Let's take this one a little further becuase i think you brought up a good point indirectly with Pelosi. How does she or any other politician really know? From what standpoint or expertise does their opinion carry any weight? So yes, in a sense they were pandering but not directly to get votes and not putting on an act, but becuase to say otherwise wouldn't be prudent and becuase they simply don't know any better just like the average American.
In what setting do these people make these statements? A reporter or interviewer asks them what they think, and as politicians they think politically. It's not about dem or rep here, it's just about being politically competent. and think about what was asked? Was he a threat? Well he was. But did they ask if they thought Saddam would attack the USA? and even if they said yes, what bases of knowledge or expertise would they make that statement that couldn't have paraded to the American public that we could have all seen?
So using this as a bases or part of a reasoning to justify a preemptive invasion is a bit niave if you think about it. If the CIA and the NSA and the JC came to the American public and said Saddam is a threat and could show how he intended to attack the USA and get away with it and not allow us remove him, then he is a real threat.
Otherwise all that happened here was that we were in a fear hysteria and on the war path and Saddam was the next logical target and our country fell for it. America got shanghi-ed.
How dangerous was Saddam? He was like a wasp in a sealed furnace with our fingers on the switch.
Saddam was a street thug at heart. All mobsters keep plenty of cash on hand.
What did they know? Enough to authorize the use of force. I pulled some information about what was contained in the Congressional resolution:
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_ResolutionIt passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and passed the Senate 77 to 23. In other words, an overwhelming, bipartisan vote.