You have no knowledge whatsoever of what Bush did or did not ignore, or that Congress did not have access to the same intelligence the administration did. This is pure unadulterated hogwash, a completely speculative, unsubstantiated smear.

You of all people, if your credentials are to be believed, should know that any administration must base decisions on the proponderance of intelligence (and at least 2 administrations have, with respect to Iraq), not require that intelligence be 100% concordant, something that just doesn't happen in the intelligence business.

I also love how you know, KNOW, what Congress would have done about every conceivable thing in your self-indulgent hypothetical dreamworld. You're like the market analysts who alway know why the market tanked/rallied yesterday but can't tell you shit about what's going to happen tomorrow.

Furthermore, the argument that Saddam would have been deterred by the knowledge that WMD supplied to terrorists could be traced back to him is a shitload of wishful thinking. I would not want to be the President who had to explain, after a dirty bomb went off killing a 1/3 of the population of Los Angeles, that his administration had advance intelligence suggesting Saddam was funneling WMD to terrorists but failed to act because "We had no idea he'd be that stupid."

Cheers,
Daiwa

and yet, with the same intelligence, had you still been a nuclear officer, you would have carried out orders to nuke Baghdad. ;~D

I would not want to be the President who had to explain, after a dirty bomb went off killing a 1/3 of the population of Los Angeles, that his administration had advance intelligence suggesting Saddam was funneling WMD to terrorists but failed to act because "We had no idea he'd be that stupid."

You might think you have cleverly answered the colonel, but in fact, you have proved his point by falling back on the tiresome "mushroom cloud" 'shitload' used to indeed capitalize on, and manipulate, ignorant fear. If Stalin who massacred 30 million of his own countrymen, and yet not use the H-bomb on us, why would Saddam's psychology be any different?

and yet, with the same intelligence, had you still been a nuclear officer, you would have carried out orders to nuke Baghdad

Extraordinary nonsense. It is set in stone, since after Nagasaki that nuclear potency is but a deterrent. A secular Saddam surely knew this. And as for suicidal jihadists, their leadership wouldn't dare because as Bush noted that on 9/11 bin Laden didn't go along for the ride. Nor did al Qaeda have the foggiest that there would be ferocious retaliation because of it.

stevendedalus -

First, references to Lyndon Johnson ("mushroom cloud" 'shitload' used to indeed capitalize on, and manipulate, ignorant fear.) have no place here.

Second, the very crowd that would relish crucifying Bush today for having "lied" and "ignored" contradictory intelligence would crucify him for failing to prevent an attack for which advance intelligence was later shown to have been available. Oh, wait... Clinton actually did fail to do that, so that must be OK if you're a smart president. That is what's tiresome.

As for the comparison to Stalin, interesting... but, as long as we're pretending to rebut with hypothetical questions, why would Saddam's psychology be the same?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Members of Congress have said that at the time they voted for the war resolution they did not know much of the intel that said Saddan did not have WMD. For example, congress was not told that Helmet Chalabi was the sole source of many reports about WMD in Iraq. This man was a convicted fellon and had a reason to want Saddam removed from power-- He wanted to be in power. Much of the so called Intel from Chalabi was untrue and Congress was not told that he was the source of much of the intel used to justify our attacking Iraq BEFORE THEY VOTED.

The defense Intel Agency questioned much of the specific so called intel about WMD that Bush used. That fact was NOT known until AFTER Congress voted on the War resolution.

The Dept of Energy said the business about the Al Tubes was not correct and that was not released at the time Congress voted.

We have the Yelleow cake lie that the White House admitted could not be supported which was also questioned by the CIA prior to our attacking Iraq but was not known when Congress Voted.

There was Intel that said the mobile labs was also not true which did not come out until AFTER Comgress voted.

How much more Intel that DID NOT support the Bush/Cheney claims about WMD was unknown? That is what Phase II in the Senate Intel Investigation needs to answer. That investigation has sat for amlost TWO YEARS with NO ACTION! Bush claims that "Critics are Irresponsible" No Mr. President what is IRRESPONSIBLE is the fact that Congress gave their approvel to attack another country, put our military in danger WITHOUT HAVING ALL THE FACTS! IT IS TIME TO PUT ALL THE INTEL ON THE TABLE THAT WAS KNOWN BEFORE THE WAR RESOLUTION WAS VOTED! That information is what Bush does not want made known. The case for war may look VERY different when ALL the facts are known!

Parated2K

The difference of me following a lawful order in the military and the Congress meeting their constitutional responsibility are very different. The War resolution to be valid MUST be predicated on having FACTUAL INFORMATION. The problem we have is that the information that Congress was given was in many cases untrue. The other issue that is NOW comming to light is that there was a lot of other intel that Congress WAS NOT GIVEN, which existed, that cast doubt on the Intel Bush/Cheney used to justify their request for Congress to approve invading Iraq. We need to know what was the Intel that argued aginst Bush and WHY it was not made available to Congress BEFORE they voted to go to war.

Knowlerdge of this may swamp the Bush "ship of state!"

How much more Intel that DID NOT support the Bush/Cheney claims about WMD was unknown? That is what Phase II in the Senate Intel Investigation needs to answer. That investigation has sat for amlost TWO YEARS with NO ACTION! Bush claims that "Critics are Irresponsible" No Mr. President what is IRRESPONSIBLE is the fact that Congress gave their approvel to attack another country, put our military in danger WITHOUT HAVING ALL THE FACTS! IT IS TIME TO PUT ALL THE INTEL ON THE TABLE THAT WAS KNOWN BEFORE THE WAR RESOLUTION WAS VOTED! That information is what Bush does not want made known. The case for war may look VERY different when ALL the facts are known!

