FWIW, I agree, Cheney lied.

I do find it to be curious, however, that the original charge that “…he (M. Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service…” has never been refuted by the Czechoslovakian intelligence services, the organization that claims to have evidence of the meeting. Last that I read on this, they were still very adamant that this meeting had, in fact, happened.

Additionally, during the same week in June '04 that Cheney sat down with GloriaBolger, he told CNBC that …”we've never been able to confirm or to knock it down” with regard to the Czech report.

What is the “truth”?

FWIW, I agree, Cheney lied.

I do find it to be curious, however, that the original charge that “…he (M. Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service…” has never been refuted by the Czechoslovakian intelligence services, the organization that claims to have evidence of the meeting. Last that I read on this, they were still very adamant that this meeting had, in fact, happened.

Additionally, during the same week in June '04 that Cheney sat down with GloriaBolger, he told CNBC that …”we've never been able to confirm or to knock it down” with regard to the Czech report.

What is the “truth”?

It should not be a blank check for the administration, but neither should it try to micromanage a war from Capitol Hill.

That's a nice thing for Edwards to say, but the resolution was a blank check and legally authorized the war – the title of the resolution was, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq! Oh, and Edwards voted for it.

It should not be a blank check for the administration, but neither should it try to micromanage a war from Capitol Hill.

That's a nice thing for Edwards to say, but the resolution was a blank check and legally authorized the war – the title of the resolution was, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq! Oh, and Edwards voted for it.

The GOP controlled Congress wasn't going to put up much of a fight with Bush no though was it?

Naturally. I'm a non partisan, or rather an anti-partisan, meaning I hate the two parties and the two-party system. Which brings me to my response to your quote:

What, exactly, has the dem controlled Congress done since they took control? That's right, not much. I see little difference between the two parties in this regard.

There are several pieces of information stating that policy to invade Iraq were in the make long before it was brought to congress and that fact were being arranged around policy not the other way around.

Yes, that was obvious even then. So, why did Congress roll over? That's the point.

As for contracts, it depends on jurisdiction, but if you sign you sign. There's a reason we used signed documents as binding agreements. If you don't bother to read what you're signing and sign anyway, how can that be anyone's fault but yours, no matter what was said to you? If verbal assurances trumped a signed contract then what is the point of signing a contract at all? Similarly, what matters in Congress is how they vote and it is the responsibility of Congress as a whole and individual Senators and Representatives to inform themselves before voting. Taking the executive's “word for it” on issues of war and peace is nothing short of abdication of Congress' most important duty.

SteveK,

Playing with what it's called doesn't change the facts.

Since I used to be a member of the so-called “intelligence community” I think I know a thing or two about this area. Congress has extensive oversight powers of the intelligence community including the power to summon officials to testifiy in open or closed session. Congress can order NIE's to be written – in fact the latest Iranian NIE was ordered by Congress. Added to that are several laws on the books that require Congress be informed in various situations among other things. Instead what did Congress do? In many cases they failed to even read the most fundamental reports prepared for it prior to voting. They could have called Tenet and other senior IC leaders to provided detailed justification for the 2002 NIE, but of course that's hard to do when so many in Congress didn't even read it to begin with.

there are those who want spread the responsibility for the Iraq fiasco equally on the Democrats and Republicans

One might suggest that anyone, regardless of party, who voted for the AUMF is responsible, but that position requires nuance which doesn't seem to fit well into simplistic “Bush lied, people died” memes – after all, 3 out of 2 Democratic Senators vote for war….

And this is not to excuse the GoP – far from it. As a group, they do deserve most of the blame for the war. Furthermore, it's my view that simple majority party control of the various committees and instruments of oversight is a bad thing.

The GOP controlled Congress wasn't going to put up much of a fight with Bush no though was it?

Naturally. I'm a non partisan, or rather an anti-partisan, meaning I hate the two parties and the two-party system. Which brings me to my response to your quote:

What, exactly, has the dem controlled Congress done since they took control? That's right, not much. I see little difference between the two parties in this regard.

There are several pieces of information stating that policy to invade Iraq were in the make long before it was brought to congress and that fact were being arranged around policy not the other way around.

Yes, that was obvious even then. So, why did Congress roll over? That's the point.

