Could this be because the Administration twisted the intelligence given to them by the CIA and other sources and that most of the Senators, Reps and Congresspeople, believed it too?
We all know Bush lied:
The president had hoped Saddam could be removed in some way short of war. But early in 2002, Woodward reports, the CIA concluded they could not overthrow Saddam. That word came from the CIA's head of Iraq operations, a man known simply as “Saul.” (Curveball?)
"Saul gets together a briefing and who does he give it to first? Dick Cheney. He said, ‘I can count the number of sources, human sources, spies we have in Iraq on one hand,’” says Woodward. “I asked the president, ‘What was your reaction that the CIA couldn't overthrow Saddam? And the president said one word. 'Darn.'"
The vice president led the way on declaring that Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons of mass destruction. Before that, the president had said only that Saddam “desires them.”
But ten days later, the vice president said Saddam already had weapons of mass destruction. And 12 days after that, the president too had apparently been persuaded: “A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction.”
Three months later, on Dec. 21, 2002, Woodward says CIA Director George Tenet brought his deputy, John McLaughlin, to the oval office to show the president and the vice president their best evidence that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction.
”McLaughlin has access to all the satellite photos, and he goes in and he has flip charts in the oval office. The president listens to all of this and McLaughlin's done. And, and the president kind of, as he's inclined to do, says ‘Nice try, but that isn't gonna sell Joe Public. That isn't gonna convince Joe Public,’” says Woodward.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612067.shtml
The president is guilty only of taking seriously what faithful friends told him. One is expected to assume that his friend the vice president, Dick Cheney, neglected to tell him that his office had ordered the uranium from Niger story checked out in February 2002 and had found there was nothing to it.
The Bush administration has distinguished itself by its inability or unwillingness to deal with allies as equals, with legitimate interests and views of their own to be respected.
This is the issue Washington obfuscates and London has refused to raise. Prime Minister Blair's support for the United States has been exploited to lend legitimacy to a war entirely conceived and controlled by Washington.
The United States has a new kind of government, which takes a new view of what allies are worth, and how they are expected to behave.
This has been an underlying issue throughout the U.S.-European drama of the past 10 months. It will determine the future of the Western alliance, as well as the character of the new European Union now being ushered into existence by an EU constitution, EU expansion and an independent EU security policy.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0717-04.htm You are always bitching about the Democrats investigating this Administration's decisions. Then you bitch because they believed the Bush/Cheney supplied intel. Make up your mind please.
I am not sticking up for the Dems as personally, I think both parties cater to whoever is paying them at the time, and they all could care less about the average person. Who do you impeach when everyone in power sucks ass?