Well said! It's beyond comprehension how the anti-war faction can justify their actions and comments. I think there is a tremendous lack of wisdom on their part; I said wisdom, not intelligence.

I'll continue to pray for your son and his entire unit, and for you. May all of you experience God's Peace and protection.

More hiding behind hawkish Democrat senators, which every pro-war conservative is echoing today. Dan, if you are going to break your non-partisan streak, you not wait until you have something original to say?

This report could not possibly build confidence that Iraq was at heart a peaceful nation with no intentions of retaining or reconstituting mass-destructive weapons programs.

Again, here's the funny thing; I don't know any Democrats, doves or hawks, who claimed Saddam was a teddy bear. Within our party, the debate was between invasion and more inspections, and how much force to back up the latter.

All of this, of course, relies on the false premise that Democratic Senators had unfittered access to intel, which was not the case.

Now, seperating myself from this partisan arguement for a moment, I don't believe the Administration's lying truly undermines the case for war. As the Duelfer report suggests, a confrontation with Saddam was inevitable. Thus, what the recent struggle over prewar intel does is undermine Bush's credibility-- something which has never been synonymous with the war, and probably shouldn't ever be.

SAO - Thus, what the recent struggle over prewar intel does is undermine Bush's credibility-- something which has never been synonymous with the war, and probably shouldn't ever be.

Unfortunately, SAO, it is and it does. Not because we say so, but because the enemy says so. I am amazed how many times the Democrat talking points make it into speeches, videos and writings of the enemy.

then again, I'm not, because they understand holistic strategies which, by your own insistence in ignoring the fact, means that you don't understand or you don't care. I am hopint it is the former rather than the latter. Because, if it's the latter, then I'd have to weigh in with that word "unpatriotic" and possibly "seditious" and even "treasonous". But, I'll stick to "unpatriotic".

I might add that the problem with all of this language is more than the current struggle within Iraq or with Islamist extremists. Right now the rhetoric is reforcing to countries like North Korea and Iran and Syria (to name a few) that our intelligence networks are worse than they thought, that the government is weak (I mean, the entire US government, not just the administration because Democrats are now saying they are easily duped for over a decade - as Hitchens recently says, is that a message you really want to convey to the world?).

You know, I remember the post Viet Nam world and how, for a decade, communism made serious gains around the world and the Soviet Union was quickly grabbing up influence in states around the globe in the ME, South Ameria and Africa to name a few and serious repressions continued through out the Eastern Bloc.

Why? Because, in the immediate post Viet Nam era, the Soviet Union rightly judged that we were politically and economically weak, unable to oppose this expansion and repression. A lesson that our current enemy has taken to heart.

To some extent, the regression of the US gave the USSR just enough rope to hang itself, but it never would have happened if we hadn't made an economical and military comeback. The duel problems of over expansion and the re-emerging need to spend more for protection, weapons and maintaining these countries over extended the Soviet Union.

Had we not made that come back, but continued regressing to isolationism and financial brinkmanship, there is a real possibility that we would be like Europe now and the USSR would be the lone super power.

I see these same trends in our current struggle. It would be nice to imagine that, if we regressed, the Islamists would over extend themselves, too. The problem is, they don't have the same overhead or necessity to protect static areas. Their long term goal is to obtain states, but their short term goal is the strategy of "a thousand cuts". Even that short term goal is a longer goal than say our partisan goals for the next election so everything in between is either a help or a hinderance to their goals.

VDH compared this conflict and potential problems to the Peloponesian Wars, but frankly, I think it reminds me more of Carthage. The senate dithered so much and couldn't decide whether to press their military advantage or sue for peace, by time they decided, Scipio was at the gates and Carthage is now a blip in history.

So SAO, I do beg to differ. Just because you think such accusations are separate from the war effort, doesn't make it so.

I have a son who is serving- or will be (he's at a military academy) - I served (GW1) and my father served (WW2 Pacific theater) and I think the Iraq war is a stupid blunder - from concept to execution - that was allowed to jump off because Bush and company set up the OSP to stove pipe and filter intelligence.

They had nothing and when the inspections were causing the Bush Admin's collective ass to show, they pushed the button and invaded.

And, once again, Congress did not vote to go to war. They voted to use force to cause the inspections to go on unimpeded (which BTW, they did). Bush lied about that as well. He claimed Saddam "wouldn't let the inspectors in" what ever and where ever "in" is supposed to be. Regardless, Bush's hyperbolic rhetoric is contrary to what the inspectors themselves said.

The list of Bush admin. lies and mis-deeds related to the Iraq invasion is long and is noted all over the internet. I recommend Pat Lang's blog as a place to get a perspective 1) because he knows what he's talking about and 2) he is an authority on the region 3) he was a colonel in the US Army up until a couple years ago, so you guys can't say that he's some sort of fruit loop lefty.

What I really wanted to comment on is Dan's stating that you only get to question your government once.

Bullshit! What is this? Blindly follow the leader? Stallinism lite? We won't shoot you in the head the first time, but that's it.......

It is our responsibility as citizens to question our government. I will do so as frequently as I please and you should too. There is plenty of reason to believe that the intel investigation was a poorly done, if not a bold faced cover-up. New evidence and understanding is coming to light. By all means re-visit the important issues. Our way of life is far more threatened by our governemt gone awry than it is by terrorists. Terrorists can destroy material objects and take lives, but only we can compromise the values, principles and ideas upon which this republic was founded.

One of those ideas is that governments cannot be trusted to be virtuous; that citizens must remain constantly vigilent against their own government's tendency to move towards corruption and authoritarianism.

So when Dan and commentors here state that questioning your government aids the "enemy", I have to chuckle a little. Dan and his ilk are the enemy. They're neo-facists, plain and simple.

Plus, terrorists could care less if the Bush admin. is investigated. They're going to do what they're going to do, regardless.

You want to blindly follow the leader. Move to North Korea.

You want to be a citizen of a democracy, then start questioning your leaders.

I'd say that the fascists in this country are getting desparate given the lameness of arguments like Dan's.

Take a look at the Bush admin's polls. Freedom is on the march and Dan's ilk is losing.

You didn't do yourself any good with me SAO when you claimed a NYTimes article behind Times Select as proof of anything. It is an indication, not proof, that a senator claims he may not be getting full information, but it is entirely unclear if this alleged lack of information is either true or relevant to Donald's article. The NYTimes used to a reliable source..I've read it since 1955, but no more.

I think Donald's post is a really helpful and objective presentation on the issue of Iraq. When the president said that waiting until the threat from Saddam was imminent was not an option he made the critical point for me. We now know from the Deufler report that had we not invaded he would he moved ahead with WMD probably once the sanctions were formally lifted. The current barrage of nonsense from the Democrats is making certain that, even though I've been a life-long Democrat, I wont vote for any Democrat again until they demonstrate they are prepared to defend the country. The Dems have a heap of things to attack Bush with without damaging the war effort or trier country. As many have said this war will be won or lost on the home front and whatever the motivation it plays right into the hands of Al Qaeda.

