Senate Blackout

Yahoo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats accusing the ruling Republicans of stalling tactics imposed a rare closed session of the Senate on Tuesday to force the majority to complete a probe on whether the Bush administration misused intelligence before the
Iraq war.

Senate Republican leaders were livid about the tactic, which drew public attention back to Iraq as President George W. Bush faced the fall-out from an indictment of a senior aide related to the handling of pre-war intelligence.

...

Democrats invoked a little used rule to temporarily shut down television cameras in the chamber, clear galleries of reporters, tourists and other onlookers, force removal of staff members and recording devices and stop work on legislation.

SHUTTERED SENATE FLOOR

After 2-1/2 hours of negotiations on the shuttered Senate floor, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said work could be wrapped up next week on "phase two" of his committee's investigation of intelligence lapses before the Iraq war -- whether the administration twisted intelligence findings to justify the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

His committee has produced a report on the first part of its investigation into lapses on intelligence on Iraq weapons, none of which were found despite many U.S. and foreign reports saying they were a major threat.

The committee has not finished a follow-up on whether the administration exaggerated or misused the reports to justify going to war in March, 2003.

...

Reid said the Republican-led Congress did nothing to keep a check on the Bush administration. "This Republican Senate does no oversight. None. None. It is all part of a plan. They obstruct, they take orders from the White House," Reid said.

On one hand, it's nice to see the Democratic Party finally demand some explanation for what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.

On the other hand, it seems rather undemocratic that nobody is allowed to know what was actually said (senators are forbidden to speak of it, since it deals with classified national-security issues).

Even so, this ties in to the issue brought about by the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Those on the left geenrally accuse Bush of deliberately lying about this, while Bush's defenders claim he was merely incredibly incompetent or deluded, not dishonest.

I suppose the deciidng factor on that issue is: was the intelligence we had on Iraqi WMDs convincing? But, if it was ambiguous, how did Bush present it? Without being able to see what he's seen, it's impossible to tell.

Still, i want to hear people's opinons: Lying, incompetent, or deluded?