I would argue that it's simply impermissible in much of American society to bring up the following:

- Our role in deposing the Iranian reformer Mossadegh and installing the Shah, thereby brilliantly solving our problems with that country;

- Our role in subverting a democratically-elected government in Chile in 1973, and then being complicit in the assassination of its president;

- Our role in making Saddam what he was by giving our approval and assistance in his war with Iran in the 1980s.

This is just a short list, of course, but any one of these is almost guaranteed to be a conversation stopper at any gathering that does consist exclusively of liberals. That, or right-wingers will start spouting insults, lies and misinformation - anything to preserve their fantasy of America's unblemished history.

The mass of Americans simply cannot or will not believe that their country has been involved in grave, and even counter-productive, misconduct over the years. Therefore, anything we do must necessarily be right. This is a deep-seated problem in our culture (probably most cultures), and frankly, I don't really know how to begin to change it.

I detest the Iraq war as much as anyone, but I think it's unrealistic to believe that one election, wherein the Democrats attained only a small majority, is going to fundamentally change the dynamics in Washington. I hear many of my fellow liberal/leftists constantly repeating the idea that "the public spoke in 2006" as if that were the only vote that actually counted. But didn't the public speak in 2002 and 2004 as well, and didn't they essentially vote for war? And isn't two-thirds of the Senate still represented by those elections?

Despite the failures of the media and the mendacity of the Bush administration, there were plenty of reasons for skepticism on Iraq back then for people willing to think. People voted for war out of fear, ignorance and xenophobia.

Individual elections can be the beginning of a trend (1932) or they can be an aberration (1976); it's difficult to argue that a single off-year election is anything but a point-in-time reflection of the public's mood.

Will the public still be soured on Iraq next year? I'm betting yes, but only time will tell. Even without the entrenched special interests that Glenn describes so thoughtfully, the U.S. government contains a number of constraints against reacting too strongly or too immediately to popular will.

A number of posters here seem to be completely dismissive of U.S. misconduct along the lines that Kamiya has enumerated - our role in the Mossadegh affair, the fact that we prop up dictatorships when it suits us (Egypt, Saudi Arabia - and, previously, Saddam!), etc.

My question is: why? Are you really proceeding under the assumption that the actions of our government in the region have been so unimportant? And if so, how do you construct that argument?

The opposite seems clear to me. For at least the last hundred years (longer than that, I guess), the West has never ceased to meddle in Islamic and/or Arabic countries. The West's actions (and those of the former USSR as well) have been wholly selfish with regard to those nations. If we thought we had to stifle democratic reform in order to preserve our gluttonous use of energy, then reform got stifled.

How is this not a major factor in the rampant dysfunctions of the Middle East? We'll never find our way out of this mess - in Iraq or anywhere else - until we can at least own up to our past idiocy, hypocrisy and unscrupulousness.

I used to be for stricter gun control, but like a couple of previous posters, I've been so alarmed by the Bush administration's totalitarian tendencies that I've changed my mind.

A group of people who have tried to eliminate the right of habeas corpus, and who argue that "if the president does it, it's legal" (an intrinsically fascist formulation) would have no qualms about stripping any other rights away from us. Eliminating private gun ownership would only enable those in our government - and there seem to be an alarming number of them and their toadies - who seek only total control and have no care whatsoever for the rights of the people.

If the Democrats' "dumping" of this issue means more Howard Deans and Jim Webbs in the party, then all the better. The latter is our current star, as far as I'm concerned.

The Founders... proven right once again.

The Bush era has caused me to reassess much of my political thinking, and I agree that there are more than a few people and politicians on the Democratic side who also seek nothing but more and more power for themselves. The details differ, as do the special interest groups, but the trend seems to be more toward centralized control and groupthink.

Liberty is always threatening to the centers of power. As much as I want the Democrats to win the next election, will they actually give up the powers that Bush has claimed for himself? I'll be surprised if they don't resist relinquishing the imperial presidency.

What has happened to America since 2001 is really frightening to me. Our public has fulfilled some of my worst fears with their over-the-top anxiety about terrorism (hence, Iraq) and their corresponding willingness to give up precious liberties at the coaxing of cynical politicians. I hope we can wake up as a people before we slouch further toward totalitarianism.