Kat,
Can't you see that your fear of terrorists is making you put all of your trust and faith in your government?

That is what they - the Bush admin. - has been playing all along since 9/11.

We are the land of the free and the home of the brave, right?

You have to be brave to be free. You can't be so scared of terrorism that you give up your duty as a citizen to keep your government in check.

Also, from your comment above, you state that communism made gains all over the world in the post VN era (because of criticism of our govt?).

Where is communism today? Faded out. So what was the big problem as you see it?

I think you are typical of a certain mind set in this country. You tend to see global boogey men as being catastrophic threats to the world and our country. You probably see these boogey men - terrorists, communists, lefties......- as the very face of evil and all that.

Admins like Bush's play to people like you. Stop the game. Relax. The world is a diverse and competitive place. Nations and peoples will always be at war in one form or another. Yesterday's enemy is today's friend and vice versa. Our survival will not be determined through force of arms, by stomping around the globe attempting to crush out groups, governments or ideas that oppose us at the moment.

Rather, we will, in the end, survive by ensuring the vitality of our ideals and institutions here at home and by learning to cooperate to a greater extent with other countries; and that means compromise, sharing, partnering.

However, this will all take vision. Fear is the vision killer.

SAO: I don't know any Democrats, doves or hawks, who claimed Saddam was a teddy bear.

I can't believe you've never heard of "Jihad Cindy" McKinney, "Baghdad Jim" McDermott, or former Whip David Bonior. Not to mention Saddam's f--king lawyer, Ramsey Clark. And this guy, who actually resembles a teddy bear, is almost Hussein's biorhythmic double.

Fear is the vision killer ...

Who invited the Bene Gesserit to the non-denominational prayer breakfast?

"...I think you are typical of a certain mind set in this country. You tend to see global boogey men as being catastrophic threats to the world and our country. You probably see these boogey men - terrorists, communists, lefties......- as the very face of evil and all that..."
Methinks someone has overstepped rhetorical boundaries here, arguing at extremes.
I bought gas for my car yesterday. Did the fear of being without my personal comfort take over my waking mind and compel me to become enslaved to the big oil companies one more time? Maybe. Or maybe I just looked at the gauge and thought it was time to fill up.

Mr. A,

you know nothing about me. I am a liberal hawk and had been looking for the invasion of Iraq under the Clinton administration. It is not this administration that I am concerned with. My concern is with the security of the United States and the ability to conduct a war. A war that I hope is shorter rather than longer, but may continue for several administrations.

I am concerned with the Islamist terrorist threat. I'm concerned about it more than just their short term capability to strike us or our allies which they have proven capable to do. My concern is based on their own writings and statements, not something that the President or the rest of the administration has said because I feel that they have been remarkably circumspect in identifying the enemy and outlining their goals and strategies. Something I vaguely understand as part of the war to insure and secure stability. But, in vast ways, detrimental to the war effort on the home front.

I take it that you do not believe that the threat is that extensive based on your comment about my "fear" of terrorism. I wonder if you have looked at a map lately? Do you know how many countries have Islamist movements linked to Al Qaida or have suffered terrorist attacks? Do you know what areas (besides the oil bearing ME) that this covers and to what extent it threatens our economy and the world economy?

Have you read Zawahiri's Knights Under the Prophet's Banner or Bitter Harvest? Have you actually read their entire translated letters, speeches and press releases? My bet is going to be "no" or else you would not wonder why Iraq was an important battle front in the war, far beyond Saddam Hussein, but inclusive of his resources, weapons and human talent in these areas.

In the next Presidential election we may have a Democrat as President. I will support that President in the war against Islamist terrorism. If, at any time, I feel that a Republican congress is damaging that effort, I will be ready to speak out and challenge them.

In the mean time, I believe that those who are looking for a conspiracy are either partisan hacks selling our security for short term gain or people that are probably still looking for JFK's assassins in government and may half suspect that the FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb America so we could join WWII. Heck, maybe they believe that we really did blow up the WTC.

In any case, the problem with conspiracy theories is that there are too many people that would be involved in order to cover every aspect. We don't live in a police state, contrary to some folks beliefs, which means executing and covering such a conspiracy is down right impossible. It would have been blown some time back in 2002. I mean, you have seen all the leaks coming out of the CIA and congress? You think somebody would have set on it and a politican or journalist wouldn't have run with it way back then? Matt Schauer wrote wrote "imperial hubris" under anonymous in that period and he was an employee of the CIA. Do you really think that if the CIAhad felt differently or some employee that they wouldn't have come out or leaked something?

I really believe that you are letting your politics interfere with your common sense and that goes for Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the crew.

I don't have a problem with thinking the president is an idiot (even though I don't). I don't have a problem with acknowledging that he says things, that while true to the best of his knowledge, turn out to be false later. Heck, you can make a great case, from both left and right, that Bush is a poor president (although I do not agree)

What bothers me is that the Dems are willing to make political war on Bush, regardless of the cost in the REAL war. Do those 20 percentage points justify the loss of all those soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? If they get elected and pull out of Iraq, was loosing those lives a good price to pay for the Dems coming back into power?

I don't think so. And I can't believe Pelosi and Reid think so. I was aghast at learning how LBJ fought the war -- target by target. Micromanaging. Looking out for the polls in every turn. I was also aghast that the last administration didn't go on vacation without polling first.

Surely the Dems are more patriotic than this. If we have comitted soldiers to a war, let's give them the message that nobody died in vain. Sure the president might be a fool, but we're there with you, looking out for winning the war (not PR stunts with greiving moms), and we have a better plan for fighting the larger GWOT. While we may want to disengage sooner, we're definitely not giving up, and our desire to disengage is part of a larger strategic plan, not pandering to the cameras on the nighty news.

To me, that's the way you get my vote -- show how you would do better. While I hear a lot of the negative comments, I haven't heard many positive ones, and the troops deserve a plan, a strategy, not just complaining and whining. "Run Away!" is a strategy -- if the Dems avocate that, then let's just be honest about it, ok?

>>Had we not made that come back, but continued regressing to isolationism and financial brinkmanship, there is a real possibility that we would be like Europe now and the USSR would be the lone super power.

I find your faith in the power of Communism quite amusing.

"if we have comitted soldiers to a war, let's give them the message that nobody died in vain."

The best way to do that is to not commit them to a pointless war and/or a war that has not been planned properly.

The Iraq war is such a war. No one can explain, beyond some ivory tower gambler's theory, hoe establishing a democracy in Iraq would thawrt the growth of terrorism.

No one can explain how democracy is going to arise in Iraq.

No one is presenting a real cost benefit analysis complete with risk analysis.

