Regardless of one’s political party or philosophical persuasion, the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has – or should have - far greater knowledge and insight regarding threats to this country. Hence, when the President – and it doesn’t matter if it Bush, Clinton or James Buchanan – comes before you and states that a threat is imminent, whether expressed or implied, one must place great weight on the statement. You might not want to, but the very fact that in a public forum the elected head of the Executive Branch says so, one must begin with the presumption that the matter is serious.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Senate have an Intelligence Committee, an Arms Committee, and other related committees to keep an eye on the executive branch? Where was their discussion of the facts and findings in congress? So while I agree with you that the word of the head of executive branch means something, I disagree that it is (or at least supposed to be) the only thing or even the biggest thing.
If you go back to the comments of many DNC members at the time, it is clear that many of them disagreed with the decision for war but chose to vote for it hoping (wishing?) to catch Bush & Co. on the mess up while looking every bit patriotic by not opposing the "threat".
So I just don't find much patriotism in members of the congress from either party...or at least not enough when their own political life is at risk. |
