What many senators are now saying is they would have voted differently had they had the info thats been dribbling out about the use of the intel.... about it being "stovepiped". Granted, you can probably attribute some of that to the death toll, the cost, and to poll watching, but its still hard to argue their "vote differently" point (even if its self-serving at this point) with the intel revelations that keep coming out:

- The Downing Street Memos ("intel and facts being fixed around the policy")
- The discredited italian / niger forgeries (discredited before the SOTU address, but used anyway)
- Administration claims based on the statements by Al-Libi, known fabricator
- Administration claims by "Curveball", also labelled a fabricator
- Aluminum tubes for centrifuge use, but doubted by IAEA and DOE personnel
- CIA analyst testimony about being beaten down after speaking out against some charges
- Wilson / Plame / Libby affair

I'd like to know what exactly was presented to congress and did it include differing opinions? But even still, some of these items (like DSM, SOTU, Plame) fall outside of the "did congress know before the resolution?" question.


>Have you forgotten all of the Senators (Dems included) that voted for military action in Iraq? There were not 'many' arguing against it but only a few argued publicly. It was seen as a dangerous politcal move at that time to not support it. Now of course with hindsight many are saying they were wrong, but they cannot deny that they supported it originally. This 'vote yes before no' or whichever is too much of a duck and cover to me. Regardless of who came up with the idea originally it would never have materialized without the full support of the senate which it received.