The new thread title I think deserves a little more than my original flip response . . .

Bush is the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Regardless of how ignorant and pliable and biased he is, regardless of his ability to convince himself of the gospel truth of just about anything he wants to believe about "how the world works," regardless of how manipulated he is and has been by his staff and handlers, regardless of how complex the desiderata are on the question of whether to go to war, how impossible it is to make a final calculus that involves the potential great loss of life, including innocent life -- nevertheless he, the leader of the free world, Commander in Chief, must take full, 100% responsibility for anything done in the name of his office.

The truth is, as host, Elphaba, and others have I think convincingly pointed out in this thread and others: his office deliberately attempted to deceive Congress, the American public, and the world about the magnitude of the threat posed by Hussein. And he did so in order to rationalize the launching of a major war of aggression and occupation by U.S. forces that has resulted in the deaths of over 2000 soldiers and the dismemberment of maybe another 40,000.

Now you can say, and you would be right, that this is no surprise, this is the way things work in Washington. Everybody is duping everybody else, baiting and switching, obfuscating, shaming, grandstanding, exaggerating, polemicizing etc. in order to compete for a piece of the political pie. That's how it works, and both sides do it all the time, are doing it as I type, were doing it 200 years ago and will be doing it 200 years after we're gone.

BUT . . . . one would hope, that when the stakes are this high, we would know that we need to come together as human beings, as brothers and sisters, as fathers, sons, daughters with common cause, as a family, as a united nation, and drop the charade and political one-upmanship, drop the duping and granstanding, the politics as usual, and make a decision as momentous as this, with complete honesty, forthrightness, integrity, with everything laid out on the table, with TOTAL respect for everyone's informed point of view regardless of past squabbles, regardless of what side of what issue anyone was on at any other time.

Bush's office was completely incapable of doing this. He, our leader, could not be trusted to be honest and forthright. Any arguments about, technically, whether he "lied" or not, is like Clinton arguing about the definition of "sex". The fact is that this presidency has shown itself, when it matters the most, when lives are at stake, when our international reputation and integrity is on the wire, when we most need to come together as a people, to be not worth our trust.

So yes, the president is responsible. Yes, this is a shameful indictment of both his office and his person. And yes, the vice president is correct, this is "reprehensible".

I think they both (dems and republicans) simply CHOSE to believe questionable data. Given how many other world leaders and intelligence agencies outside the US looked at the same or similar data and said "Ah, that's a little thin there boys", I think this is clear.

~excellent post raveneye~

Bush and Cheney are getting quite shrill these days in their response to criticism, but they have yet to address anything that is not a straw man representation of that critique. That criticism needs to continue until they're willing to give solid answers to the actual questions posed on their office. I'm not holding my breath.

You could not make that statement if you read and considered what is contained in my last two posts. A quick synopsis distills my conclusion to the following....(you hail from Canada, hence you may not have fully considered the contents of my posts...I know that they are lengthy...)

1.) The chairman of the senate intelligence committee in 2002, democrat Bob Graham, along with his colleague, committee member, senator Carl Levin made a concerted and vocal effort to provide access to the ambiguity contained in the secret version of the NIE that members of the committee were privy to reading, but their effort was blocked by the white house.

2.) Graham and Levin, faced off against a blistering, and very successful, propaganda "Op" that was widely and repetitively broadcast by Bush, Cheney, et al, while they were exploiting a post 9/11 level of popular support that, two months after the 77 to 23 senate vote for the war resolution, topped at
91 percent of Americans believing the BS in the "Op" rehtoric.

3.) Graham and Levin, and three other democrats who served on the senate intelligence committee vote nay on the Oct. 11, 2002 resolution that authorized the president to use force against Iraq, as he saw fit. It is well documented in my posts that they voted nay because the white house blocked their efforts to allow all legislators access to the classified versions of the reports and to the testimony of senior intelligence officials that the chairman and the members of the intelligence committee were privy to.

