The NIE was available for any member or Senator to read, albeit only in a designated room.

Second, because those who voted for the war did have full access to the NIE and therefore should have known better than to accept what was being said publicly and instead should have called the president on it then and there. Now is a little late.

A point I have made repeatedly in correspondence to Sen Feinstein, a majority member of the SSCI at the time.

That NIE was suspect even to ordinary joes like myself.  In fact, Daschle and Biden toyed for a time with putting the war powerrs vote over until December until they caved, apparently in the belief that Bush would go away and not impugn the Democratic "leaders" patriotism.


Ivo's correct - it is just a little late for these so-called Democratic "leaders" which is why I will not vote for any candidate in 2006 who does not advocate a speedy withdrawal, and if she is an incumbent, I additionally require that the candidate admit to grave error.

I was therefore pleased to note that the Nation has endorsed the same litmus test.
Democrats and the War [from the November 28, 2005 issue]
Everything that needs to be known is now known: The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the American war in Iraq were all falsehoods or deceptions, and every day the US occupation continues deepens the very problems it was supposed to solve. Therefore there can no longer be any doubt: The war--an unprovoked, unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation--is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in its conduct and continuation.
....


The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.

We firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials, can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and the subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand, must begin now.


In the coming weeks and months The Nation will help identify--and encourage support for--those candidates prepared to bring a speedy end to the war and to begin the hard work of forging a new national security policy that an end to the Iraq War will make possible.

There is no other way to save America's security and honor. And to those Democratic "leaders" who continue to insist that the safer, more electable course is to remain openly or silently complicit in the war, we say, paraphrasing the moral philosopher Hillel: If not now, when? If not you, who?

Five of the nine Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Graham and Durbin, ultimately voted against the resolution, but they were unable to convince other committee members or a majority in the Senate itself. This was at least in part because they were not allowed to divulge what they knew:

I am a little confused about this passage.  Is it being said that Durbin and Graham couldn't consult with their fellow senators or just that they couldn't make that case to the public?  I think it is an important question.  It almost sounds like Graham and Durbin were gagged even with their fellow senators.  Because if they chaired the committee and both were against the war how could the senate as a whole disregard such a bi-partisan finding of the committee?

I've certainly posted too many times on this topic, in other places on the site, so I'll be brief here...

The evidence presented to the public, and to the world, before we invaded Iraq did not conclusively prove that Saddam had, or was close to having, WMD.  It did, however, raise suspicion.

Thing is, war is not the first response to raised suspicions.  If Bush had wanted, after what he presented, the US to push for more thorough inspections within Iraq, not even anti-Bush me would have objected.   Bush made a great case for the world wanting to know more.  But not a great case for war.  War was an option, but not the necessary and not the best option.  But, that's where he went.  No matter what he says now, we can't forget that it didn't have to be this way.

.  .  .  public hysteria in the days leading up to the war.

I don't understand.

Perhaps, you mean pressures during the campaign season -- the vote on the resolution was taken some weeks before the mid-term election, yes?

Democrats controlled the Senate.  Why weren't the committee hearings dragged out?  Why wasn't there limiting language in the resolution requiring the President to come back and report (prove?) Saddam's refusal to allow inspections (to comply with UN resolutions)?

Unless I'm missing something, I think you're being much too generous and much too sympathetic.

How many of us would have the moral fortitude? If their own children were to be sent to the front line, it would have taken no moral fortitude at all.

Incidentally, the President today said it was perfectly legit. to criticize him on the conduct of the war and the aftermath, and we should. Democrats ought to be out there everyday creating a stink about the conduct of the war, and reminding people of the President's assertion that their criticism is "perfectly legitimate".
Uh... what do you think Teddy-Nancy-Howard&Harry have been doing since the 1st day of the war?

A little compassion is needed for those spineless globs of jelly.

Yes, you are right. I apologize for my undue criticism of those blobs of jelly. How could we expect a mere blob of jelly to have a backbone? After all, what greater goal can man have than to further feather his nest?

