[Christian_Capitalist]

The public is smart enough, however, to know who wanted the war in the first place, who asked for the war, and who prosecuted the war. They also know, if they stop to think about it, that the Democrats authorizing force was hedging their bets (so they can cash in whether or not it’s a success).

A good portion of the electorate is smart enough to see that.

I think that another large portion, however, isn't.

Ergo, I don't think we should allow our opponents to "hedge their bets". Maybe that's just me.

[Tublecane]

“I don’t think we should allow our opponents to ‘hedge their bets’. Maybe that’s just me.”

Yes, well, they could easily hedge their bets nonetheless. It’s called “I changed my mind.” Which gets you called a flip-flopper, but not if the whole party does it at once. And not if you can add in that you follow your heart, or whatever.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that people are too dense to see that Democrats didn’t necessarily want the Iraq war in the heart of hearts (in fact, I figure people pretty much knew Dems weren’t enthusiastic, and that some of them secretly hoped it would fail), yet clever enough to set a trap for catching wish-washiness. They’ll always fall for the bet-hedging, no matter how cynical they are, for the previously outlined “what party is MORE to blame?” principle. People knew Iraq was more of a Republican thing than a Democratic thing (they’re not THAT stupid). What’s more, they had years of non-resolution, Bushites apologizing, and Dems attacking in which to forget there ever was such a thing as an authorization vote.

Which, in my opinion, doesn’t make them stupid, lazy or forgetful. The authorization really doesn’t matter, after all, since the Dems didn’t really mean it anway. Oh, and Bush was still “MORE to blame.”