That's the Senate Dem vote on the war powers act, not support for the war. At the time, many Congressional Dems explicitly based their vote on W's public promise not to launch war unless forced - since such forcing by Iraq was nearly impossible, they were able to claim that they were not supporting war but rather empowering the negotiations that would prevent war. That enabled them to justify the politically safer vote (the Republican propaganda campaign for war was heavy and jingoistic and could be focused on the voting base of Dems who didn't give the Republican administration the cover it wanted. It took courage to vote against W's war powers - several Dems lost elections because of their refusal even to grant W the War Powers he wanted, let alone support launching an invasion of Iraq) Or W, or Cheney, or Chevron, or BP, or some other force entirely. You shouldn't. Yet you insist on doing so. If that's the only way to get your posts to match your claims, you should either do that or quit making the claims . It prevents the extra number, larger scale, greater corruption, worse management, and worse consequences, of a Republican president's greater tendency to launch wars and lesser ability to fight them competently. The Iraq War alone is bigger and worse than the sum of every Dem president's military ventures since Vietnam. If Trump starts a war with Iran, China, or North Korea, it may be worse yet. If he confines his military violence to Mexico, Venezuela, one of the smaller African hot spots with resources, continuing to ramp up an existing Middle East conflict, or some other SA or CA country, his contribution to US violence will remain smaller than W's. That would be good, and lucky, for the US. The odds of remaining that lucky will improve if we can get the Republicans out of the Executive branch.