Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 5, 2005.
Tick, tick, tick...
Heh. You just can't trust anyone named Libi, apparently.
And the picture of the Bush administration's war plan becomes clearer and clearer. The damning evidence is really piling up.
This has finally turned into a major, Watergate-league scandal. Those of you old enough to recall Watergate will remember that when the scandal was at its peak, the White House was literally barraged with new revelations which seemed to come out at least once a week. I'm not sure we've reached that kind of frequency, but you do get the sense that it is all unraveling for them. This is no longer just "disgruntled" former staffers like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke.
But the Dems need to keep pushing, as they did in the closed session. They've got to keep the heat on Bush & Cheney.
However, I'd just like to point out that the Democrats voted to go to war after seeing the intelligence too! They saw the same intelligence as everyone else and the still voted to 'go to war'.
Oh wait, the intelligence was stovepiped, cherry picked, and knowingly exaggerated before being fed to Congress and the public? Damn... kinda renders that talking point useless.
We were given worst-case assesments of Saddam's arsenal as if they were fact, and we were given best-case scenarios for the invasion and cost figures as if they were conservative estimates. Anyone who dissented was discredited viscously, and/or fired. They let their surrogates call dissenters unpatriotic and treasonous without comment. And they went to war where none needed to occur with no serious plan for anything other than marching into Baghdad and accepting the flowers and candy the populace would bestow upon us. They went to war on a schedule designed to bolster their political stature. And it worked -- until now.
I see a Congress reeling in some of that executive power in the near future, or at least attempting so.