Given that we have been in Iraq going on several years now (almost as long as it took to go from peace time to total victory in WW2) and there is at least equal odds of the country collapsing into civil war and/or becoming an extension of the Iran regime I'd say the further sacrifice of troops is of questionable merit. I'd say the same for expenditures of $, what with education, etc now on the table to be cut because of deficits.

As far as I can see, terrorist attacks have only increased since the Iraq invasion, there are more terrorists operating and Bin Laden and his gang (the guys that really did attack us) are still at large. I won't even get into NoKo and other massive threats.

Sorry if I'm not convinced that invading Iraq was the right step to take post-9/11.

Saddam's nuclear ambitions were clearly thwarted by what controls had been in place and by the inspections that Bush brought back (a good idea in and of itself) proved it.

As far as bio or chemical WMD, I don't buy into the hype -read fear mongering - about all that because those types of weapons are difficult to use in a way to cause the mass casualties that are feared. Furthermore, even if terrorists did have the will and know-how to deploy such weapons, they would be much wiser to simply create the agents in the country that they wished to attack and not to attempt to smuggle barrels of the stuff over from Iraq. Red herring, I say.

As for Iraq attacking us directly as a state with bioChem...impossible. Delivery system? Signatures resulting in retaliation?

I could go on and on about how silly it was (and is) to see Iraq as a threat to our national security, but I'll spare you.

Can anyone state the probability that our staying in Iraq (and absorbing the related costs) will produce a favorable outcome?

Can anyone express a real cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis?

I've been waiting for three years and haven't seen one yet other than the type of hyperbolic fear based decision making exhibited by Kat.

Well said, Major. You obviously hit the mark. Listen to 'em yowl. Random small arms attempting to answer a well-placed 155.

The real question that arises is why so many on the left wish to undermine not only the Iraq Campaign but the entire war against Islamism. What is so important to them they are willing to ignore abundant evidence (and their own strong statements) to promote their Big Lie?

To say they're "hungry for power" is simplistic and perhaps even misguided. But in ignoring evidence while attempting to drag down the war effort without offering any real plan or solution of their own, many Democrats are acting just as France has done for generations. If you can't move ahead on your own merits, try to bring down the leader.

This similarity to France may provide an answer. Many on the left are fervent transnationalists, and they deeply resent the Bush administration's obvious willingness to see to America's interest without passing John Kerry's "global test."

Transnationalists seek binding international laws and a form of world government, to which the US would be subject. If you repeatedly fail to convince the American voter to support your socialist, dirigiste, and statist policies, your best hope is to have it imposed on America from outside.

Transnationalism -- along with activist courts -- is the best way to advance an agenda that consistently and repeatedly fails to pass as legislation. George Bush, and Republicans in general, stand in the way of transnationalism. Thumb their noses at it, even.

Therefore anything, including providing ample aid and comfort to the enemy, is justifiable as part of the effort to remove this stubborn obstacle.

Historians will someday write at length about how it was that the Democrat party stumbled into a situation in which their political advancement came to depend on bad things (economic, military, geo-political, and social) ... bad things happening to America.

I couldn't agree more. My nephew was killed in Kuwait March5, 2004. His death and the lives of all our fallen should not be in vain. This entire campaign is being conducted by radical elements that have pretty much taken over the Democratic party. These are the people who want to run our country and bring it to its knees:

"[www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org Date: 11/15/2005 1:07:58 PM]

DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Democratic National Committee

430 South Capitol Street, SE

Washington, D.C.
20003

Phone :202-863-8000
URL :http://www.democrats.org

Related Profiles: Shadow Party, Democratic Socialists of America, Progressive Caucus, America Coming Together , America Votes, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy , Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Brennan Center for Justice, Center for American Progress, EMILY’s List, League of Conservation Voters, Media Fund, MoveOn, National Abortion Rights Action League , National Association for the Advancement of Colored People , People for the American Way, Project Vote, Service Employees International Union, Sierra Club, Thunder Road Group, USAction, Vote For Change, Working Families Party"

"“Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it….” -- MoveOn.org leaders, December 2004

“I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.” -- Howard Dean, 2005, days before he became chairman of Democratic National Committee"

"As a result of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms, a group of private “527” political funding organizations have become a “shadow party” that now has more influence over Democratic campaigns than the Democratic National Committee, which heads the formal party apparatus."

Look up the Shadow Party. See who they are and how they "illegally" raise millions to support their cause. What none of these people will remember is that they "all" voted on the war based on the same information Mr. Bush used. They all believed as he did that the WMDs were in Iraq. They were also in office during the administration of Mr. Clinton, who also determined Saddam must go for the same reasons and had plans drawn up to do so which were not implemented.

I find your faith in the power of Communism quite amusing.

No faith in the Communist manifest, but I certainly believe that control of vast resources, including oil, natural gas, precious metals and gems, iron ore, uranium and a ton of other resources through outright invasion or through client states would have been a very nice way for them to prop up their failing state for many more years.

I mean, tell me that you were one of those folks (who apparently didn't exist until 1992) that predicted the fall of the USSR in the 20th century. or maybe you're just one of those folks who was have been perfectly fine with the existence of a Communist super power with nukes. Maybe you think that Iraq or Iran with nukes would have been fine, too?

So, I find our response, without responding to my other points, to be rather lame.

SAO, WTF is unfittered intel? something new? ;-)

Here's my idea for a pushback for GW.
Redact the classified portion of the 911 Commission Report and publish it. Let everyone see--you know you want to. ;-)
After the clintonistas and the toricelli doctrine operated on our intel networks, it's a damn frickin' miracle we had ANY intel at all.

"All of this, of course, relies on the false premise that Democratic Senators had unfittered access to intel, which was not the case."

Oops, you picked a poor choice of wording. The intelligence committee does indeed have access to the same intel as the president. No, they dont receive the same briefings, but that isnt intel. The committee has the power to summon any intelligence agency they wish and get answers to any questions they want.

Rockefeller and his cronies are making an interesting (read- pathetic) argument. That they were so content relying on whatever prechewed intel the White House was doling out to them they didnt find it necessary to do any of their own investigating on this critical vote for war. Basically they are either claiming to be gullible or lazy or both. Great platform to run on.

Add to that the fact that Rockefeller has admitted to telling the Syrian's he was sure we would invade a full year before the war started, and i think its pretty obvious exactly what these slimo politicians cared about. And the wellfare of the US and her soldiers wasnt it.

(1) The extended quote from Hans Blix' January 27, 2003 report is relevant to the central contention of my (former) party's leaders (and the newspaper I subscribe to): Bush Lied. Not "Bush was mistaken." In claiming that Saddam retained active WMD programs and stockpiles, Bush Lied. Misled. Tricked. Deceived.

The contemporaneous statements of UN bureaucrats, American and European politicians, and the directors of Western intelligence agencies should not be shoved down the Memory Hole.

If Facts are incompatible with Interpretations, it's our interpretations that should change. This is hardly exclusive to the 'pro-war' side; 'anti-war' partisans have made some telling criticisms of the Administration's conduct of the war. But not on this "Bush Lied" point.