4.) A core purpose of house of rep. and senate intelligence committees is to restrict who has access to classified material contained in briefings and testimony from intelligence agencies and from the executive branch. There are 535 total senators and congressmen. By restricting access to the most sensitive information to four people in the legislature....the chairmen and ranking members of the house and the senate intelligence committees, and then restricting access of other classified information and testimony to members of the two committees, who, in total, number less than 30 legislators, there can be much more control of leaks, via the less difficult task of tracking and holding just 30 legislators accountable.

5.) One of the strategic hallmarks of Bush-Cheney "Ops" related to deceit about matters of national security is that they control what is classified, and what is not. They have classified more documents during their tenure than they have allowed open access to. During their propaganda "Op", like the one accusing democrats of "re-writing history", that is ongoing now, and during the "Wilson's CIA wife sent him to Niger and that's nepotism" "Op", these thugs rely on the fact that they can make any accusation that they chose and their targets cannot disclose classified details as a means of refuting the propaganda. It works very effectively against Bush-Cheney political opposition.

6.) Bush-Cheney exploited the 9/11 attacks and the "war president" propaganda to execute an "end run" around the demands of Graham and Levin that an open debate with exposure of all of the ambiguity contained in intelligence analysis, be conducted in the house and the senate. They used the fruit of the success of their well co-ordinated campaign of hysteria that was ramped up to coincide with the one year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, as poltical muscle that existed because of the misguided support of deliberately misinformed Americans. <b>Now, they have the unmitigated gall to launch an "Op" that attempts to spread the BS that all senators in 2002 reviewed the "same intelligence that we reviewed".</b>

Convincingly to YOU, not to those of us who don't agree with your assesment.

For an evil neo-con like me, I don't really care, I would have supported the action to remove Saddam reguardless, but I saw no deception. Either the 12 years of intel was wrong or right. You can look back and say 'this guy said different, and this guy said this' etc but intel is never black and white, and the big picture said Saddam was working on WMD's.

If the cronies at the New American Century hadn't laid out this scenario so precisely in advance it just wouldn't smell as fishy to me.


Cheney and Bush are coming out as strong as they are now simply because they are down in the polls. They are spinning as fast a Rove can feed them the spin.

I have posted a record of 'this guy said different, and this guy said this' that includes MSM news reports and a copy of Tenet's letter in response to Bob Graham's Oct. 4, 2002 request for declassification, the membership list of the senate intelligence committee in the 107th congress, and the voting data of five democratice intel committee members on the Oct. 11, 2002 resolution vote.

You have me at a decided disadvantage. I am detail oriented.

I have two questions for you:

1.) What is your evidence to accompany your statement that seems to convey your support for the veracity of the current Bush-Cheney message that "democrats are attempting to re-write history" , and "they saw the same intelligence on the Iraq threat that we saw"?

2.) Do you condone the broadcast of misleading and deceiving statments by members of the administration to achieve legislative approval for the invasion of Iraq, and if so, how do you propose to control the pattern of lies and deception that is now firmly entrenched as a way of "doing business" in this executive branch? You seem to condone "turning it on" to achieve backing for foreign policy goals. It's on.....the current disinformation "Op", the shrill and shameful political rants by the CIC in front of our troops. How do you turn it off. Do you care to turn it off?

So you would rather us leave and the people that go into mosques and weddings on a daily basis, not targetting US troops, but their own countrymen, win? You would rather us withdraw today and leave these people to take over?

Do you think if we leave this will end? I don't. I think if we leave the terrorists will continue their agenda of terrorizing the iraqi people until they give in and allow a taliban-like regime to control iraq. We don't want that now, do we?

Neat. So either way, Bush is spotless? Even if he lied, it's the congressional Democrats' fault for believing it? That's nice. Come here and let me punch you in the nose and then blame you for putting your nose in the way of my fist.

The buck stops nowhere NEAR this administration. And they called Clinton slick!

First, nobody is claiming that the administration fooled the intelligence agencies. Again, you're making up straw man arguments. This is a typical right-wing argumentation practice, but watch out. When somebody calls you on it, all your logical card houses will collapse.