As for contracts, it depends on jurisdiction, but if you sign you sign. There's a reason we used signed documents as binding agreements. If you don't bother to read what you're signing and sign anyway, how can that be anyone's fault but yours, no matter what was said to you? If verbal assurances trumped a signed contract then what is the point of signing a contract at all? Similarly, what matters in Congress is how they vote and it is the responsibility of Congress as a whole and individual Senators and Representatives to inform themselves before voting. Taking the executive's “word for it” on issues of war and peace is nothing short of abdication of Congress' most important duty.

SteveK,

Playing with what it's called doesn't change the facts.

Since I used to be a member of the so-called “intelligence community” I think I know a thing or two about this area. Congress has extensive oversight powers of the intelligence community including the power to summon officials to testifiy in open or closed session. Congress can order NIE's to be written – in fact the latest Iranian NIE was ordered by Congress. Added to that are several laws on the books that require Congress be informed in various situations among other things. Instead what did Congress do? In many cases they failed to even read the most fundamental reports prepared for it prior to voting. They could have called Tenet and other senior IC leaders to provided detailed justification for the 2002 NIE, but of course that's hard to do when so many in Congress didn't even read it to begin with.

there are those who want spread the responsibility for the Iraq fiasco equally on the Democrats and Republicans

One might suggest that anyone, regardless of party, who voted for the AUMF is responsible, but that position requires nuance which doesn't seem to fit well into simplistic “Bush lied, people died” memes – after all, 3 out of 2 Democratic Senators vote for war….

And this is not to excuse the GoP – far from it. As a group, they do deserve most of the blame for the war. Furthermore, it's my view that simple majority party control of the various committees and instruments of oversight is a bad thing.

It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction.
Fast congressional action to reinforce our resolve is more imperative,
not less, in light of Saddam Hussein's recent overture to allow U.N.
inspectors back into Iraq.
…
The resolution should be strong and unambiguous. It should not be a
blank check for the administration, but neither should it try to
micromanage a war from Capitol Hill. It should spell out the broad
elements of a process that will preserve the legitimacy of American
actions, enhance international consensus and strengthen our global
leadership.
Here's what I believe the resolution should say. First and foremost,
it should clearly endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Second, the resolution should call for an effort to rally the
international community under a U.N. Security Council mandate. The
president's speech last week was an important first step, and his
belated diplomatic efforts have already borne fruit. At the same time,
we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action.
Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever
allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from
supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against
Iraq.
Third, Congress should demand that the administration take real steps
to win the peace. The only chance for Iraq to become a democratic,
tolerant state — and a model for the Arab world — will be through
sustained American involvement. We will need to help provide security
inside Iraq after Hussein is gone, work with the various Iraqi
opposition groups, reassure Iraq's neighbors about its future
stability and support the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives.
Congress also should consider authorizing funds now to support such
efforts, rather than waiting for events to force us to act with
emergency spending.

The inspectors were finding nothing. The Pentagons WMD experts found nothing. The UN didn't give Bush a mandate, he interpreted previous resolutions as a justification.

It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction.
Fast congressional action to reinforce our resolve is more imperative,
not less, in light of Saddam Hussein's recent overture to allow U.N.
inspectors back into Iraq.
…
The resolution should be strong and unambiguous. It should not be a
blank check for the administration, but neither should it try to
micromanage a war from Capitol Hill. It should spell out the broad
elements of a process that will preserve the legitimacy of American
actions, enhance international consensus and strengthen our global
leadership.
Here's what I believe the resolution should say. First and foremost,
it should clearly endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Second, the resolution should call for an effort to rally the
international community under a U.N. Security Council mandate. The
president's speech last week was an important first step, and his
belated diplomatic efforts have already borne fruit. At the same time,
we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action.
Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever
allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from
supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against
Iraq.
Third, Congress should demand that the administration take real steps
to win the peace. The only chance for Iraq to become a democratic,
tolerant state — and a model for the Arab world — will be through
sustained American involvement. We will need to help provide security
inside Iraq after Hussein is gone, work with the various Iraqi
opposition groups, reassure Iraq's neighbors about its future
stability and support the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives.
Congress also should consider authorizing funds now to support such
efforts, rather than waiting for events to force us to act with
emergency spending.

The inspectors were finding nothing. The Pentagons WMD experts found nothing. The UN didn't give Bush a mandate, he interpreted previous resolutions as a justification.

Andy said: “Only if Congress abdicates its duties – which it did.”

Yes, a REPUBLICAN congress gave W everything he wanted.

“The executive also does not “control” the intelligence community as much as manage it.”

Boy have you been drinking the kool-aid or what!

