Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
There is a difference between simply making it up...and having your sources, which they did....and manipulating certain reports(woodward talks about this)...and trying to build support for the war that way.
Many of the democrats didn't even read more than one page of the intelligence briefing. What does that say of them?
|
Well, I think you are arguing semantics - I think taking unverified intelligence and calling it verified is manufacturing evidence; I would be curious to know what you would actually apply this term to, as your definition seems unnecessarily stringent. The US intelligence community has such a huge amount of raw data that you could make just about any claim whatsoever and find *something* that supports it, which is what it appears was done.
For example, if Bush claimed that Saddam was Satan incarnate and that he had proof, would some backwoods preacher in Arkansas having once claimed the same thing qualify as a "unverified source" that showed he wasn't just making it up? The administration went beyond choosing its facts to suit its message, it chose opinions to suit its message and called them facts. That is what is so wrong about what was done.
As far as the Democrats go, they are only less culpable in that they went along with Bush because it seemed the popular thing to do at the time and electoral suicide to do otherwise. However, since both parties are a joke and an embarrassment to what was once a great democratic republic, I expected nothing less at the time and am even less surprised now by their antics trying to distance themselves from their sins.