Reply #16: I understand what you're saying...

[vi5]

I don't disagree with it entirely. Let's assume we can agree that the vote was for inspectors and it was Bush who violated the terms of the vote and his manipulation of the senators and reps who voted for this is to blame, not their trusting nature.

That being said and agreed upon, falling for more or less the same gambit in Kyl_lieberman how many years and how many lives lost and how many exposed lies later is just unfbelievable to me. It means either someone is so naive and gullible to fall for the same trick twice or that they are just so concerned about appearing weak and how being on the perceiveed wrong side of an issue will affect them politically.

And no I'm not forgiving Obama sitting it out and playing it on the fence. But I'm sorry that's still better (only ever so slightly) than saying "If I've got to risk my career by taking an explicit side on a vote I'm going to side with the warmongering, republican point of view." At least the abstention can be perceived as wanting to know more about the situation before diving in head first.