minimum wage or Social Security issues are for the GOP (namely, bad issue terrain), and that it doesn't make sense to get involved when the Republicans are busy committing fratricide anyway. (I think that sums up the argument pretty fairly, but I’ll be glad to revise the description, or quote from the text of the other commenter’s argument, if that conveys the thrust of the argument more fairly– I’m pretty new to this and don’t yet have a handle on the etiquette of quoting other peoples’ comments from other peoples' blogs). Anyway, with that background in mind, here is what I wrote:


It is true that “indiscriminate fighting” is not a good strategy. But the fighting in this case would hardly be indiscriminate! To be clear, the issue at hand is national security and the conduct of the War on Terra, which (like it or not) ranks as one of most important issues to American voters in this election, along with Iraq. This issue has occupied the front page of every major newspaper for the past week, and will likely do so for at least another week. The Sunday shows last weekend were completely dominated by this issue. I’m betting they will next week, too.

If we can change the subject to Iraq, great. I would prefer to fight on that ground, because it is more favorable to us. But wishing does not make things so: if we can’t change the subject to Iraq, then we need to fight on this issue. It isn’t going away.

It’s wrong to think that the national security issue is to the Democrats what the minimum wage or Social Security issues are to the GOP. The apt analogy is to the issue of the economy in 1992 – I’m sure the Republicans wished it wasn’t a key issue in that election, but it was. And there’s another important difference: whereas the Republican positions on the minimum wage (hold it down) and Social Security (gut it) are deeply unpopular, the Democratic position on national security (we refuse to give up the bedrock American values of freedom and fairness) is far more popular than the fear-and-torture snake-oil the Republicans are selling. Just look at the latest Pew polling data cited by Glenn Greenwald last Friday. Americans flatly reject the idea that we need to transform ourselves into a police state in order to win the War on Terra. Democrats are on the right side of this issue.

So national security is a central issue in this election, and it’s an issue on which more people agree with our position than with theirs going into the argument. Given this, why not fight? The argument is that the Republicans are fighting among themselves, and since this is all to our benefit, why get our hands dirty?

Two reasons. First, it isn’t at all clear that Democrats benefit when our leaders sit on the sidelines while so-called independent Republicans make a show of standing up to Bush. Sure, Bush’s disapproval numbers may go up as a result, but what about the endangered Republicans who associate themselves with McCain and his effort to rein in Bush? My sense is that they are effectively inoculating themselves against the otherwise extremely effective charge of being “Rubber Stamp Republicans”.

The second, and more important, reason for Democrats to join this battle, aggressively and unabashedly, is that shrinking from confrontation with a White House run amok, failing to say out loud what we truly and genuinely believe in our hearts, on the most important questions of the day to boot, reinforces the worst stereotypes about Democrats as weak and calculating.

If not this, then what? If not now, when?

New GOP Meme

You heard it here first. They're going to try it right after the press conference announcing that the WH has backed down and agreed to urgent demands by Saint McCain and [fill in names of endangered Republicans] that the WH respect the Geneva Conventions in prisoner interrogations and/or tinker with the W-is-Like-a-King warrantless wiretap program:

If the Democrats are too Weak to Stand Up to the President, How Can You Expect Them to Fight the Evildoers?