BR>

Shouldn't your personal vendetta be against lazy Senators and House members then? You sit there pompously excusing Congress for any and all responsibility, then you buy into the unproven allegation that Prs. Bush manipulated intel for his own purposes.

Do you really think that the White House is the sole resource Congress has for information?

If Prs. Bush did lie, then it was on Congress to challenge the lie. If Prs. Bush lied, then so did Congress because they put their names to the intel also. If Prs. Bush lied, and Congress merely rubberstamped the information and vote to return to hostilities without bothering to verify anything, then they are incompetent.

On the other hand, if the intel was valid... but wrong, then niether Prs. Bush nor the members of Congress did anything wrong.

Members of Congress are not merely bystanders in the process. Prs. Bush followed the laws and Constitution in going to Congress for their vote on the issue. For you and some members of Congress to act as if Prs. Bush acted alone is not only ignorant on your part, it is down right idiocy!

The fact is, we weren't wrong for returning to hostilities with Iraq, and the members of Congress that are lying about their vote in the matter are only showing their cowardous. They are also showing that they are willing to play infantile word games with their Constitutional responsibilities.

All that does not alter the fact that Intel EXISTED at the time the War resolution was passed by Congress that members of Congress claim they DID NOT HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM when they voted. Why they did not have this information is one of the issues that Phase II investigation by the Senate Intel Committee needs to answer. I do not think it was because they were as you say "lazy. " The menbers of Congress that opposed the war, even with the supportive Intel Bush provided, would have used any Intel that showed the Bush argument was wrong if they has access to that data. At Best, Congress was feed the half- truth when they voted for war! WHY???????

Daiwa;

Tell me why other rogue states like N. Korea, Iran, Seria who have WMD do not give it to terrorists for use in the United States? Why have these rogue states not used their WMD aginst the United States? Because of the reason Professor Record indicated. To do so would bring an END to their dictatorship. What do you think we would do if Iran, N. Korea , Seria etc were to shoot a missle with gas, bio or Nuclear weapons at the US? How long before their country would be in ashes? Even if Saddam had the WMD Bush claimed , we were NOT IN DANGER from Saddam! It was all a BS job that Bush used to attack a country he wanted to attack from the first day he was President and long before 9/11.

Colon Gene, once again you make a fool of yourself. Congress doesn't rely solely on the White House for anything. Each Senator and House member has a staff, part of the job of that staff is to keep the member informed. To believe that Congress sits around waiting for intel from the White House ignores reality and goes against the entire "checks and balances" system.

The only reason you can't get yourself to see the successes in Iraq is your venomous hatred for Prs. Bush. A hatred that you would gladly spit in the face of every servicemember over there to uphold.

ParaTed2K The Execuative Branch controlls all the agencies that collect Intel. It is you that is the fool. Members of Congress are saying they were NOT aware of the intel that did not support the Bush/Cheney contention that Saddam had WMD. We need to know WHY that happened and ALL the intel that indicated Saddam did not have WMD. Then the other issue you ignore is that even if Saddam did have the WMD, he would never have used it aginst the US because we would have destroyed him. The entire rational is pure BS!

Additionally, the House and Senate have their own Intelligence Committees, with their own independent intel channels guaranteed by law, outside the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.

The President does not actually have the authority to control Congress' access to intel.

That's the whole point of having a tricameral government: so that if one branch misses a vital piece of info (whether it be through corruption, incompetence, or just bad luck), another branch can do its own due diligence to catch and correct the mistake.

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee had at least a decade's head start on this intel. They were on the case years before Bush got into office.

I can see the Bush Administration calling the wrong play on short notice, under immense pressure in a time of national crisis and global upheaval (I don't believe they called the wrong play, by the way). But that's the Executive's job: to make hard decisions on short notice as best he can. But it's Congress' job to take the long view, to maintain a longer institutional memory, to remember the context of current events. That's why the Executive wages war, but only the Legislative Branch can approve it.

If the Senate didn't do its due diligence in 2002, when really it should've had its due diligence done already, years in advance, why should we trust them to do their due diligence now? Especially when the Legislators calling for this due diligence are all members of an opposition faction known in recent years for its deeply political opposition to the Executive and his faction?

Are you seriously arguing that the party of Al Gore, the party of "selected, not elected!" would blindly trust a President they hated and resented in 2000 to lead them into war in 2001 on his own say-so?

I believe this Executive did the best they could in the time they had with the intel available to them at the time. They reached the same conclusions as the world's other top intelligence agencies and the governments of the world's other major powers. They reached the same conclusions as their own Legislature, which had been studying the problem since before Bush's father was in office. They reached the same conclusions as the previous adminstration, which belonged to the opposition faction.

And now that same opposition faction wants us to believe they dozed off during 2001, and that we should give them a do-over? That touchdown didn't count, because the linebackers missed their queue and failed to sack the quarterback? Let's cancel those points and re-play the down, see if the defensive line can play the game right this time and win the coveted diamond ring?

If it weren't so pathetic, I'd laugh.

The col is a liar. Period, and there's no hope in reasoning with him. I would strongly suggest anyone who opposes what he does not to bump his blog, and just let his lies drop out of site as long as possible. His goal is simply to reiterate the same point over and over for the sake of those who read and DON'T reply, and those who will find his lies no search engines.

So, arguing with him simply accomplishes his goal of keeping his lies in the public view as long as possible. He has reiterated the sentiment of this blog over and over. He's discussed this over and over, this is just a war of attrition.

Bump!