(2) In the body of the post, Don Sensing quoted something he wrote on the eve of the invasion:

Whether the status quo with Iraq constitutes a cause for war should be debated. That the status quo should continue cannot be faithfully maintained.

What is much clearer now than in 2003 is the extent to which the status quo was in the process of changing, to the advantage of Saddam.

• The effects of the Oil-for-Food UN corruption scandal.
• Iraqi bribery of politicians and businesses of three UNSC members.
• The withering of political support for renewal of the "no-fly zones."
• The increasingly accomodationist stances of 'progressive' politicians and international bureaucrats towards the Ba'athists (e.g. Hans Blix, despite the report excerpted in the post).
• The willingness of Western and Arabic news media to present the Ba'athist regime in the best possible light (e.g. CNN's Eason Jordan and al-Jazeera's Baghdad bureau).

The consequences of Operation Iraqi Freedom have been in some ways good and in other ways bad. The counterfactual case--no OIF--would have had its own set of results, some good, some bad. But it would have been substantially worse than a hypothetical continuation of the status quo ante, which--we now know--was in the process of dissolving in early 2003.

It would also be good to remember the internal democratic memo supposedly leaked or stolen from Rockefellers office mapping out how best to politicize the intelligence investigation... before the investigation even began. Yeh, sounds like the Senator and his ilk were really fighting to get to the truth.

"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods."

Recall that this was written before the investigation ever took place. Kinda like finding a note in the local police department describing how best to nail a certain suspect before they even examine the crime scene.
This is pure politics and its disgusting.

Mr. A:

Talk about "lameness of argument", anyone who uses the term "fascist" in conjunction with this or any other administration automaticaly loses credibility and would be rightly labeled as a hack.

If the "lies" are so many, why couldn't you bother to list one?

Regieme change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998, or have you convienently forgotten this fact, or is it just a symptom of Bush Derangment Syndrome? I'd vote for the latter. The only consistancy in the anti-war lefts argument to oppose this war has been their willingness to lie and distort the facts involved with the runup to the war, and their willingness to twist history to fit their preconvieved view of the facts.

What is very helpful is to look at the pre and post war UNMOVIC reports

WMD Refresher

It's interesting how alarming the pre-war UNMOVIC reports are compared to the post war May 2003 report. In January of 2003, UNMOVIC finally returned to Iraq after a 4 year absence due to the inability or unwillingness of the UN to enforce the last resolution. Even after three months they were only able to survey 28% of the known sites and were unable to survey any new sites due largely to obstruction and threat of eviction by Saddam.

What they said about the problem this presented:

Four years [ed...1998-2003]without inspection is a significant period. Given the history of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes (see Appendix), Iraq potentially could have made considerable advancements in that time, particularly in the biological and chemical fields. For example, within a period of about three years, Iraq built most of its chemical weapons plant at Al Muthanna and went into large-scale production of a variety of CW agents and munitions. And it took just two years to build its BW production plant at Al Hakam and produce over 27,000 litres of BW agent. Plants of such a size would of course be easy to detect, but they could also be disguised as dual purpose plants now producing some civilian product.

Now, in case anyone is too lazy to go read the hundreds of pages of the report, let me explain the significance and why UNMOVIC was so alarmist. The Al Hakam plant was built after the Gulf War and resolutions proscribing these weapons. it was never even declared (just about the only way the commission knew where these plants were). It was built by Iraq ordering dual use equipment ostensibly for another plant to develop veternarian vaccinations. Iraq simply took the equipment to this highly secretive plant. Recall that the UN inspections of equipment and shipments going in and out was kind of lax (understatement). Read the report and find that all through this period Iraq could not provide or did not provide invoices, names of companies and countries of origins or where many such shipments had gone to. The March 2003 report actually indicates there were over 500 incidents of unresolved questions.

The Al Hakam plant was not discovered until 1995, escaping detection for three years, until Hussain Kamal, head of the organization, defected to Jordan.

With all do respect for members of both parties, reading this report and knowing how Iraq acted in the last few months, much less a decade, it's really no wonder people felt that the UN commission could not hope to know or truly stop Iraq's desire for WMD.

As for the question of "security threat" to the US, what I find most egregious about this idea is that the expectation for "threat" was the ability to attack us on our homeland. You do know that our national security is more than just the land within these borders, right? I mean, economic and energy also comprise portions of our national security. The economic and energy resources of our allies falls under our national security.

And, let's be clear that we are talking about natural gas as well as oil and threats to maritime routes where billions of tons of product and raw materials transverse, pipelines, etc, etc, etc.

The ability, will and desire to attack Israel is a threat to our national security. A state capable and willing to provide materials, finance, base of operations with the potential for WMD or other phsyical or non-tangible support constitutes a threat to our security. And, like wise, a terrorist organization would not have to attack us directly (though they did) to constitute a national security threat and that threat was escalating after 9/11.

None of this can be taken separately from the question of Iraq.

I seem to recall that CNN reported that Saddam offered bin Laden assylum after he was ejected from Sudan in 1998 (reported in 1998). Whether Zarqawi was in Iraq in February of 2002 for medical treatment or to begin preparations for a larger battle is only a question that can be asked of Zarqawi and possibly Saddam and his henchmen who aren't talking because they rightfull discern if they admitted to and were found complicit in setting up such an organization to kill Iraqis, all other charges would be superfluous. They'd be dead men.

The truth of the matter is, hind sight doesn't matter unless one is truly trying to devine and correct actual intelligence failures such as our inability to place or turn spies inside Iraq, inside the government or any agency. Possibly explained by the many security leaks that resulted in dead people and people's real fears of being buried somewhere in the desert with a hole in their head, unknown to their family. Still, one wonders how we did survive the cold war if this is how we operated within the intelligence agency.

I return again to the UNMOVIC report March 2003. It's extremely alarmist and it was written by a UN commission with members from some 29 countries, not all of them friendly to the United States. To me, this report pretty much explains why we went to war. May 2003, they were still missing parts of the puzzle but had been better able to verify the status of some of the question marks in the March report. It was much less alarmist. Transparency does wonders.

Then again, maybe I'm just a partisan hack? LOL

There are some of the lamest counter-arguments I've ever seen. I could spend some time fisking them, but it would be pointless. Rev. Sensing has already said everything I would say better than I would say it. It's completely clear that some people won't listen, and would rather gouge out thier rationality than listen. I do however want to mention one area of the counter argument:

"Thus, what the recent struggle over prewar intel does is undermine Bush's credibility-- something which has never been synonymous with the war, and probably shouldn't ever be."

The emphasis is the authors.

I don't see how this is a counter argument at all, and it is in fact highly revealing. For the people making the argument that 'Bush Lied', even they are willing to admit that it is not an argument over substative facts, but an attempt to undermine Bush's credibility in order to make political gains. In other words, as far as they are concerned, the whole drama is just political theater which has nothing at all to do with the war. It is they would argue, and have argued here, merely business as usual in Washington and only to be expected.

