Nancy Pelosi had better watch her back. The last time a Democratic Speaker of the House tried to help extricate the United States from a stalemated war, it cost him his job.Read the whole thing here.Twenty years ago, congressional Democrats rebelled against President Ronald Reagan's covert "contra" war to overthrow the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, threatening to cut off the funds for it, just as they are now threatening to cut off funds for the war in Iraq. Then, as now, a Republican president was determined to stay the course despite mounting evidence that the war was unwinnable and only diplomacy could end it. With the executive branch bereft of ideas on how to escape the quagmire but dead-set against engaging its perceived adversaries, Congressional leaders stepped into the breach ...
No president likes to see Congress take an active role in foreign policy, especially when the two branches are at odds over what policy should be. But although the Constitution gives the president the leading role in international affairs, it does not give him an exclusive mandate. When a president insists on pursuing policies that, despite mounting costs, show no promise of success and have lost the support of the American people, he should not be surprised to find Congress becoming more assertive...
...The hardline crusaders like Cheney and Abrams, despite their moral certitude, turned out to be wrong. Twenty years later, they still think diplomacy is for sissies, they still think Congress has no legitimate role in foreign policy, and they are still wrong.
--The Editors
