I remember well. The Iraq Resolution had resounding support among the public, as well. One act of bipartisanship doesn't prove your point -- but I suspect tha

I remember well. The Iraq Resolution had resounding support among the public, as well. One act of bipartisanship doesn't prove your point -- but I suspect that "we were capitulating to the Bush administration" is a better post-hoc rationalization among the Democratic base than is "we agreed with the Iraq war." The actual question is: how did Democrats see their role as the opposition party? Did they think it was their job to find common ground with the majority party, or did they dig in and fight as hard as they could? Luckily we had newspapers back then: 2001, post-election: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/28/news/28iht-tube_ed3_.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/28/news/28iht-tube_ed3_.html 2005, post-election: http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/51667-democrats-united-in-plans-to-block-top-bush-initiatives http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/51667-democrats-united... What about the troop surge in Iraq (which was successful)? They tried to block it: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16579285/ns/politics/t/senate-opposition-bush-plan-grows http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16579285/ns/politics/t/senate-oppo... Robert Gates later wrote that he overheard Obama and Clinton joking about how their opposition was purely political: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/robert-gates-former-defense-secretary-offers-harsh-critique-of-obamas-leadership-in-duty/2014/01/07/6a6915b2-77cb-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rober...