The claim is that the administration manipulated the intelligence, selectively chose the intel to focus on, and arrived at conclusions that weren't borne out by the evidence at hand. The intelligence agencies were screaming their heads off that the conclusions were unwarranted, but anyone who actually spoke out about that had their wife outed as a CIA agent. Cheney was standing in the corner with his hatchet, just waiting to take the head off anybody who criticized too vocally.

It's patently obvious to anyone willing to step outside their party lockstep that the administration had an outcome they were interested in, and shaped their argument to arrive at that outcome. Bush wanted a war. It first came out of his mouth late on the morning of 9/11, when he asked is advisors for a way to pin the attacks on Iraq. He was itching for a fight, and he shoehorned conclusions onto the evidence at hand that got him the fight he wanted.

Because you saw all of it, right? What's your clearance level, Ustwo? Which intelligence agency do you work for?

Unless the answers to those questions are something OTHER than "Well, no,", "I don't have one," and "I don't," then you're a dupe right along with the rest of us. The intel you saw was the intel the administration WANTED you to see, shaped and sculpted to reinforce the conclusion the administration wanted you to draw. It's staggeringly arrogant and naive to think that you, as an ordinary US citizen, you have access to "the big picture". You see what the administration shows you, what the media shows you. You might occasionally get a glimpse behind the curtain when some journalist or blogger does some (rare) investigative work.

You were convinced by what you were shown partly because it WAS convincing, and partly because you're locked into a way of thinking that Bush is Always Right. Fortunately, only 34% to 37% of Americans agree with you at this point.

Personally, I wasn't ever convinced. Nobody seems to remember this, but there was a fair amount of healthy skepticism about the quality of the intelligence and the results of the analysis of it at the time. But that was back when Bush had 70% to 80% approval ratings, so it wasn't politically workable to really raise the objection.

The Democrats are spinning just as strongly on the attack because they sense a political advantage. They want us to believe that the president they tell us is dull and dimwitted was smart enough to snooker them into voting for war. Why should/would he do this? Are we to believe that Bush wanted to put our troops in harm's way for nothing?

This whole thing smacks of political maneuvering and since the war is unpopular now these savy polititians want to distance themselves from their previous support and claim they were duped (yes, re-write history). How convenient for them. They are too embarassed to admit that they like the president based their decision on the best intelligence at the time. They are smart people and not innocent dupes without resources.

I generally don't read your incredibly long posts. I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the same take over and over ad infinitum.

I have been against the war from the start, and am glad we stayed out of it. I think Bush and friends have been the worst thing to happen to the US since I don't know when - your economy has suffered, your soldiers are dying, and the world - which post 9/11 had so much sympathy for you, now hates your guts.

Having said that, I think Bush simply chose to believe what he wanted to believe. He knew the data was shaky, but followed the course of war anyway - but, I think, genuinely believed that Saddam was a threat on some level. He was foolish, more than malicious, IMO.

Tecoyah, I think you misunderstand the dialogue between Host and me. While Host is certainly playing hardball with the facts, I would not go so far as to say that things are "getting personal", as I think Host has been very civil in this thread. If you don't think what is occurring here is "adult interaction", then you and I respectfully disagree over what that term means, as I think the content of this thread has been very reasonable.

I am also fine with the fact that you changed the title. Rather than intending to start a flame war, as you allege, it was meant to reflect the contents of Christopher Hitchens' article. However, your new selected title accomplished the same without being as provocative.

What surprises me is that you had the impression that Host and I were angrily fighting over this issue when, at least from my perspective, we were engaging in heated, but completely civil, discussion. The discussion about creating a thread for Host and I to fight on is a moderator's reaction to hostility that doesn't exist.

You are correct. Both sides are spinning. The elections are coming and everyone is looking for an edge. With Bush's popularity so low there is blood in the water... and both the Dems and Republicans seem to be eager to feed (almost as eager as Bush is to be pulled back into the saftey of the boat -- to stretch the analogy further).

I don't think Bush sent your troops to Iraq for nothing... I just don't think he and his administration were truthful in their reasons for wanting to go there. Read the policy papers at the New American Century. It is practically a blueprint for what went down in the Middle East post 9/11.

