Or we'll be at it for the next 8 months, or however long folks stick around.

Regarding a vote "for" the latest Iraq aggression. Here is a post with a superb link to the resolution authorizing the President to go to war if necessary. Tom B. did a great job on the link.

Now, one should know the difference between "authorize" and "mandate" or "order". The below is the gist of Bowser's answer to the above post.

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. Happens all the time. Doesn't usually result in a strike or lockout.

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. Doesn't have to, just can 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. The betrayal is compounded by his knowing or with due diligence would have known it wasn't necessary.

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

OK. So I'm hoping that reasonable minds can be see that a vote authorizing the President was NOT a vote for an unnecessary aggression.

Hoping. Not really expecting, but hoping.

And Arf