Reply #11: Congress being solidly Republican in 2003... [View All]

[punpirate]

... meant that they wouldn't, not that they couldn't. There's a dramatic difference.

And, you do need to go back and review the 1998 Iraq resolution, much of which is referenced in the IWR. Agreeing to provisions of that resolution forgave Bush a great many transgressions.

The simple truth is that all of the Democrats voting for the IWR willingly allowed themselves to be deluded, and opened the door for Bush to invade at his discretion. At the time of the vote, the Democrats held a majority in the Senate, 51-49, if one considers Jim Jefford's independent status as siding with Democrats. That resolution would have died without Senate acceptance. If the Republicans had revived it in 2003, and Democrats remained firm against it, the `pugs would have owned the war lock, stock and barrel. It would have been their downfall now. Because Democrats feared that popularity of the President (at least as it was described in the press), and because they allowed themselves to be deluded, they own it, too.

My original point was that a couple of dozen Democrats did not believe the ruse the Bushies were waving. That leaves open the decision-making of the remainder of the Democrats. It's, therefore, small comfort that a few didn't take the bait. Had all stood against Bush, the Republicans couldn't now say that the war--a horrible and tragic mistake--was a bi-partisan effort.

Cheers.