Be fair now, there are some attempts at re-writting history being made on BOTH sides of the issue but the fact remains that Bush and his administration has more information than anyone else in America. They held all the cards rather than just the ones they were allowed to see. Like any savvy politician, the Administration chose the pieces they wanted to be seen and played them up.

Bush stood up and said there were links between Iraq and Al-Qadea. Now, if I hear this and trust this... that's an important problem. But who was the one source of this information? Someone the intelligence community itself did not trust was being honest with them. But the information suited the purposes of the Administration.

Make no mistake, Bush and the Administration wanted this war and were willing to build their case to go to war. There was no foot dragging or reluctance about going to Iraq, it was all damn the torpedos.

The mistake that the Bush administration did is a mistake many young scientists make. That is he formed his conclusions before he looked at th evidence. He was convinced Saddam had involvement in 9/11 and world terrorism. Thus when he looked at the evidence before him he immediatly picked out anything that supported his conclusion while glossing over anything that didn't. Whether or not he intentionally mislead people to go to war is important but even if he didn't do it intentionally he should have been more responsible and looked at the evidence with an unbiased mind. When one forms conclusions before looking at evidence or performing research they will almost always find evidence to support thier direct conclusions but many times will be wrong because they have biased theirselves already.

Alright, Host. This is my conclusion from the information you provided. I appreciate your research:

The Senate Intelligence Committee at that time was comprised of 9 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Below are their votes on the Senate floor, authorizing the use of military force in Iraq:

Graham - D - Nay
Levin - D - Nay
Rockefeller - D - Yea
Feinstein - D - Yea
Wyden - D - Nay
Durbin - D - Nay
Bayh - D - Yea
Edwards - D - Yea
Mikulski - D - Nay
Shelby - R - Yea
Kyl - R - Yea
Inhofe - R - Yea
Hatch - R - Yea
Roberts - R - Yea
DeWine - R - Yea
Thompson - R - Yea
Lugar - R - Yea

The vote count was 4 Democrats in favor, 5 against - and all 8 Republicans in favor. That means that the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had full access to the classified intelligence voted in favor of authorizing the use of military force in Iraq by a margin of 12-5.

What is the difference between the "Select" Intelligence Committee and the normal one? I ask because Host and I have already proven that the Senate Intelligence Committee was, at that time, controlled by Democrats. Additionally, two thirds of the members of that committee ended up voting to authorize military force.

So, who sat on this "Senate Select Intelligence Committee"? If this is actually the same thing as the Senate Intelligence Committee, then we will have proven that 12 of the 17 Senators who saw the full intelligence agreed with the President that military force should be authorized...

seriously, politicophile, i don't see where you have to go with your position.

repeatedly in the thread folk have shot holes in the basic assumptions that underpin your claims--and you do not react. which leads me to wonder if this is a debate at all--a question that would loop around onto the underlying conflict that seperates the right from everyone else on this matter: is there ANY level of information, ANY level of proof that would persuade you to re-examine your position relative to this administration and its war?
if yes, then what might that be?
if no, then how is this a debate?

one thing that i was doing when i posted here more regularly was working out ways to connect conservative ideology in general to particular kinds of moves that you would see here--i was (and still am) particularly interested in how this discourse seems to generate real problems for otherwise reasonable folk in processing dissonant information. it is a strange phenomenon, frankly--i haven't seen another american political formation quite like the contemporary mediaright. you can never really tell how any particular individual who works behind the aliases in a place like this is thinking when he or she posts something, so it seems useless to try to shift into motive--but nonetheless, there is a consistent resistance to dissonant information from conservatives, and real problems that arise on that basis in confronting them with such information. it is as if that information reaches a certain mass and gets repressed. it is most curious.

what appears to me to be happening is a kind of experiment---it looks to me like you are testing out the new administration line and seeing what happens to it--maybe a devil's advocate game, maybe something else, it's impossible to know.

so is there any standard that you have that you apply to this kind of interaction, any amount of information that you would accept as falsifiying your position?

