The Iraq War vote didn't mean shit.

[joeunderdog]

No doubt in my mind--getting Congressional or Senate approval for military action in Iraq was only window dressing. It had absolutely no impact on their decision to invade. They were going in anyway, and nothing was gonna stop them. Not the UN saying there's no WMD's, not the urging of a peace-loving world, and not even an unreported, last minute cave-in by Saddam.

And now, look what's happening with Iran. They are setting this up bigtime. They know Congress and the American public won't give their stamp of approval. But it really won't matter in the end, will it? We're getting the conveeeeenient stories about "Americans getting attacked," about (yawn) Iran's connection with the terrorists and about Iran funding Iraqi IED's. Our ships are moving in, and we're only one more "provocation" from dropping a few bombs in there. When Iran then responds, we'll officially be "under attack."

At least now I feel a little better about some of the horribly disappointing Dems who voted to authorize the Iraq Invasion. The Vote didn't effect the decision to invade Iraq and won't matter in the decision to attack Iran. That's why they won't even ask for a vote this time. After all, it's not like they'd let a little negative feedback get in the way of a good invasion. The only question on the table for the pols in office today is what are you gonna do about stopping this pResident from forcing his way in?

[Jacobin]

1. But, see how that works?

By forcing those without enough gumption or political cover to vote for the war, it becomes THEIR problem, too?

How're ya gonna criticize what you voted for, huh?

How many time has that been thrown in the face of dem candidates who were foolish enough to go along with it?

How can they now cut off funds for something they authorized to begin with.

Its called co-option and it has worked to prolong this ghastly Iraq adventure.

And the congress had better be ready for when Smirk tells them he wants them to support blowing up Iran.

[stellanoir]

2. They deferred to the international community under the onus of the threat of being labeled as

"unpatriotic or weak on terror." They deferred to the wisdom of the international community. The WH then ignored that particular provision.

The UN never approved. They then thereby created a Constitutional crisis. Go figure. The whole endeavor is illegal.

Go wikipedia that.

[Liberal In Texas]

3. I've thought since the Nov. election, our Dem. congress should go ahead and rescind the previous

vote to authorize force. Maybe just symbolic, but it would take some wind out of that sail.

[tritsofme]

5. They're having trouble finding enough votes in the Senate to condemn

a giant escalation in the war now, no chance they could ever have enough votes to rescind the IWR.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Bush would have invaded anyway. Just as he's increasing troop levels now.

It's not the senate's fault we're in a crazy war.

[Big Pappa]

6. But

if our fearless leaders had not voted to give Bush these powers, they could stand back with a clear conscious and tell him to F-off.

[Captain Hilts]

8. They can still ask him what the letters 'f', 'o' mean to him. nt

[jpgray]

7. True. But it was still beyond stupid to vote for even a ceremonial bill like IWR