Hap,
You keep reprinting this joint resolution like it means something.
I guarantee you that if things had turned out well in Iraq, the Bush admin would have said something like, the Congress had to be browbeaten into passing it, following Bush's lead.
Indeed, that was the idea behind it. The Bush admin wins either way--if things turned out well, the above, if things turn out badly, everyone voted "for" the war, it is a bipartisan defeat.
But the truth is, it was sold as a way to get Iraq to open up to inspection, to put "muscle" behind US threats. It was also an incredibly political act, an act designed to bolster the GOP's results in the '02 election and deflect attention from the economy and the social issues on which most Americans disagree with the Bush admin.
That is why (one reason why) so many people are pissed at this admin, not just Democrats but even many Republicans. Not of course the "Christian" Republicans. But many of the "libertarian" Republicans, and many of the old style, tradition Republicans, who, contrary to popular Reagan-instilled belief, don't really think that government is necessarily a four letter word.
Robert Byrd was almost the only Senator who had the courage to say publicly and repeatedly that Bush was playing politics with war before the election. This was in part a tactical decision on the part of the Democratic Party, one that backfired on them for sure. But they were cornered, and although some on this thread condemn them for this decision, personally I don't. They were skillfully backed into a difficult corner. And the votes were there for Bush whatever the leadership decided--there were a few Senators like Breaux and Miller who were going to vote for it no matter what, and a few others who were in difficult reelection fights that were forced to vote for it.
It was clever all right. Clever of the admin to play politics with American lives and money. Swell guys. Real patriots.
Frankly, I don't understand why people are puzzled at the disgust many of us feel for this admin.