Yes. I would believe that President Bush deliberately misled the public regarding the case for war in Iraq if the majority of people who saw the same intelligence he did opposed authorizing him to use military force. It would be sufficient to convince me if you could show one, or both, of the following two things to be true:

1. The majority of Senators, preferably including at least one Republican, who saw the exact same intelligence report as the President, decided to vote against authorizing the President to use military force against Iraq.

2. The President did not supply any Senators or Congressmen with the full classified report that he used to support his case for war.

That is my standard for falsification of my position.

politicophile....I've already explained that a combination of restrictions that confine who in congress was authorized to view classified information, combined with overwhelming political pressure and administration co-ordinated propaganda, timed to coincide with the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, caused the senate October 11, 2002 "vote" to be as skewed toward the authorization for the president to use force, as it was. The chairman of the senate intelligence committee tried to open the consideration of all of the facts that he was privy to....to the rest of the senate. The white house blocked the CIA director from co-operating. Chairman Bob Graham then voted against the resolution.

I've lived through all of this before.....I know how it ends...
It's going to go the same way this time, as it did last time, but unfortunately, not before a lot more American kids, right around your age, are killed or maimed by "foreign shot and shell".

I cannot debate or discuss this with you. You are unresponsive to an informed argument or to any evidence that flies in the face of your assumptions. I agree that our exchanges are not charged with animosity, but my effort is reduced to displaying my POV alongside yours, on the off chance that someone will come along who will consider and then contemplate all of our efforts here, without the influence of any consensus that we might have displayed here, if a point by point debate had been possible.

Then I stand corrected...and apologise to you both. Perhaps I'm just having flashbacks to things we Didnt react to fast enough....again...I am sorry

I'm aware that Senator Graham voted against the resolution, as did four other Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. What I want to know is this:

Did Senators Rockefeller, Feinstein, Bayh, and Edwards have access to the same intelligence as Senator Graham? If they did not have access to that intelligence, then your statement above is true. However, if these four Democrats, who are some of the President's harshest critics, were pursuaded by the same intelligence that the use of force was at least potentially necessary, how can you continue to hold that the President deliberately misled the country?

I provided you with the grounds on which I would consider my position falsified. You have not yet presented the evidence I would need to see in order to change my position. Thus, your accusation that I am being "unresponsive to an informed argument or to any evidence that flies in the face of [my] assumptions" is a bit disengenuous. I recognize that five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against authorizing the use of force. What you seem to be ignoring, however, is that twelve other members, including four Democrats, voted for the authorization. You have not provided any reason as to why I should disregard the view of twelve Senators who saw the full intelligence in favor of the view of five Senators who drew the opposite conclusion from the same material.

Just under 30% of the Senators on that committee hold you view. Why on earth do you think this is evidence that your position is correct? If anything, I would infer the opposite.

Here are my questions for you (or anyone else) in a simple numbered format:

1. Did all seventeen members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Senators Rockefeller, Feinstein, Bayh, and Edwards, have access to the complete intelligence that caused Senator Graham to oppose the resolution?

2. If it turns out that question 1 is answered in the affirmative, how would it be possible to claim that the President was deliberately misleading the nation without also claiming that Rockefeller, Feinstein, Bayh, and Edwards were willing participants in that lie?

3. Why should a vote of 12-5 in favor of the resolution amongst the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee be taken as a sign that the available evidence did not support the President's position?

Riddle me this.

the evidence that was presented obviously would be geared around the bushposition: that this evidence was itself manipulated, screened, shaped with policy objectives more like those of the project for a new american century than anything to do with what was happening on the ground is evident.
that the bushcase for war was not compelling--that it was contradicted explicitly by materials available to the un, and to the public, for example--also evident. i dont see you doing much of anything here, pliticophile, except (1) dealing with the reality that the case for war was a sham that the rest of us, those not trapped in the tiny world of conservative politics, have known about since the run-up to this war and (2) rather than address the facts of the matter--even after host presented you with a pretty good resume of it--you choose to narrow the matter along lines that seem to me wholly arbitrary. i see no justifiation for your way of framing the question at hand, nor do i see how even the answers you are looking for would in any way either affirm or falsify the larger problems created not just for you but for all of us by the shabby conduct of this administration with reference to this war.

