Would have abstaining from the IRW been politically expedient?

[wuushew]

The whole point of those voting Yes to IRW was to absolve the Congress of the responsibility of failure or success in the Iraqi fisco. Obviously if Iraq had turned into the dancing in the streets and or massive WMD scenario those who voted no would have been the ones with egg on their faces.

Since the whole vote was about avoiding congressional responsiblity, why not avoid the avoidence of responsibility. Especially when many other important domestic votes have been not voted on by leading Democratic candidates?

[Sir_Shrek]

1. No

I think I would've been worse to abstain.

[wuushew]

2. How would it have been worse for Kerry?

Vote yes = piss off the Doves
Vote no = piss off the Hawks
don't vote = piss off the character police?

[LuminousX]

3. The Correct Stance

If you believed Bush, vote for the resolution. The moment Bush violated the resoluton (broke the law) the vote needed to be renounced and everyone who voted for it needed to talk until they were blue in the face about how Bush is waging an illegal war.

4. my view of the "correct stance"

vote how you believe, whether it is expedient or not.

let history be the judge rather than ambition.

In particular, in regards to these life and death issues.