Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
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:
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?
|
What would you be that 1 senator or Rep farsighted enough to know it was all lies and to go against heavy polls in favor of the war, the president, Colin Powell (quite possibly the most respected and arguably most honest man in Wash. at the time), and all the intelligence that said Saddam had the WMDs?
And the Dems that didn't vote to go to the war got reemed in the last election for not being "patriotic", not "supporting the troops" and a host of other charges.
Plus as stated by another on here, you don't want to believe the president is going to start a war using bad intelligence and then as it did flow out about the lies and tampering of info it took the Dems. time to still get vocal because the polls were still favoring the war (and again I reiterate polls however worthless and manipulated still control what most congressmen that aren't bought by lobbyists do and think).
As the Dems. did gain their voice collectively and the evidence started really pouring out then they had something to use and the polls have shifted, Bush has lost his bite and strength, they aren't as scared to speak against him now. Then even GOP senators and Reps started coming out against the war as well.
As for them refuting their votes, how can they? They were duped, the whole country was. None wanted to believe the president and his administration would lie. Hell, even Colin Powell was duped, because I truly do not believe he would have testified before the UN saying Iraq had WMDs if he didn't believe it was so.
First it was WMD's, the Al Quida link, then freeing the country of an evil tyrant, then spreading democracy to the Middle East, and so on and so forth. And when people questioned they were ridiculed, called names and attacked by a truly vicious, self serving, corrupt WH.
I do find it interesting the GOP is allowing this investigation. They either believe this will blow up in the Dems faces or they know the truth will come out and they want to be able to save face and say they knew something was wrong. I believe the latter.
I don't think the Dems would chase this if they didn't think they would win.
And I truly believe there are enough truly honest GOP, who in their hearts know Bush f'd up and lied and is tearing the country apart, and are willing to see what the truth truly is.