Cynical politics as usual?

According to the Washington Post:

The House voted 256 to 153 yesterday to back President Bush's policies in Iraq after two days of passionate and partisan debate that saw Republicans try to recast an unpopular conflict as part of a broader war on terrorism and totalitarianism.

Forty-two Democrats bucked their leadership to join a virtually united Republican Party and to declare that the United States must complete "the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq" without setting "an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of U.S. troops.

Three Republicans -- Reps. Ron Paul (Tex.), John J. Duncan Jr. (Tenn.) and Jim Leach (Iowa) -- joined 149 Democrats and one independent to oppose the resolution. Five others -- three Democrats and two Republicans -- voted "present" in protest.

Here in Washington, our representatives voted this way (or not at all):

Yes -- Doc Hastings (R), Rick Larsen(D), Cathy McMorris(R), Adam Smith(D);

No -- Brian Baird(D), Norman Dicks(D), Jay Inslee(D), Jim McDermott(D); and

Not voting -- David Reichert(R).

I'm puzzled by the Democrats' complaints to the effect that this is a cynical political ploy by the Republicans. When the Demwits raise Cain about the situation in Iraq, are they practicing something other than partisan politics? Besides, what is a legislature for, if not the taking of votes on matters of consequence?

The situation in Iraq is improving, but the Democrats apparently don't want to acknowledge this; nor do they want to hear the American people say, "well, thank goodness that worked out." They prefer hearing them say, "we shouldn't have been there in the first place: so what if things worked out?!"

The cynical political ploys are the actions and statements of the Democrats, as usual.