>Have you forgotten all of the Senators (Dems included) that voted for military action in Iraq? There were not 'many' arguing against it but only a few argued publicly. It was seen as a dangerous politcal move at that time to not support it. Now of course with hindsight many are saying they were wrong, but they cannot deny that they supported it originally. This 'vote yes before no' or whichever is too much of a duck and cover to me. Regardless of who came up with the idea originally it would never have materialized without the full support of the senate which it received. The House and the Senate publicly supported it at the time - everyone seems to forget that now. Today we have everyone trying to backpedal. It is fine to ask for an account on how/why everyone voted the way they did (intelligence information, briefings, etc) but everyone should acknowledge how they voted and why. It is on the record.

It's no surprise that most of the politician are fair-weather-politicians only. They're on board as long as something is popular at the time. But soon as something goes wrong, they scatter like cock-roaches. To call Bush a liar, would means one would have to call about at least half of the democrats and at least half of the UN members liars too.

FWIW. I'm with you and Mike Helland on this. Whether you agree with the war or not, we're there. The concern now should be how can we make Iraq better.

I think in the end it will be better, but it will take time.
Judging from election turn outs, it seems that most of the Iraqis care what happens too.


>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

>Also, the house approved it by 296-133 earlier.

>Surprisingly, it passed by a wider margin than when his father was given the power to go to war in 1991.