<This is quite interesting. A cursory look would just make people think that, ha ha! The Bush coalition is breaking up! But the real answer is a bit deeper than that.

Ignore Stevens, who is just bitching about some pork.

John Warner, Pat Roberts, and Kit Bond--none of them dewy-eyed freshmen--are not angry about tax cuts. They're not angry about prescription drugs. They're angry at not being fed the whole story on Iraq.

As I posted before, It is obvious that if one assumes the administration is rational--more on that below--then there is a lot of important information being withheld. Why? Politically, dumping the bag on the table would get Bush a lot more support both here and overseas. What needs to be secret so badly that Bush is willing to take the flak he is taking on all fronts to keep it secret, even from senior Senate members (including the chairman of the Armed Services committee)? What would happen if the bag was dumped? To who?

Again, much depends on giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I think what has been revealed as public knowledge is enough to condemn Saddam, but this is not a common viewpoint. From the more common viewpoint, either Bush is doing exactly the right thing, and important information is being withheld for important reasons, or he is going off half cocked with no real data to go on. Which you believe depends largely on your politics.

Suffice it to say, some months down the road after it all hits the fan, either Bowser or myself will be terribly disappointed.