I suggest we therefore not take any of thier arguments seriously. Every counter-argument made above boils down to the following stupidity:

1) Bush is Hitler and all of his followers are Nazis.
2) You are blindly following Bush.
3) It's unpatriotic to question my dissent regardless of how I choose to dissent or what I choose to say.
4) Terrorism doesn't consitute a threat, but Bush does. Don't be blinded by your fear of terrorism to the real threat.

Since all of these arguments basically require me to accept that the person making the argument knows more about my own motivations than I do, I can't imagine how anyone expects them to be persausive. In fact, I don't think that they expect them to be persuasive. They are merely swapped around the true believers to keep justifying the faith.

I seem to recall that CNN reported that Saddam offered bin Laden assylum after he was ejected from Sudan in 1998 (reported in 1998).

This is how it was reported in the 9/11 Commission Report:

There is also evidence that around this time [1997] Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

A true partisan hack:

The 9/11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, I might add, said there was no connection between terrorism and Saddam Hussein.

what does this have to do with September 11? If Bush had no responsible choice but to invade Iraq, based on Saddam's WMD, why didn't he invade in 2001, as soon as he took office? Why did Colin Powell dismiss the threat from Hussein in 2001, if what you are saying is true?

These are all rationalisations. They didn't start with a problem to solve and construct a policy. They started with a policy (invading Iraq), and came up with a million and one reasons why it's the only conceivable course of action. Arguing in bad faith, I believe it's called.

Wi'th your charges of lack of patriotism, you might succeed in cowing and bullying the more weak-minded of your readers. But it doesn't make what you're saying true.

A great and good man like Donald Sensing accusing his political opponents of lack of patriotism is a great public relations coup for the Bush administration. But it is merely that, public relations. It does not change the fact that the Bush administration has been dishonest, repeatedly, about Iraq, about Social Security, about tax cuts, about every significant policy initiative in their tenure. You may not want to hear it, but that doesn't change the truth.

Richard Feynman once wrote, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

Substitute "war" for "technology", and the same principle applies.

"The 9/11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, I might add, said there was no connection between terrorism and Saddam Hussein."

This was a quote by Howard Dean, for anyone that didnt see the link. It is utterly and completely untrue, aside from the 9/11 commission being chaired by a former republican governor. Dean is a demagogue and a hack of the worst variety, and Matthews predictably didnt call him on it. If you wonder why Dean wont share an interview with anyone that might actually challenge him, there you go.

"They started with a policy (invading Iraq), and came up with a million and one reasons why it's the only conceivable course of action. Arguing in bad faith, I believe it's called."

Thats an absurd simplification. 'started with a policy'? Like Bush just threw a dart at a map and then started coming up with reasons Hussein was a bad guy? All the million and one reasons existed before Bush even took office, as the Clinton administration quotes plainly show. Post 911 all those reasons took on a more urgent tone, and obviously Afghanistan was more pressing but Iraq was on the table immediately afterwards, and it was only Bush bowing to the left and Colin Powell by wasting time in the UN that slowed things down.

Talk about disingenous, the argument that if Iraq was so important it should have been done first is silly. Japan was important but we did Germany first. And before that we did Italy, Sicily, and North Africa. Was Morocco more important than Tokyo? Or in war does one have to bow to circumstances? You talk of natural law, which is amazingly hilarious considering you are making a purely clinical hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality. We couldnt have invaded Iraq before 911, immediately after 911, or during Afganistan for obvious and pragmatic reasons, political and military. Natural law indeed.

"With your charges of lack of patriotism, you might succeed in cowing and bullying the more weak-minded of your readers. But it doesn't make what you're saying true."

With your charges of perfidy, you might succeed in cowing and bullying the more weak-minded of your readers. But it doesn't make what you're saying true. You may not want to hear that, but it doesn't change the truth.

Frankly, I'm sick of your feeble, intellectually dishonest arguments, and I'm increasingly get sick of the people who make them. On the one hand, you and those like you make the argument that Bush entered the White House with the intention of invading Iraq, and you make this charge as if it was damning. On the other hand when it suits you, you make the opposite charge that Bush didn't enter the White House with the intention of invading Iraq, and you make this charge as if it were damning. It's immediately clear that your problems have nothing to do with what Bush does, but instead with what you think he represents. And lost in the middle of this is how 9/11 could have made an antagonistic dictator in the Middle East seem a more pressing concern, even if he wasn't operationally connected to the attack.

You have no connection with reality. If you believed half of what you say you believed, you'd have no choice but to stop what you are doing and make war against me and all the other people you think are 'Nazis'. Well, if that is really what you think, then put on a uniform, take up a weapon and lets get this civil war over with. As much as civil war in this country greives me, if it must happen let me bear the burden and not my children's. But otherwise, shut up and get out of your fantasy land. There are elections in about a year. Voice your choice then. But I'm sick of your stupidity, and the stupidity of all those like you.

roublen, cher ,
what does this have to do with September 11?

everything. do you know anything about mil-strategists? there is a mathematical construct called a threat assessment matrix. this construct is used for decision-making . what intel we have feeds it. we may have had bad intel, we may have had sparse intel, but there is no way to twist it or "lie" about it.
it is mathematics.
we went to war because of 911, because we were attacked on our own soil, and because under analysis by the experts, Iraq became the highest priority threat.

Oops, you picked a poor choice of wording. The intelligence committee does indeed have access to the same intel as the president. No, they dont receive the same briefings, but that isnt intel. The committee has the power to summon any intelligence agency they wish and get answers to any questions they want.

I wouldn't be so sure

And again, hiding behind Rockefeller isn't an exit strategy for this mess. Keep trying though- it's not going to work.

Bush lied, and a lot of people died... who probably were going to sometime in the near future anyways. I believe the consequence of this lying was not some sort of "illegal blood for oil war," but instead was a poor planned, unilateral strike.

Perhaps, the public could have been convinced to go to war without using lies and scare tactics? It might have taken longer, involved some dubious dealings with our nominal allies, and some backroom armtwisting at the U.N. Who knows? Perhaps this was our last opportunity, and we're lucky we struck while the iron was hot (to borrow from AL).

"I wouldn't be so sure"

Wow, damning stuff. Unfortunately it was a dustup between the CIA and Congress which the WH has nothing to do with. If Graham couldnt get Bill Clinton's appointed CIA director to comply with his orders in a timely fashion, he should have simply supoenad Tenent and whoever else he wanted information from. Again, if Congress isnt using the authority it possesses to the fullest extent, they can hardly go crying to the WH for not spoon feeding them to their satisfaction.
So I guess it comes down to gullible, lazy, or incompetent as Congresses excuses.

"And again, hiding behind Rockefeller isn't an exit strategy for this mess. Keep trying though- it's not going to work."