Playing with what it's called doesn't change the facts. The Executive MANAGED to control the information that came from the intelligence community to Congress. The Republican controlled Congress controlled who and what were to be investigated and still there are those who want spread the responsibility for the Iraq fiasco equally on the Democrats and Republicans… The Congress and the Executive and that's just plain ridiculous which brings back to the original point of this thread… LIES.

Andy said: “Only if Congress abdicates its duties – which it did.”

Yes, a REPUBLICAN congress gave W everything he wanted.

“The executive also does not “control” the intelligence community as much as manage it.”

Boy have you been drinking the kool-aid or what!

Playing with what it's called doesn't change the facts. The Executive MANAGED to control the information that came from the intelligence community to Congress. The Republican controlled Congress controlled who and what were to be investigated and still there are those who want spread the responsibility for the Iraq fiasco equally on the Democrats and Republicans… The Congress and the Executive and that's just plain ridiculous which brings back to the original point of this thread… LIES.

Any way you slice it though you will never convince me that the President doesn't have far and away the best access to information of any elected official in this country. There are several pieces of information stating that policy to invade Iraq were in the make long before it was brought to congress and that fact were being arranged around policy not the other way around. And only the president is in a position to make that happen. Bush's fault. The Dems should have grown a pair and fought as they could, but it wouldn't have changed anything except proving maybe a presidential candiadate other than Obama saw this coming.

Any way you slice it though you will never convince me that the President doesn't have far and away the best access to information of any elected official in this country. There are several pieces of information stating that policy to invade Iraq were in the make long before it was brought to congress and that fact were being arranged around policy not the other way around. And only the president is in a position to make that happen. Bush's fault. The Dems should have grown a pair and fought as they could, but it wouldn't have changed anything except proving maybe a presidential candiadate other than Obama saw this coming.

I meant its easy for a president to mislead Congress.

Only if Congress abdicates its duties – which it did. The executive also does not “control” the intelligence community as much as manage it. Despite many accusations there is very little evidence the intel community purposely lied at the behest of Administration with the possible exception of senior IC leaders like Tenet, which were Clinton appointees!

In any event, Congress controls the purse strings and Congress has powerful oversight authority should it choose to exercise it. Congress could have done any number of things to get more information prior to voting but opted not to – in fact they didn't even bother, in many cases, to read the intelligence that was there, much less question it. That's willful ignorance. If the Congress was trying to get at the truth before their vote and the Administration purposely misled them that's one thing, but in this case Congress itself did not even attempt to learn much on its own. Again, that is the fault of Congress, not the administration.

If I put a contract in front of you to sign and you sign it without reading it, whose fault is that? Mine or yours? The responsibility for making war lies with CONGRESS and the responsibility to ensure the war is just, honorable and based on sound reasoning belongs to CONGRESS. In this case they shirked their duty.

I meant its easy for a president to mislead Congress.

Only if Congress abdicates its duties – which it did. The executive also does not “control” the intelligence community as much as manage it. Despite many accusations there is very little evidence the intel community purposely lied at the behest of Administration with the possible exception of senior IC leaders like Tenet, which were Clinton appointees!

In any event, Congress controls the purse strings and Congress has powerful oversight authority should it choose to exercise it. Congress could have done any number of things to get more information prior to voting but opted not to – in fact they didn't even bother, in many cases, to read the intelligence that was there, much less question it. That's willful ignorance. If the Congress was trying to get at the truth before their vote and the Administration purposely misled them that's one thing, but in this case Congress itself did not even attempt to learn much on its own. Again, that is the fault of Congress, not the administration.

If I put a contract in front of you to sign and you sign it without reading it, whose fault is that? Mine or yours? The responsibility for making war lies with CONGRESS and the responsibility to ensure the war is just, honorable and based on sound reasoning belongs to CONGRESS. In this case they shirked their duty.

casualobserver said: “Quick, who were these “other Repuglican liars”?”

For starters let's name the perpetrators of the Iraq War: Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz.

Sounding familiar yet? They should, they are a virtual Who's Who of the Bush Administration and boys in the back rooms that have been running the show for the last 7 + years… They are also the signators of the “Statement of Principles” of the neo-cons aka The Project for a New American Century.

casualobserver said: “Quick, who were these “other Repuglican liars”?”

For starters let's name the perpetrators of the Iraq War: Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz.

Sounding familiar yet? They should, they are a virtual Who's Who of the Bush Administration and boys in the back rooms that have been running the show for the last 7 + years… They are also the signators of the “Statement of Principles” of the neo-cons aka The Project for a New American Century.