Since we just had the President's SOTU address, it is revealing to revisit the Democrats response to the SOTU just a few years ago, in 2003, in which Gov. Gary Locke (D-WA) stated about Bush's policy:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...nse/index.htmlDemocrats support President Bush's handling of the Iraq situation but believe he must do more to strengthen America's economy and its homeland security, said a Democratic governor delivering the opposition party's response to the Republican president's State of the Union message.
Bush has dealt properly with Iraq and its "ruthless tyrant," Saddam Hussein, said Washington Gov. Gary Locke, who spoke Tuesday night after the president's annual speech, the second in his administration.
So, not so long ago, the Democrats supported -- or at least claimed to, even though it is fair to doubt their candor -- the very Bush doctrine you are now complaining about, and approved of what was done in Iraq. Were they lying then? Were they simply pandering, based on then-existing popular opinion?
You actually want to harken back to Nuremburg as an (alleged) history lesson? Try Edmund Burke's history lesson: " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."