Henceforth, I shall not expect my Senators, nor my Congressman to consider the well being of our citizens, nor the reputation of our country when deciding how to vote in Congress. We must leave courage to the young men and women who we send into battle, and not expect even a fraction of that courage of our elected representatives. Now, please excuse me while I go barf.

The mixture of credulity, political calculation, and (as janeboatler suggests) negligence of the Congress is inexcusable, notwithstanding Jimmy's on-point qualifications about the president's superior access to intel data. In that sense, Bush's self-defense, referencing the legislators and the Clinton statements -- the usual litany -- performs an unintended public service by reminding us of the irresponsibility of the lawmakers, and not just of the Democrats. I had, however, forgotten Ellen's point, which is a stunning one. We controlled the Senate, and still let the president dominate the debate with crude arguments and vague assertions of foreboding. Notwithstanding everyone's post-9/11 fears, this capitulation on our part was particularly shameful.

Although it's somewhat a side issue, it's worth adding that this president had scarcely earned a reputation for his love of policy detail -- instead, he's repeatedly and explicitly dismissed the arcana of governance as beneath his notice, although he's dressed his indifference in a callow variety of populist rhetoric, which may, alas, be all too genuine in his case.

Furthermore, despite the congressional abdications of judgment, the public opinion-thrashing Bush is receiving these days is thoroughly deserved, because the president, with more intelligence information than any other government decision-maker, and with the most powerful megaphone in public life, chose to push this issue, to put the question before Congress, and thereby to stake the credibility of the presidency and the lives of American service members and Iraqi civilians on his judgment of the matter. Others are guilty for concurring, but he is more so and ought receive proportionate blame.

One last point: I recently re-watched the misleading, condescending, and intermittently powerful and incisive film "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the first time since its theatrical release, and it's worth noting that senior Bush administration officials were captured on video in public statements in 2001 disclaiming the significance of Saddam's weapons capacity. So add that evidence to the list of mitigating indicators available before the war that cast doubt on the president's claims that Iraq posed a grave and gathering danger. Of course, those statements were also made before the terrorist attacks. But how does that fact, whatever its strategic implications, bear on the quality of the intelligence that produced the assessments being given?

In my comment "The mixture of credulity, political calculation, and (as janeboatler suggests) negligence of the Congress is inexcusable ...", I meant to say something like "the unknowable mixture" -- I'm not prepared to level the incredibly serious charge of basing a war vote on political criteria on any individual legislator, or on any group of them, such as the Democrats, as a whole, although I believe I've read anonymously sourced commentary from at least one Hill staffer suggesting the relevance of politics to the way the October 2002 vote was processed.

The political motivation contention, of course, has been the subject of widespread speculation for a long time. Insofar as it may be a factor in congressional thinking, however, poll results have a more legitimate, albeit delimited, role to play in facilitating withdrawal from military engagement than in initiating it. If the benefits of a war aren't going to be greater than the losses, it probably shouldn't continue. Those losses are measured, and even discerned, in part by the tenor of public opinion. That collective moral judging function (again, a compass by no means infallible) speaks to why anti-war activism that undermines public support for war is not disloyal to our forces. Caring for the country and caring for military equally entail doing our best thinking about the gains and sacrifices of war, and also our best listening to each other. The alternative is to leave all judgments about the most profound questions of safety, freedom, and risk to an elite cadre (or cabal?) of philosopher-kings.

Notwithstanding their intelligence briefings, however, these would-be solomonic leaders, in any case, are scarcely fit to wear the mantle of unique and superior insight, because they accept, and constantly cite, the moral authority of their supporters, whom they were once wont to characterize as embodying the cohesive will of American people, while they cast aspersions on the civic virtue of those who ask substantive questions. As the president once said in a relevant bit of jest, it would be a lot easier if he were a dictator. But contrary to another of his well-known statements, being the president does involve having to explain yourself, as best you can, and to take the public reaction seriously. That's what's wrong with his response to loved ones of the fallen; sure, he was probably sorry for their loss. He just doesn't let such losses inform his thinking, at all. Or so his statements to date suggest.