Centerfield

This kind of reminds me of early Greek democracy and Rome's republic.
The mob was whipped into frenzy for war, so the politicians went to war.
Now that everyone remembers what war is like, the mob wants out.

What did Churchill say?
"Democracy is the worst possible kind of government---except for all the others."

This whole mess just keeps reminding me of the Spanish American War.
The battleship Maine = WMD
Hearst Newspapers = FoxNews
Neocon = Teddy Roosevelt

Voting by polls on something like that shows how unworthy a person is to be in that position. If a Congressperson does not have the balls to follow thier feelings on an issue of that importance, then why even have them? Any pol using this excuse is a usless piece of DNA. Either that, they are just a lying piece of DNA. Neither one is very useful.

This is why the presidency is so powerful. Any president has the ability to manipulate (yes, I used that word) public opinion whether he actually lies or not just by the nature of his position. Railing against the fact that politicians watch the polls is like complaining that the sun rises in the east. I agree with Capuano; I never thought the case Bush built was that strong, but who the hell is going to challenge the president on an issue of national security? It's certainly disingenous for the Democrats to claim that they were misled, but it's equally disingenuous for the administration to claim that there was some sort of open debate on the war. There was never a real debate because any congressman who would have tried to raise questions would have been branded a traitor undermining the president at a time of national crises. The president pulled out all the emotional stops to build support for the war and to say that, well the opponents should have stopped him is to ignore reality.

In this case, perhaps a parliamentary system where the head of state actually takes questions from the legislature would have been helpful. Although given Bush's grasp of facts, it probably would have been embarrasingly painful.

To say that, well the opponents should have stopped him is to ignore reality.

I dunno, maybe. Isn't the point here that, in hindsight, we could have used a few more congresscritters like this? On the one hand, there's the current reliance on the notion that the problem was an intelligence failure. Considering that, it's easy to jump to the notion that perhaps congress could have and should have done better if they had substantial doubts.

But I agree that it's hard to dismiss the power of the Presidency. Even though the Bush admin is now saying it was an intelligence failure and that congress went allong willingly, let's not forget that it was Bush who made the argument that we could not wait for final proof which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Let's face it, that's a way of letting the reluctant dissenters know that if the admin's educated guess is right, and you don't let the President act, then it's all on you. If that's the message, then what's so wrong with the response that "OK, we'll go along, but if the educated guess if wrong, then it's on YOU.

If that's the message, then what's so wrong with the response that "OK, we'll go along, but if the educated guess if wrong, then it's on YOU.

Nothing wrong with that. I can't remember the administration ever blaming the Congress for the intelligence failures.

The underlying assupmtion is that the president is accountable for the intelligence failures. That's been discussed. I guess there's no chance of drawing you guys over to the dark side?

[W]ho the hell is going to challenge the president on an issue of national security? It's certainly disingenous for the Democrats to claim that they were misled, but it's equally disingenuous for the administration to claim that there was some sort of open debate on the war. There was never a real debate because any congressman who would have tried to raise questions would have been branded a traitor undermining the president at a time of national crises.

So, let me get this straight...they didn't have the balls to demand answers because the public might have been upset so they get off scott free? I mean, after all, why hold anyone responsible if they were just trying to do what they thought everyone wanted them to do?

Sounds reasonable to me.

I guess we did get the politicians we deserved.
We demanded they responded to the publics wishes, while ignoring the fact that the public is really gullible. That seems to mean a free pass for congress. I'm not sure the same goes for bush.

Congress may have turned to jello in the face of public opinion, but bush was the one who dragged Iraq on to the public radar then cried wolf.

Bush dragged Iraq onto the radar? Please don't make me pull out the mega-quote book!

Fear dragged Iraq onto the radar. 3000 dead Americans boosted the fear factor. Over a decade of solemn pronouncements from politicians about how dangerous Saddam was dragged Iraq onto the radar. Invading Kuwait dragged Iraq onto the radar. The use of poison gas on thousands and thousands of their own people dragged Iraq onto the radar. A refusal to abide by sanctions dragged Iraq onto the radar.

But hey, it was really just one guy with superhuman time-bending powers and the able assistance of Karl Rove...he sent those mind-warping history-altering signals into the past right after he shipped that PC with MS Word back to the 1970 Texas Air National Guard....

Actually I'm kind of curious.
Do you really keep a quote database?
I hear mysql is good for that kind of thing.

And if you do keep one, I've got a question for it.
Who were the first three people who publicly talked about invading Iraq after 9/11?

My quote database is called "the internet." But you can use it too!

Maybe if you offer lollipops someone will do the work on your question. I don't know offhand.

I never thought the case Bush built was that strong, but who the hell is going to challenge the president on an issue of national security?

Spines of convenience.