All three of these men can't be wrong. Maybe we should think about it.

[madfloridian]

Not being ugly, just talking about advisors and consultants that people expect to be able to trust. They apparently could not be trusted about Iraq information. I think our Democrats mostly were sincere about wanting the truth, and they turned to those they trusted.

I think these guys may be in large part the Dems for Joe, who supported Joe Lieberman over Lamont. Just think how much more power we would have in the Senate if not for Joe's pro-war fervor.

Dems for Joe

I wonder if many of those are the ones who advised these three about Itaq. It's possible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/vegetarians-between-meals_b_10889.html
What is DNC Chair Howard Dean's excuse? He wasn't in Congress and didn't
have any access to Senate intelligence. Still, on March 9, 2003, just days
before the invasion began, Dean told Tim Russert, on NBC's Meet the Press,
"I don't want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons of
mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed."

During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for
Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what
intelligence he based that allegation. "Talks with people who were
knowledgeable," Dean told me. "Including a series of folks that work in the
Clinton administration.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know,
we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically
wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton
administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about
what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons
programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong
judgment. I, I, I want to go another step, though, because I think this is
more than just weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I—at the—I remember
vividly what I was thinking about at the time. It was, first, I was
convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. That’s turned out to be
completely wrong and false. I had internal conflict because I was worried
about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence
about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international
community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq. I didn’t know, in
fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration
of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t
just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become
absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely
clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this
authority.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253 /
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Feingold

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/02/05/feingold-its-us-vs-the-washington-consultant-class-on-iraq

Following Republican shenanigans on the floor of the Senate tonight whereby
the GOP filibustered Sen. John Warner’s (R-VA) non-binding Iraq resolution,
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) held a conference call to discuss exactly what the
hell is going on. You can listen to a three-minute audio excerpt in Windows
Media format here and MP3 format here - it is an exchange I had with
Feingold about the power equation at work behind all the rhetoric coming out
Washington.

After the election we had on November 7th and after polls have registered
the public’s deep anger at the President for trying to escalate the war, you
would think Democrats would be pushing legislation with real teeth and not
just non-binding nothingness, especially if the GOP was going to filibuster
anyway. Well, you’d be wrong. In the audio excerpt, I asked Feingold if this
is because of Ben Nelson-ism - that is, because of conservative Democrats
who are willing to use a brinkmanship progressive senators rarely use. As
you can hear, Feingold says it’s even deeper - he says this is a battle
between Democrats’ Washington consultant class and the rest of the country -
and he specifically targets the D.C. elites from the Clinton administration,
who he accurately notes largely supported the war from the get-go.

Oh, and BTW, I really do have a bone to pick with Mr. Scahill about his 05 post at Huffpost. He only picked a little of it and left out the most important part of that interview.....but so did everyone else at the time. Here is that paragraph from the transcript.

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, “In a meeting...with ‘Roll Call’ editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, ‘Then I’d go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.’”
Isn’t that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it’s now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don’t think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and
we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don’t think that we ought to go in, if we don’t want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/882877.asp?0dm=C217V

That MSNBC link is dead now, but Jerome had the whole thing up at a site called Nation Building,or something like that.

Markos and Jerome's book called Crashing the Gate had a lot about consultants like these. They said they were on the Gravy Train.

The Gravy Train...how consultants take over campaigns completely. Alarming

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Why Do You Hate Powerful Women?

Mrs. Clinton has earned her place as President by taking bold stands. Sure, her vote on the Iraq war seemed like it was out on a limb - but aren't you glad she did it now? That's what leadership is all about, Bucko!

(Uh sorry... i'm having a rough night - the whole astronauts-driving-in-diapers thing.)

The consultants are swine - but no more so than the pols who hire them - and, for that matter, the people who vote for spineless consultant-infested pols. All swine.

[madfloridian]

2. Me, too, having a rough night. XM has screwed us like Sirius did.

Instead of Thom Hartmann replacing Franken on XM 167....they are putting Big Eddie Schultz on in Franken's place. Hubby and I had so been looking forward to Hartmann.

