Reply #46: The main thing he would have learned from the Iraq NIE was that nearly all the intelligence ... [View All]

[krkaufman]

... was up for debate, whereas the NIE summary document had filtered-out all the "no WMDs" counter-arguments.

Even by October of 2002, anyone taking Bush's word that he would exhaust all diplomatic routes was allowing themselves to be deceived. It was obvious that Bush was bent on war and that any diplomatic efforts were being accommodated simply because there was ample time to do so between October and the planned start of the war in March.

Re: "He thought it important to give the President leverage." Leverage I'm OK with. Authorization to go to war, not so much. It was poor judgment *and* abrogation of Kerry's Senatorial responsibilities regarding declaration of war.

Re: "Kerry could have given near the same speech and voted no." True. Which is why what he *said* has little to no meaning; and how he voted says everything. Senate speeches provide cover for future inspection; but the vote remains the same.

Re: "As to trying to hold them accountable he has been one of the most persistent critics." Criticism is, of course, not accountability. Credit to Kerry if he's tried *actually* holding someone accountable, but has failed to gain sufficient support from his fellows.

In my opinion, the one action these Senators can take, irrespective of the actions and cooperation of others, to show true regret and assumption of responsibility for their failure in regards to the Iraq vote is to resign. Anything short of that is politicking.