There's nothing to 'work'. Its a recorded fact that Rockefeller has been using this issue for political gain from the beginning while trying to run away from his vote. Let the American people decide when they hear from the Democrats own mouths whether the Dems were gullible, lazy, or incompetent. Oh, I guess there is one more option: wracked with political cowardice.

"I wouldn't be so sure."

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. THE LINK YOU PROVIDED DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CLAIM YOU ARE MAKING. DID YOU ACTUALLY READ IT YOURSELF? Even if we ignore the possibility that this is mere political grandstanding by a Democrat (WHICH IS HARD TO DO AT THIS POINT), if you examine the actual complaint you'll find that the Senator is primarily upset that reports on Iraq's CONVENTIONAL weapons and on possible POLITICAL FALLOUT from a war in Iraq. So the link does nothing to substatiate any of your claims.

"And again, hiding behind Rockefeller isn't an exit strategy for this mess. Keep trying though- it's not going to work."

Good grief. More arguments that defend on convincing me that I actually believe things that I don't believe. Do you have any arguments that don't involve persuading me that I'm actually motivated by things I'm not motivated by?

What you seem too angry or hot-headed to realize, Mr. Sensing, is that exercising everyone basic rights in a Democracy (see posts #4 and #6) cannot be swept aside so easily with charges of Anti-Americanism.

My suggestion to all those who are tending toward this line of thought is to take a deep breath, step back, and realize

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER!

Democrats and Liberals are not your enemy, by any reasonable stretch of the definition. But sadly we have people advocating this premise like #11 and #14 more and more frequently.

From where I sit, these folks look and act more than anything else like little wind-up tin soldiers sent out to do battle against the evil DemocRAT (sorry about the seasonal metaphor!).

You must of course realize that "questioning the actions of your government" have only become "dangerous" in the last few years, haven't you?

The irony, of course, is that the majority of Americans are now (thankfully) starting to see that recent domestic and world situations make this even more important now than it ever was.

To restate: Questioning government is more important NOW than it has been in the recent past...in fact, the very opposite of what many of you are trying to argue.

The more vigorous, the better. If that results in a (temporary) weakening of one party's influence, so be it. That's the way the system works.

And there is nothing, NOTHING, about current events that suggests we need to re-think our system of government to deal with.

I'd rather lose the war in Iraq than weaken or destroy Democracy in America.

I think to many on this site, apparently spawned purely to support this war as well as serving as a last refuge for the True Believers, the opposite seems to be true.

Walter, you did not address any of the substantive points being made.

"What you seem too angry or hot-headed to realize, Mr. Sensing, is that exercising everyone basic rights in a Democracy (see posts #4 and #6) cannot be swept aside so easily with charges of Anti-Americanism."

Is it not an American's basic right to be angry and hot-headed? Is it not an Americans right to call someone else anti-American?

What a circular and highly hypocritical argument.

"Democrats and Liberals are not your enemy, by any reasonable stretch of the definition."

I'm not so sure about that

#35

Where did I say that it was "Anti-American" to call someone "Anti-American"?

#36

How do you know they are Democrats or Liberals holding the signs?

WMD was Clinton's argument.

Why should the same claims be honest when used to justify missile attacks and blockade, but suddenly become dishonest for a ground assault? They're just different tactics.

The whole debate is a canard. The fact is, we were already at war with Iraq for over 10 years by 2003. If there's been any deception, it's been about that, not about intelligence analysis.

"#35

Where did I say that it was "Anti-American" to call someone "Anti-American"?"

So you didnt have a hypocritical point, you had no point. Thanks for clearing that up.

DS:
Kudos for raising a son big enough to join the world's finest fighting force.
I was a Marine in Bush 41's Gulf War. What a contrast... in every way G HW Bush was a leader and his son is not. But for the foul up of the end game, leaving Saddam in power.
This his son has finished, but in such an incompetent manner he deserves our scorn and the boot.
Like a lot of bloggers you are rather too caught up in what some democrats are saying.
Get real! The GOP has every arm of the gov't. They are running things, and their mistakes are what is betraying our lads overseas and making their deaths in vain.
Not the ramblings of the completely out of power democrats.
The people are not polling down on Bush because of some Kerry or Kennedy comment. They are polling down on Bush because the truth is peeping out from behind the Rovian veil.
Bush is dishonest and incompetent, and has surrounded himself with dishonest incompetence.
To the point that the only response for realist patriots is to work hard to tie his hands, out his party in the mid terms elections, and then get someone with heart and soul to the presidency.

"Questioning government is more important NOW than it has been in the recent past...in fact, the very opposite of what many of you are trying to argue."

Not only have you fired a shot and missed the target, but its become clear that you didn't even see the target in the first place.

Noone here has argued that questioning government is not important (and if anyone does, I'd reject that argument). If anything, not placing trust in government has been a central tenet of the American conservative platform for some time.

But keep up your tired old meme that I'm questioning your right to dissent. It only makes you look ignorant, and why should I mind when my rhetorical opponents make fools of themselves?

And for the record, it was Clinton who said, "You can't claim to love your country and hate your government." The argument we are making does not go nearly so far, and in fact has nothing to do with whether you approve of your government or not.

They started with a policy (invading Iraq), and came up with a million and one reasons why it's the only conceivable course of action.

One might conjecture that Clinton was only kidding or that he would never have gone to war with Iraq under any circumstances but Clinton himself has repeatedly said that under the same circumstances he'd probably have done the same thing as Bush did. Not recently, of course.

So making the strongest possible case AKA “tailoring the information” for implementing the explicit policy of the United States probably can't be deemed “arguing in bad faith”.

Oh, and by the way, the “True Believer” jazz doesn't work on me. I didn't vote for Bush the first time around and opposed the invasion of Iraq. But we're there now and we have a legal, moral, and strategic responsibility after replacing the regime in Iraq to establish conditions under which the new one has a decent chance for success.

I don't know whether the Senators, Congressmen, journalists, and commenters here who have cold feet and are looking for exit strategies that don't include doing the above are unpatriotic or unAmerican. But I do think they're being stupid and unproductive.

Thank you for the great post,Donald. My thoughts are with your son. The President and our Prime Minister have my full support in their handling of the War on Terror. We live in dangerous times, and the politicking that is going on, both sides of the Atlantic, is escalating the danger we are all in. Having watched Saddam for a very long time, I can only applaud George Bush's courage in facing up to the need to remove him from power.

"Noone here has argued that questioning government is not important (and if anyone does, I'd reject that argument)."

---
"I don't have a problem with inquiring whether the intelligence was "bent" by the administration. But here's the rule: You only get to do it once."

"Listen, Senators Reid, Rockefeller, former Sen. Edwards, Sen. Kerry and your rhetorical allies: I have known many patriots. My son, fighting in Iraq, is a patriot. And you, sirs, are no patriots. You are actively betraying my son and his comrades. You are giving comfort to the enemy."
----

I won't hold my breath waiting for your "rejection"....

