And by the way...

While Iran's president is still on our turf, now the Senate is trying to hand Bush another ambiguously worded authorization for war?

I'm going to pretend I didn't notice the glaring omission of a certain junior senator from New York (whom I was almost ready to consider picking as a tentative frontrunner for my very own not-so-coveted primary vote) in the list of senators who voted against the Lieberman-Kyl amendment.
At least, happily, the most offending two paragraphs were removed from the amendment, the ones which essentially called (admittedly with all the force of a "Sense of the Senate" resolution) for war at any moment when the president happens to be feeling especially scrappy, and a sort of qualifying amendment was added at the end, but why did such an overwhelming number of Democrats feel compelled to vote for it at all? Have the neocons perfected their voodoo technology, or have the Dems learned nothing from these ever-present polls, their (now so distant-seeming) victorious election, etc.? Are they just trying to make Hagel and Lugar look especially heroic?
The American people do not want any more wars. We don't even want the one we've got.
Can't they hear us anymore, or have they just tuned us out?

Here's the speech by Jim Webb that I had just assumed was going to be more influential than whatever mind-altering drugs ended up in all but 22 of the Senate water pitchers.