Symbolism over substance

The bizarre disconnect between the President and most Democrats as to whether the Iraq war has any bearing on the GWoT has never been more stark as expressed by comments during the past 24 hours. Here's the Prez:

These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they've been attacking ever since. They are a threat to your children, David, and whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures necessary to protect the American people.

Replied Barack Obama:

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Quipped Harry Reid:

"Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new president,"

A veiled impeachment threat. Now Hillary:

"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,"

Not hard to figure why Mrs. Clinton might not want to jump on "this war was wrong" bandwagon, but to explain her 'no' vote as some kind of call for a strategy change is a new level of hubris. Not so long ago she voted for a new strategy by helping to confirm General Petraeus, one of 81 Senators to do so. By all indications Petraeus has been a dynamic leader apt to change tactics on the fly. Doesn't matter. Barama also voted "yea" to confirm the General and Reid? A firmative.

Postscript--how badly will the party of emotion tar this man for showing emotion?