Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
And it's wrong to tar the Senate with the same brush as Bush. The Senate customarily defers to the administrative branch on foreign policy (that's not good, it's just a fact), and they had a right to assume that Bush actually had the solid "slam dunk" evidence he and Rumsfeld and Cheney said they had.

Just as it is customary for the executive branch to rely on the US intelligence agencies to supply them with quality intelligence to make correct decisions with.



You are still missing Red's point. Bush went around asserting that the EVIDENCE for an imminent threat from WMDs in Iraq was "slam dunk." Bush was privy to ALL the evidence, he knew it was thin as tissue, and yet he boldly asserted that it was "slam dunk". He lied.

Like Bush, you are trying to divert blame to the CIA. But Bush can't divert blame by saying that Tenet "concluded" that the evidence was slam dunk too. We pay the president to make an independent decision on the evidence, not to mindlessly accept the conclusions of others. If Bush claims he should be allowed to rely on the CONCLUSIONS of the CIA director, (i.e. the president is not responsible for reviewing and analyzing the EVIDENCE himself), then he is not fit to be president.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The Bush administration (and its intelligence agencies) spun like mad to mislead the Senate, and the nation, about the threat in Iraq. Blaming the Senate for believing some of the hype may be justified. But the Senate was not responsible for deciding to invade.

Then how come the bulk of it voted for invasion?



Are you still trying to equate the Senate vote with support for Bush's premature and unilateral invasion? Please read the resolution. It condones the use of force in Iraq. But it does not declare support for Bush's reckless invasion. Bush decided whether to actually invade, when to invade, and how to invade. And he blew it.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Do you have ANY clue how the Senate works and what it and the House serve as in comparision to the executive branch?



I do. I studied constitutional law and the federal legislative process in law school at the University of California, Davis. I took the bar exam and practiced law in federal courts for 12 years. I know how the process works.

Do you? You rudely imply that Red doesn't know how the legislative process works, but I see you didn't bother to explain why you think so. I say he got it right.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The Senate is empowered only to "advise and consent".

You really need a refresher on government.

Start by looking into the War Powers act of 1973. After that, check out Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution and then try to come back and tell me that the Senate only has the power to "advise and consent", especially when it posesses the power to overturn Presidential vetos.



Once again, you raise a point that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. What does the Senate's power to override a veto have to do with the circumstances we are discussing? No veto was exercised, and no override vote was taken. The only senatorial power exercised in the Iraq war vote was the power to advise and consent. Your constant diversions from the topic are getting tiresome.