that the democratic party is in a curious position at this point is also evident--most of the sitting memebers of congress allowed themselves to be persuaded by a case for war that turned out to be wholly false. now that the falseness of this case is clear to anyone who looks, and the centrist nimrods who operate under teh rubric of teh democratic party are reconsidering their positions and wondering how they managed to be "duped" (as a function fo working to save their own political skins--the administration has chosen to stand logic on its head and blame those who allowed themselves to be so "duped" for having been "duped"---you tack within this sorry state of affairs is to pitch the question of falsity of the case for war in such arbitrarily narrow terms that there is no way to respond to you---the entire logic of your position makes no sense to me, i see no reason to accept it, no reason to enter into a debate on this question on your terms--you do not get to set them, particularly not when those terms, once detached from the rightwing talking points of the moment, are abritrary.

so that's that then. maybe we can actually have a discussion about this question of what should happen now that it is obvious to almsot everyone that this war was launched on false pretenses. but in that discussion, try to actually take in the information being presented to you, rather than using arbitrary/unnecessary criteria that allow you to pretend to be discussing something when in fact all you are doing is avoiding a mountain of evidence that you do not like.

Host, I am deeply indebted to you for finding all of this material. :)

I don't understand this new tactic of claiming that I can't be argued with. I'm listening very carefully to Host's argument, but it has not yet convinced me because there are some pieces missing. Namely, I have not yet heard a convincing account of why many Democratic Senators, some of whom had clearance to see whatever intelligence existed, voted to authorize the use of force. The replies seem to be along the lines of:

That simply doesn't square up with the four Senators' votes I keep refering to. If it was so very obvious, even to the PUBLIC, that the intelligence didn't support Bush's position, how do you explain those four votes? How stupid do you take those Senators to be?

It is alleged that:

There is nothing arbitrary about the way I framed the discussion. Your position makes sense ONLY IF Edwards, Bayh, Feinstein, and Rockefeller are either amazingly stupid or if they are part of the Bush conspiracy. I don't believe either of those possiblities to be true. If follows that your position, your claim that Bush falsified the case for war, is false.

If Graham received the full evidence and decided that it did not support the authorization of force (this is what Host claimed above), then my four favorite Senators also saw the full evidence and came to the opposite conclusion. I what a credible explanation of why they voted that way. This is an entirely legitimate request, not some weird reframing of the debate, as is alleged.

The continued refusal to explain those four votes indicates that you are My question is simple. My question is reasonable. My question has not been answered.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOUR DEMOCRATS ON THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VOTED IN FAVOR OF AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ?

It is very important that Host and Roachboy answer this question because their argument doesn't work unless they can credibly explain those votes.

Could you please provide a source for this accusation?

--

Again, on the Record:

"The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs."

This is the declaration of war , signed and drafted by congress.....I dont see any breach of legality by the administration according to this...never have:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

I do however, find the likelyhood of Congress having access to all pertinent information required to make this declaration, slim to none. I dont hold this opinion because I think Bush is dishonest, or because I dont care for him (though I do feel that way), I think this because ANY president who shared ALL the Data would be an Idiot, and likely the only one in the history of the world who ever did so.
Think about it....even now, under the intense pressure placed on them, those in power are trying to keep sensative information from the freakin' people assigned BY CONGRESS to fact find. Does anyone actually believe these people would be forthcoming with information that in any way took away from the positions they required to make an agenda work?

As much as I dislike the professional polititians from both parties, and I may be naive, but I do not believe they would put soldiers in harm's way unless they thought it was necessary. I also don't believe they would willfully try and trick congress on such an important matter. I find it easier to believe that the one's claiming they were duped are playing politics and trying to position themselves to match the current poll results.

I guess I missed something. Could someone tell me which Democratic Senators or Congressmen have said that they were duped? Which ones said that Bush lied? I've heard alot of them say that Bush misled us, but nothing about being personally duped or lied to.

Hmmm, good question Maximus. I just assumed it was true.

