Tom Brosz - "For the rest of us who are not desperately trying to rewrite history,"

And this "us". It isn't you, so who might it be? I think there is a very good case for your rewriting history made below, and the responsibility for that naked aggression lies solely upon the shoulders of GWB.

An "authorization" is not the same as "mandating".

For instance. In labor relations, a union group often takes a "strike vote", authorizing a strike if it becomes necessary. Or a management group may authorize a lockout, if that becomes necessary.

Neither of those is a mandate to strike or lockout. They are often nothing more than negotiating ploys. They read very much like the vote authorizing the President to go to war if necessary.

Now, it's well known that naked aggression wasn't necessary. The reasons it wasn't necessary are well known to the American public and the rest of the world. Therefore, the President betrayed those folks who gave him the authorization by doing so when it wasn't necessary. The betrayal is compounded by his knowing or with due diligence would have known it wasn't necessary.

And I know, you're one of the folks who believe war is dandy, anyway, for whatever reason, and what the hell, it was only Iraqis and less than a thousand, so far, Americans so one might as well. Keeps 'em on their toes (the tags, that is).

Some of us just see tragedy in the President's betrayal of those who trusted him with an authorization, not a mandate.

Arf