IMO there are important lessons from how the Bush administration sold the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, both sides have little interest in learning them. The specifics: The CIA had information/analysis that was not helpful in selling the war. Specifically, the aluminimum tubes, the Nigerian uranium deal and al Qaida links. The administration suppressed and ignored this. For Democrats, this means that Bush lied, we were falsely sold on the war, and to re-establish credibility we need a changing of the guard. For Republicans, "Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here." (Frank Drebin in front of the exploding fireworks factory.) Both groups are wrong. For their own interests (elections) they are ignoring what really happened. Here's how I see it (the correct way ): Bush did not lie and at no point did the administration consciously decide to muzzle the CIA so that they could sell the war. However, they were so intent on a particular outcome that they became unreceptive to any contrary information and perceived the CIA as acting against American interests. This enabled them to see no problem with stating as facts claims refuted by our own CIA and to pressure the CIA to go along with these claims. That's dangerous stuff because the net effect was to deceive the administration, congress and the general public as to the real threat Saddam posed. Even if we all agree that the outcome of the war turned out okay (no Saddam mourners to be found anyway), subversion of our intelligence is not something we want to see repeated. So why did it happen? Duh. Anyone who has read the Lounge for some time should easily be able to spot the dynamic. Almost no one here shows any ability to grasp arguments from the other side or a willingness to concede facts contrary to our preferred positions. Why should we expect anything different from any administration, whether Republican or Democrat? Do you really think that political leaders are that much better than you? Or do you have so little self awareness that you can only spot these flaws in "the other side" and you expect your own party leaders to mirror your ficticious strength of character? So if we concede that elected officals are neither better nor worse than the rest of us on average, it only makes sense that an administration is just as capable of self delusion and the use of highly selective arguments. In other words, this wasn't a Bush thing, or a Republican thing, or NO THING (as conservatives here will prefer to believe), but a virtually inevitable flaw for those in power. (BTW, my respect to those who don't appear to fit the above description. On the right, I specifically include ATLGATOR and Missisippi Vol (althougth the latter is more of a moderate.)) This brings us to the importance of political parties. Yes, they are part of the problem (or its manifestation) to begin with, but it seems to me that this WMD issue shows how even the repugnant aspects of the two party system has value. Reality check: the Democrats are not jumping on this issue for idealistic reasons - this is about making as much political hay as possible so as to reclaim the white house and congress. But do we really need to care why the Democrats are jumping on this issue as much as we should about the validity of the issue itself? That's the beauty of the two party system, much as it is of the adversarial legal system. Both sides want to win. To do so they submit all of their arguments, fair or unfair, brilliance or BS, and between them we generate our best approximation of the truth. What happened with the CIA should be of major concern to all Americans. Granted, the Republicans won't want to agree, but the Democrats forcing the issue is in the long run healthier for us all - even though the Dems' motives may not be all that pure. This brings us to the French. As much as they pissed me off, I'm now very concerned that they may have a valid point - that the EU needs to develop as a strong rival as well as ally for the US. A lone superpower, with no check like the Democrats and Republicans have for each other, has nothing to keep it from self deluding. Without a strong EU, what is to force us to control ourselves? To force a level of control that people on this board seem unable to achieve and that neither party seems able to achieve without the threat of alternative. While we may resent it, and it will have many negative consequences, are we really better off with no counterbalance to the US? If you're willing to concede that either party would be a dangerous instrument without the other nipping at it's heals at every chance (maybe you're not), then why is that not the same for the US as a whole? In this case, we're not talking about the USSR, but a fellow Western, mixed economy, democracy. Unreasonable and irritable at times, but is that not better than even us unchecked, given what we know about how humans really behave? Okay, that may have been an incomprehensible, but I wanted to get it out. Thanks for reading it.