>>>>>>>But Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what? Did it matter?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not in the sense of altering the decision whether or not to invade. It's clear the administration was determined to go in, and did so despite the failure to find just cause.
>>>>
>>>>Really? All congress, including your favourite senators, found reasons quite justifiable and authorized the war.
>>>
>>>
>>>The main reason they authorized war (although not unanimously) was they believed the administration's assurances that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. As did I. And yes, I'm a little annoyed about that.
>>
>>It's your personal problem, not a subject to discuss.
>>Why now, when these senators see the light, they don't stop it? They have means to do it.
>
>
>I would hardly call it my personal problem. A heck of a lot of others are also disappointed that our government lied to us.
>
>As I'm sure you are aware, quite a number of Senators and House members are taking a much more assertive posture towards Iraq policy. Dick Cheney says (speaking of the troop "surge" but you get the idea this is his attitude in general) the administration is going to do what it wants to regardless of what Congress passes. We'll see about that. It sure isn't the way the Constitution is written. Cheney acts as though there is only one branch of federal government, the executive branch, and they are answerable to no one.

Well, my take is that there is no longer one branch of the federal government. Now there are two. We have the executive and judicial arm of the executive branch. With a majority of democrats in congress we have our second branch. Not the way it was intended but just the way I see things. :)