|
Ace, most members of Congress don't have the security clearance necessary to view most of the information. Without making any judgement on whether or not the intelligence was worthy of "top secret" status or not, anyone who sees it has to have gone through the necessary procedures required by law, including background checks, etc. That's not a part of being in either the House or the Senate, although it is to be on the Intelligence Committees. It's not like Congress could just google "Iraq Secret Chemical Weapons" and expect to get credible information of the type necessary to support (or not) the administration's arguement. There is no "Intelligence Consumer Reports" or "The Robb Report on Iraqi Weapons". Using any sort of consumer analogy is one big ol' strawman.
So many Democrats voted by using the "information available at the time". There was no possible way for Congress to do their "homework". The only information that they were allowed, by law, was what the administration was willing to tell them, and even that was supposed to be a major concession on the administration's part. That information proved to be false, and the problem is that the administration knew that. It would be one thing if there wasn't any intelligenct to the contrary, but there was plenty of it. If they didn't know, they should have. Hence the problem.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|