In some cases it is impossible to validate what someone saw or heard, but in others it's not.

In the case of the Iraq war, it has been proven that anyone who voiced an opinion that was not what the administration wanted to hear they were attacked to a vicious degree.

There was also the story not too long ago describing how White House staffers are afraid to bring bad news to Bush. Anyone bringing bad news to him becomes the target of his wrath.

There has been a pattern throughout that can easily be pointed to as the cause for many of the problems we are now seeing.

I could care less what Bush has to say at this date. It's his modus operandi to give a speech that tries to motivate his base to support him more. He is the most divisive president in my history. Does not care for those who don't support him at all. His handlers employe a strategy of pandering to groups like evangelicals who will offer him unwielding support.

It worked flawlessly to get him elected and reelected. But the performance to back it up has been about as poor as can be.

>That really is my point in a few other messages. It cannot be proven what Bush saw nor what congress saw and where the information came from yet. Not only that, it is entirely too easy to backdate a memo or create one to cover your behind after the fact that it will take more supporting documentation or people to come forward and testify before we will really know for sure. I think in 20 years or so maybe the full story will come out...
>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/11/bush.intel/index.html
>>
>>Did the Democrats really see the same intelligence that the Bush administration saw? I seem to remember coming across some articles describing a deep division beween Cheney's office and the CIA. I believe you can make a case that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. cherry-picked the intelligence to make their case. The question to me is, did the Dems see all the intelligence, or just what was cherry-picked?