Posted by zeugma on February 12, 2006, at 13:48:43
In reply to Re: reference, annotated » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on February 11, 2006, at 17:03:05
unless I'm still missing something, it doesn't change the fact that until this issue came to light in Dec 2005, the American public didn't know there *was* any alleged deception, correct? So, when making a voting decision in Nov '04, how could they have factored this into their choice?>>
true enough. Like everyone else at the time, I did not know, for example, that before Gonzales' appointment as Attorney General, White House officials had made a trip to where then-Attorney General John Ashcroft lay bedridden in a hospital to persuade him to sign off on legislation that involved the NSA program. Ashcroft apparently refused on the grounds that he thought it was unconsitutional.
These events were not widely known at the time. So you are perfectly correct in saying that it is not a good example of my claim that voters should have factored it into their decisions in 2004.
However, many facts concerning use of intelligence, as they pertained to our involvement in the war on Iraq, were widely known at that time. But the point, I concede, is yours to win. It does not matter what American voters did or did not do at the polling places in 2004. My interest is in matters of consequence right now, which to be sure are results of polling behavior in 2004.