Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
You have to remember Bush and company had even Colin Powell believing we needed to go to war. That's what's at issue how much did Bushco use the CIA and forged documents and misinformation to promote the war?
It wasn't so much the Dems swallowing the Bush Kool Aid as it was all the intelligence information that said Hussein had WMD's and the public in general buying into it and wanting the war and Bush was very popular at the time.
When the truth started coming out the Dems did start to back off, but again polls rule what politicians do and the polls were in favor of the war until recently. There were many that didn't want to go to war but were laughed at, had their patriotism questioned and were bullied. Those that were vocal against the war weren't covered as much by the press and were treated as lepers even by their hometown presses.
Bush's tactics were horrendous and destructive. So, imho, the Dems. didn't have much choice they were boxed into a corner.
|
But pan, the Democrats DID have a choice...they could have voted NOT to authorize the war, and some in fact did vote against the war. Bush's 'horrendous' and 'destructive' tactics were sanctioned and approved by the Democrats - he won overwhelming support in both the House & Senate. Or are you referring to tactics, post-invasion? (in which case I would agree)
I'm confused as to the CIA's role here as you characterize it: are you saying the CIA was working with Bush, and subsequently ran a campaign to deceive Congress? Or are you saying the CIA was working against Bush vis a vis the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Iraq PreWar Intel, the resignation of CIA Director Tenet, and later, Joe Wilson's CIA-sponsored 'boondoggle' that was meant to discredit the war and led to PlameGate? How could the CIA be both for and against Bush?
I think the distinction needs to be made (and examined further) between exactly what intelligence the Congress received that motivated them to declare war, and what intelligence was made public to sell the war to the American people. Regarding the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the pre-war intelligence efforts on Iraq, there are maddeningly vague passages:
Quote:
|
Second, in the committee’s view, the intelligence community did not accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 national intelligence estimate to policy-makers, both in the executive branch and here on Capitol Hill.
|
Quote:
|
And then there was this enormous difference between the classified version, where all kinds of doubts and caveats were included, and then the white paper, which was the unclassified version, which all of a sudden everything moved in one direction toward, "They’ve got them, they’re ready to use them, and watch out."
|
What is this about a "classified version"? Classified AND inacurrate?
Doesn't anyone find it at all bizarre that members of Congress would go forth and authorize a war supported by "inadequacies" or "uncertainties" in pre-war intelligence? Why would Democrats (including Harry Reid) under a Republican President vote YEA, if there was even the slightest shred of doubt about Iraq?