Edit: Which is worthy of an ass kicking. I'll do my best to self-inflict one.

I don't know the exact number but I'm sure I've heard several on the news. A quick google search turned up a few.

Thanks flstf. I guess I missed all that. Even if Bush manipulated the intelligence, there was enough information available at the time for them to make the right decision. They chose not to for political reasons and they need to pay the price for that just like everyone else. They don't bear as much responsibility as the Bush administration, but they certainly bear some fo it.
Feinstein's comment is especially troubling since she claims to have looked at all the intelligence available and still came to the conclusion that Saddam posed a threat to the United States. Nothing much has changed since then, except for the fact that the American people have turned against the war. I guess that's enough to change her opinion.

Kerry said he was "misled", and "duped" was not in Feinstein's actual quote. Also "I have been duped" was not attributed to anyone. flstf, do you have actual quotes attributed to specific member of the congress and senate?

humming "I won't be duped again" and plays air guitar. :)

Yes, as much as I dislike the current politiitians, I would like to believe that they are trying to do the right thing when it concerns our troops in harm's way. I wish they would put politics behind them now and work to get our young men and women back soon and at the same time leave a stable Iraq that can fend for themselves.

Elphaba, I checked out the Feinstein quote. Immediately before that, she was asked if she had been duped and said point blank, "yes". Here's the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.02.html

Uhhh....there was more to Feinstein's "not in 1000 years, sound byte.....

Feinstein opened her answer with, <b>"I think statements were made in major public policy addresses prior to the Senate vote that clearly stated that with a matter of certainty."</b>

and.....who made the <b>"statements [were made] in major public policy addresses"</b>? Why it's.....it's.....
Is this really that hard to get your mind around? Feinstein is a senator and she has constituents who watch TV and read newspapers. Guess who is filling the airwaves and the newsprint with a carefully co-ordinated propaganda "Op", timed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks?

Answer...the same thugs who drove their own approval rating to 90 percent backing for war in Iraq by "catapulting the propaganda" by saying the same thing, over and over again, until the truth sinks in....
The same thugs who have driven their job approval rating down to 36 percent, three years later, because some of the sheeple actually "get it" now!

What have these guys ever told you in the last four years that was true?

Come on Elphaba, now you're splitting hairs. You know what they mean. The following is from a CNN interview, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:

flstf, splitting hairs wasn't my intention because I had accepted the "duped" claims from the get go. Host posted the same interview, so I guess it is how one wants to interpret whether Feinstein was led to accept the word "duped" or not. I am not wedded to this line of thinking, but it seems reasonable to ask which members of congress are now claiming that they were "duped."

I still hold that it was necessary for the congress and the senate to appear united in support behind our president and that the intent was to send a unified signal to Saddam and the UN. If there are individuals now that claim other than a singular show of support for the president and are trying to say they were "duped," I would sincerely like to know who they are. I would hold them suspect to political motives rather than honest ones.

flstf, I truly do not hold with liars or opportunists from either party.

Going out for a while....a parting thought to leave you with....

Imagine how difficult it must have been for any legislator who wanted to remain in office, to vote against what the president wanted them to vote for, in the climate of his high approval rating, just after his 9/11 anniversary propaganda campaign.

An indication of the impact of the manipulation of his regime is that, after all his and Cheney's claims were thoroughly discredited, and Iraq has turned into a military and a policy disaster, and his approval rating has cratered 54 points from where it was then, he still doesn't take responsibility for his manipulation of intelligence and his mistaken course of war, and there are still people, in the tiny conservative universe of logic....to have to debate here! Sheeeesh !!!!

A shame, politicophile never got an answer to his question.

Powerclown, *you* could answer one of his questions. Do all of the members of the intelligence committees see all of the secret data, or just the committee heads? C'mon, you owe it to politico to make that effort at least. :rolleyes:

It may have been difficult, but it would have been the right thing to do. 23 Senators and 133 Congressmen, many from "red states", found the strength to do that. Why couldn't someone like Feinstein, who is from one of the most liberal states in the country, find the strength? Probably because she doesn't have it and probably doesn't deserve to be a Senator.