"...then get someone with heart and soul to the presidency. "

I see no evidence that anyone with those qualities would make a viable presidential candidate. The primary process of both parties has come up with Kerry, Bush II, Gore, Dole, Clinton, Bush I, Dukakis, and Mondale in recent history. None of them would rank high in "heart and soul" as you seem to be defining it, whatever other qualities they may have.

ALL:

What amazes me in this discussion are the persistent but unspoken assumptions that:

1) The various intelligence agencies are able to produce highly accurate assessments of the situation on the ground, on demand, and

2) In a relatively short amount of time, the (any) Administration is capable of restructuring the intelligence agencies to give a particular desired answer above all others.

Ignore, for a moment, the investigations about who tried to pressure who, who tried to thwart what, and all the rest. Concentrate, instead, on known past performance, and first principles as regards large, segmented bureaucracies.

Recall, for instance, the small issue of the Indian and Pakistani nuclear bomb tests during the Clinton Administration. The reaction of the intelligence community to these events, as best I can recall, was blink confusedly and say, "They did what? Whoah!" These were not the only intelligence failures in recent years, and these failures spread across multiple Administrations and many, many Congresses, of all possible mixes. But the nuclear issue in South Asia was the one where I really realized that exaggerating their capabilities was not going to lead me to an accurate picture of the world.

Likewise, consider the possibility of actually reforming a very large, very secretive, very entrenched bureaucracy which knows perfectly well that it need only deal with you for eight years... or four, if they're lucky. Remember back to the early 2001 picture of Rumsfeld very publicly trying to reform the Defense Department, with the consensus view being that he wouldn't get anywhere. Now, remember back to the same time period with the equally high profile attempt to reform the CIA-- oh, wait. You won't recall that, because it didn't happen. The biggest shakeup in the intel community happened, not before 9/11, not before the Iraq war, but on June 3 or 2004 after Tenet resigned from the CIA, clearing the way for Porter Goss. (Who, I might point out, hasnt' really done much in the way of reform that is visible to civilian eyes.)

Worse, understand that the intel community is an ecology of smaller intel agencies beholden to different intermediary groups, interests, and masters, some civilian, some military. They are rivalry driven, and intensely secretive by their nature.

The idea that somehow, in the span of just two years, the Administration not only somehow whipped the entire fragmented, squabbling intel community into a unified voice saying only what they wanted to hear really offends my personal knowledge of how bureaucracies work. The notion that all this was done on the sly is really quite ludicrous.

And finally, understand that the various intel organizations, by virtue of their necessary secrecy, are particularly likely to fall prey to opinion cascades, whereby closed deliberations of small groups tend (and this is a documented sociological fact) to move to more and more extreme positions. With the stunning failures of the South Asian nuclear question, followed by the massive shock to the system of 9/11, the intel community as a whole could react in only one sociologically consistent way-- amp up their sensitivity to threat and take an exteme position, so that if they made a mistake, at least it wouldn't be the same mistake.

#39

Perhaps I was not too clear or you are simply too thick, but instead of repeating myself I'll just pass this along:

"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform....The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years."

---Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nov. 15, 2005.

Fortunately for all of America, Mr. Sensing neither gets to decide where the line is, nor when it's been crossed. It's an America thing that apparantly he can't quite grasp.

And rather than calling out folks for allegedly crossing this imaginary line, his time would be better spent at a more important, but much more difficult task of getting Americans to support the Iraq war.

If you think that having 57% of Americans believing that the president mislead us into an ill conceived war then you aren't paying attention to an even bigger problem.

Mainly that only 35% of Americans don't believe we were mislead into war.

And whining about how folks are stepping over some line in pointing that out isn't going to build on that 35% number.

Fortunately for all of America, Mr. Sensing neither gets to decide where the line is, nor when it's been crossed. It's an America thing that apparantly he can't quite grasp.

And rather than calling out folks for allegedly crossing this imaginary line, his time would be better spent at a more important, but much more difficult task of getting Americans to support the Iraq war.

If you think that having 57% of Americans believing that the president mislead us into an ill conceived war is a problem then you aren't paying attention to an even bigger problem.

Mainly that only 35% of Americans don't believe we were mislead into war.

And whining about how folks are stepping over some line in pointing that out isn't going to build on that 35% number.

To Mr. A You said _The Iraq war is such a war. No one can explain, beyond some ivory tower gambler's theory, hoe establishing a democracy in Iraq would thawrt the growth of terrorism.

No one can explain how democracy is going to arise in Iraq_

Please take the time to read yesterday's post regarding why this war is inevitable and why it's even named incorrectly.

Your blind eye ignorance is exceeded only by your blind faith in the left having a solution.

Celebrim: if you examine the actual complaint you'll find that the Senator is primarily upset that reports on Iraq's CONVENTIONAL weapons and on possible POLITICAL FALLOUT from a war in Iraq.

Great.. nice little tightrope walk you guys have going here. Don't fall off!

And then there's more.
Fred Kaplan at Slate has some good comments on the whole issue of lying, and the Senate report that "cleared" the pres.

http://www.slate.com/id/2130295/

Here's some cut and paste.

Let's go to the transcript:

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

This is not true. Two bipartisan panels have examined the question of how the intelligence on Iraq's WMDs turned out so wrong. Both deliberately skirted the issue of why.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence deferred the second part of its probe—dealing with whether officials oversimplified or distorted the conclusions reached by the various intelligence agencies—until after the 2004 election, and its Republican chairman has done little to revive the issue since.
Judge Laurence Silberman, who chaired a presidential commission on WMDs, said, when he released the 601-page report last March, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

There's something misleading about Bush's wording on this point, as well: The investigation "found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments." The controversy concerns pressure from the White House and the secretary of defense to form the judgments—that is, to make sure the agencies reached specific judgments—not to change them afterward.

"I won't hold my breath waiting for your "rejection"...."

Neither comment questioned the right to dissent, so I don't need to make a rejection. Again, you show a marked lack of understanding and reading comprehension.

The first comment made the argument that repeated calls for investigation after an investigation had already been made and concluded constituted not honest debate but political grandstanding. Basically, someone was just trying to keep the debate focused not on results, but - as someone earlier admitted - simply on undermining the credibility of one's political opponents. Asking for 'do overs' and more 'do overs' until you get the answer that you want, and then presumably at that point claiming only then that the answer is definitive is not an honest debate or an honest process. You don't get to try and retry the issue until you get the answer that you want. And you don't get to keep stirring up contriversy for contriversies sake so that you can find something else to distort, misquote, or remove from context in an effort to keep finding political ammunition.

This is not productive or healthy. Dissent can only be healthy if its grounded in an honest attempt at improving the situation. Dissent which is made purely out of a desire for self-gain and which is based on slander is not productive dissent.

