I noted this as part of a larger post. If I post it separately, my title will be "Mousetrap me once, shame on you - mousetrap me twice, shame on me".



My point - Republicans will welcome a chance to reaffirm their support for Bush. And Dems who supported Bush initially will do what? Support him again and re-antagonize their base? Or switch sides, prompting belly-laughs at their indecisiveness on this critical question?



This is a looming disaster for the Dems, unles they think that Hamlet might be a winning candidate in 2004.

I'm with Tom -- the President should acquiesce in holding a second vote as soon as he gracefully can. Is there any doubt it will pass? Doesn't it put the Democrats right back onto the razer's edge? Don't you want to see John Kerry put up or shut up?

Teddy's at the wheel again.

Sheesh. Apparently we are going to war, not

to win the war, but to collect votes two years

from now.



I think people are not keeping their eyes on

the ball, and I nominate Orrin, who seems to

cast his eyes on every political statement of

the day, to start awarding a daily Daladier/

Chamberlain Award.



Anyhow, little as I admire the current crop of

Democrats, I want the might of the U.S.A.

unleashed on our other enemies.

I have less faith that it would pass.

You're a provocateur, Orrin, but how can you honestly think a second resolution wouldn't pass?

Because the Democrats would rather humiliate the President than stick to principle and guys like Chaffee and McCain-Lite are inherently wobbly.

Many Dems voted for the resolution with the prayer that war wouldn't really come. Clinton explicitly justified her pro vote as a vote against
war--only a credible threat could get Saddam to disarm. I thought she was unfairly ridiculed for this position. It would be interesting to see, now that Saddam has called that bluff, whether she would support following through on the threat.

Plus they got past November--no impending election is likely to mean no vote for war.