Four questions (video)

The Democrats scored a victory.

The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. Without a vote, the Democrats, led by the soft-spoken Harry Reid, demanded "on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations [questioning intelligence that led us to war] aren't being conducted." And just like that the senate went into closed session yesterday.

A gutsy move. And smart [VIDEO]. Just as Alito was threatening to steal the spotlight from the worse than watergate show, Reid grabbed the megaphone and trained it back on the administration's dirty laundry. And this morning, the Republican-controlled senate finally agreed to take a hard look at the intelligence used to sell the war.

David Sirota has some suggestions for what should be asked. Why is this night different from all other nights is not one of them.

QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush say in 2002 that “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" when two critical reports – an IAEA one from 1997 and a CIA one from 2001 – made clear that there was absolutely no evidence of that claim? And why in 2003, did both Condoleezza Rice ignore these intelligence documents and insist that Bush's nuclear claim was "absolutely supportable" when in fact it was not?

QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in his 2003 State of the Union address did President Bush claim that aluminum tubes Iraq purchased were for uranium enrichment, when the White House received intelligence in 2002 that such a claim was untrue? And why did Condoleezza Rice in July of 2003 claim that the intelligence community's "consensus view" was that the tubes were being used for nuclear weapons, when in fact a March 2003 IAEA report specifically said that wasn't true?