[andyfox]

"If indeed Bush lied (and I'm far from convinced of that), it really shouldn't surprise you, no?"

No, of course not. That's his job, to lie. There has never been a politician of any political stripe who didn't lie when leading his country into war. You know when a war-bound leader is lying--he's moving his lips.

The statement "September the 11th also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein" was said to insinuate that the invasion of Iraq was necessitated by 9/11 in the context of the new situation. This is demonstrably false. The key players in the administration were on public record supporting regime change in Iraq. At Camp David in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Wolfowitz made a presentation to attack Iraq. Bush himself cornered Richard Clarke and pressed him to see if Saddam Hussein was involved. (The White House for months denied that the meeting even took place, before having to backtrack and admit that it did.) Rumsfeld asked for a plan to bomb Iraq and, when queried if he didn't mean Afghanistan, said, "There are no good targets is Afghanistan." Woolsey went on record as favoring invading Iraq even if it were found it had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was the justification for going into Iraq, not the reason.

As far as Congress doing their job, they didn't. They rubber stamped what the president wanted, not wanting to seem soft. I doubt very many members read the intelligence. And certainly their Monday morning quarterbacking reaks of politics.

What irresponsible charges have Dean, Kennedy and Kerry made that compare with those made by the administration that led to war?