We don't listen to Schultz at all, and we will have to keep streaming Hartmann. I am curious what else XM will do with AAR.

Me, too, bad night. Oh BTW I appreciate your posts. One has to think twice and do a doubletake....:evilgrin:

[illinoisprogressive]

3. this is extreemly interesting. I think it's something that really needs to be

explored and exposed more. Especially with the campaigns and the money train going out of control. We really need to have this exposed to know who is controlling things and making the elections of good candidates possible and keeping the corporate ones out.

[madfloridian]

4. That part of Crashing the Gate is devastating, and names names.

I am still reading parts of the book again. It does not spare anyone who took us down wrong paths.

[Straight Shooter]

5. It will never happen, but I would like the names of those officials revealed.

"Many dark actors," as Dr. David Kelly referred to them, on both sides of the aisle in our government, as well as abroad.

edit: I just saw your recent addition, madfloridian, and I assume the "named names" are not the officials, or are they?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0722/p06s01-woeu.html

LONDON – A row between the British government and the BBC over the motive for the Iraq war has turned toxic following the apparent suicide of a government "mole" at the heart of the affair, with the fallout spreading deep into the cabinet and up to Prime Minister Tony Blair himself.

The death of government scientist and Iraq weapons expert David Kelly, who was found Friday in a wooded area with one wrist slashed in what police described as a suicide, marks a macabre turn after months of angry accusations that Mr. Blair misused intelligence to build the case for war against Saddam Hussein.

Dr. Kelly's death has prompted angry calls for heads to roll both at the top of the government and the top of the BBC. The controversy is even starting to affect financial markets, with the pound starting to suffer.

The upshot is likely to be negative not just for the government and the BBC but for the quest to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Kelly's death deprives the government of a key weapons scout precisely at a time when it urgently needs to find WMD in Iraq to justify its war motives.

[madfloridian]

9. That was a tragic death.

I hope the true whole story comes out someday.

Just saw your post...I think I meant the named names are consultants who have just about controlled the campaigns. You have to read the whole chapter in the book to get the full impact.

[babylonsister]

6. Sigh...not being ugly either, but

[madfloridian]

7. Not trying to be that way...just trying to figure it all out.

How did we get there? I find myself doing a lot of analyzing in between tears of what we have done in Iraq. And what Bush is maybe going to be doing in Iran. It will define us forever.

[madfloridian]

8. A little OT but not really....are same consultants wanting fast track for Bush

to be extended? Sounds that way to me.

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=9CF4F108-E0C3-F08F-90AD971F64511E89

"The AFL-CIO, United Autoworkers and other groups representing organized labor are pressing Democrats to deny the Bush administration an extension of its authority to send free-trade deals to Congress for up or down votes, partly by reminding lawmakers of the role trade played in Democrats’ re-taking of majorities in the House and Senate...Labor groups already helped organize a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) from 39 members of the freshman House Democratic class that said the “vocal stand against the administration’s misguided trade agenda” was vital to their electoral success. AFL-CIO Assistant Director for International Economics Thea Lee said the group is “flat-out opposed” to extending the existing fast-track authority, which expires at the end of June, and sees an extension limited to allowing the Bush administration to finish negotiations on the current World Trade Organization talks, known as the Doha round, as a non-starter."

The article says more on who is pushing this:

"Some key Democratic figures, including former President Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, have already spoken out in favor of at least extending fast track to allow the Bush administration to complete the Doha talks. During a hearing on trade and globalization last week, Sperling warned Ways and Means members that Congress could be seen as killing Doha if it did not extend fast track. Alluding to global warming and the Iraq war, he said this would contribute to international sentiment that the U.S. is intent on taking a unilateral approach to global issues. Lee said such arguments might sound good to the Brookings Institution, a centrist Democratic think tank, but will not play well in the heartland. She said granting the administration a short-term extension of fast track to conclude Doha should be a non-starter for Congress."