Hint - perhaps you can point out ANY serious political resistance to WWII after Pearl Harbor before declaring my ignorance. Or do you just like calling someone ignorant without backing it up?
There wasn't any serious political resistance for a reason.
That reason was probably because the Axis military was the biggest war machine on the planet, and it sent a fleet of aircraft carriers to punch us in the back of the head.
9/11, on the other hand, killed an similar number of people, but it was launched by 5,000 cave dwellers from a somewhat obscure terrorist group hiding in a country 96% of Americans couldn't find on a map.
Clearly, these two events were going to provoke different responses, politically and militarily.
Biographies of FDR, Truman, Ike, Churchill, Vandenberg, Warren, Jackson, Taft and Marshall and the several war bond drives 1940 - 1944 - - to name the ones that come to mind instantly, discuss precisely the internal politics of the WW II period. To attempt to use the legitimate debates that swirl around Bush's compulsion to attack Iraq and all of the many distictions that comprise a very real difference to any historical antecedent is a meaningless exercise in a mindless defense of ideology and party loyalty. It's undertaken by the same people who would be best described by the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes as fawning over the wonderful new invisible suit notwithstanding the boss'stark nakedness.