I'd like to have a discussion about the Democratic senators' decision to vote in favor of the War Resolution Act.
If the senators had taken a principled stand and succeeded in voting down the Act, Bush would have gone to war anyway. There were many ways in which Bush showed his determination to go to war, including his failure to go back to congress and ask them to declare war. Since it was obvious that Bush was going to war with or without the congress's approval, what would this principled stand have garnered the Democratic Party? In hindsight we now know that they would have been able to point to the chaos that is now Iraq and say they took a principled stand against it.
But what would have been lost? The Repubs would have gone to war anyway and in addition would have had perfect ammo to use against the Dems in painting us as weak on defense. Never mind that Iraq is a mess. They would paint us as traitors, as not standing with those who are sacrificing during this dark hour in America's history (or some such bush-shit).
Knowing that Bush was going to war anyway, I am led to think that the pro-resolution vote was in itself a principled stand. This stand risked the ire of anti-war citizens (of which I'm one) in favor of protecting the Democratic Party against political destruction.
My point is it's not as if an anti-war-resolution vote could have stopped the war. As such, it would have been a vanity vote only, and would have put the Democratic Party at undue risk.
If my premise is wrong, if the Republican march toward war would have been effectively stopped by a no vote on the Act, then I recant all of this.