And the second point is that at some point dissent does become unpatriotic. The Left would currently like to claim that because a Republican is in office that there is no action which can be defined as unpatriotic (accept of course, supporting a Republican president). The hypocracy of this is self-evident because they made the opposite claim when a Democrat controlled the office. Again, as I pointed out, it was Clinton who equated patriotism with support of the government, an argument which goes much further than what Sensing said.

So here's the question: Is there anything one can say that is sedition? Is there anything one can say that is unpatriotic? As far as I can tell, Rev. Sensing has every right to dissent from the actions of Reid, Rockefeller, Edwards, and Kerry, and every right to ask whether the lies that they persist in saying are motivated by pure self-interest.

It has taken the recent article by Norman Podhoretz to point out the appalling hypocrisy of Democrats when it comes to this issue of WMD.

There is no doubt whatever that this attack on Bush is partisan politics pure and simple.

The understanding that Iraq possessed WMD was almost an article of faith among Democrats.

Who said this ...

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Bill Clinton back in the 90's.

The really disgusting aspect of this double dealing, is that plummeting poll numbers for the President will demoralize the troops while boosting the hopes and bolstering the will of Musab al Zarqawi. In short the Democrats are placing the lives of soldiers at greater risk by opening up this cleavage during a time of war, and they are emboldening an enemy who appears to be confident that America doesn't have the backbone to stay the course. When I look at the way Americans are polling I'm almost tempted to agree.
As a Canadian I feel let down by partisans to the south who are bailing out on Bush at the very time when resolve and commitment is required.

Did Bush and co spin some of the details about WMD - in particular Saddam's nuclear capability? Yes they almost certainly did. Any fair minded Republican needs to acknowledge that. Wolfowitz came closing to tacitly admitting this when he said that WMD was made the top bureaucratic priority.

However spinning doesn't always mean outright lying - the intelligence was flawed and its quite possible that they were making calls to bolster their case on the basis of this flawed intelligence. So spinning the evidence doesn't necessarily imply that "Bush lied".

If there was ever a time to give the President the benefit of the doubt, it is now, with so much at stake. If America is forced to withdraw from Iraq under pressure, Musab al Zarqawi will claim the victory and this will boost Al Qaeda status around the radical Islamist world. In short - America cannot afford to lose this and be forced into retreat.

I'm hoping that Bush supporters stateside will come to their senses, and offer their support, however conditional, to the President at this crucial time.

Whats really depressing about this whole argument is that the most obvious scenario: that the CIA was both incompetant and had its own agenda seperate from the WH or Congress, gets completely glossed over. Clintons CIA man Tenant calls the intel a slam dunk, doesnt give the Senate Select Committee the intel it wants when it wants it, and meanwhile with its other hand sends Plames husband to Nigeria to debunk a nuke claim and publish the results in the NYT.

How does the CIA get off the hook in all of this? And if Bush manipulated the CIA, which part? Tenant and his slam dunk? Or Plames and her people who thought the Nigerian uranium scenario was so ridiculous they sent over her stooge husband to debunk it and leak the results? Rockefeller complains about not being privvy to the Presidentail Daily Briefings, but those briefings end up being more alarming than the ones the Senate got. And what is the mechanism here? How does the WH lean on CIA lifers? Why hasnt anyone come forth and said, "Dick Cheney called my office and told me to dig up some dirt on Iraq or else?". The whole thing is a house of cards built entirely on the premise that Bush must be a liar and a manipulator, and then worked backwards to a convaluted, obscure, implausible scenario far more unlikely than the simple idea that the CIA is wracked with incompetance, infighting, and insecurity.

It must be a terrible thing to have lost a child for a war fought in vain, or even to have one now in harm's way.

You should remember, though, that we are trying to make the parents of Islamic terrorists suffer exactly this misfortune, and to make them realize the emptiness and futility of the path they are pursuing. So such losses, no matter how tragic, don't disguise that there really isn't any logic behind continuing to follow a mistaken policy implemented by an inept and incompetent fool as he continues to lead on cohort after another to destruction.

The White House is now sending out its talking points to counter the (long-delayed) reaction to the fact Iraq doesn't look anything like it was supposed to: the nukes, the other WMD, and the flower petals in the streets are all missing. The simple fact of the matter is that we haven't finished investigating what went wrong with pre-war intelligence and that's why Harry Reid insisted that the Congress start with the very-long-delayed Phase II of that inquiry. Phase I, as I understand it, was about mistakes in how the intelligence agencies gathered and evaluated the information. Phase II will be about the Administration's use of the information. No wonder Sen. Roberts, an Administration loyalist, was so dilatory in getting it started!

The Committee detailed the many failures of the intelligence community, but there was no misuse of the intelligence assessments by the administration.

Nor am I pleased to see links to Stephen Hayes' article on connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, because, in plain English, Hayes is a leak-recipient for the Office of Special Plans. The Defense Department itself is unconvinced by the "rumint" he provides and who knows how many of his alleged facts are among those that turned to crap under serious investigation. (Some of his revelations appear to be the desperate and now-discredited ravings of al-Libi under torture, very reliable info that.) Links like Hayes are not an analysis of our intelligence failures before and during the war but an attempt to perpetuate them.

It has become perfectly clear that whatever the reasons for the IraqWagmire, whether Oedipal on the part of Bush, or eschatological on the part of the neocons remaking the entire Middle East, or National Greatness through Warfare from Dick "I had other concerns" Cheney, securing the American homeland from further terrorist attack was not one of them. One can hardly expect support for the war to stay high after the discovery that the whole thing was in every way a colossal mistake.

And criticizing our patriotism isn't going to make that go away.

"Quite the selective reading habits you've got there. Sandwiched between the graphs on conventional weapons and the possible political impact on Iraq's neighbors (fallout? sheesh) was this little tidbit"

I read that part. You apparantly still didn't, because you are still wrong.

First, the claim that the report was 'late' is false. The report arrived before the requested committee meeting deadline. Two paragraphs down from your cherry picking we get:

"Senior intelligence officials said that the report on Iraq's capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction was delivered to the committee as soon as it was ready. One official said the 90-page report was written in record time and given to the committee before some senior administration officials received it."

Note the last sentence implies that the White House didn't even get a chance to fully review the report before it went to the committee. Perhaps that was the reason that Mr. Graham waited until the committee meeting was almost on top of him before making the information request. If so, I congradulate his accumen as much as I detest his grandstanding with complaints about the report being 'late'.

But even more to the point, the deficiency sited by Mr. Graham in the WMD report as the reason he's unhappy with it isn't its description of the WMD program itself, but (reading the very next sentence):

"Mr. Graham said the report did not satisfy the committee's request for an assessment of what political impact a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force would have on Iraq's neighboring nations."

Which is exactly the complaint that I said Mr. Graham made about the report in my prior post. So, in fact, the evidence you sited is exactly the evidence which supports my statements that Mr. Graham had no substantive complaints that would support your position.

Again, none of this supports your central claim that the White House massaged intelligence reports on Iraq's WMD committee before handing them over to the Senate Inte