NY Times on Weapons Deception and the Democrats

I'll resist the temptation to reproduce the entire article here and just excerpt the part that refers to our man:

Democrats said that at least two of their presidential candidates, Mr. Graham and Dr. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont who built his campaign on a platform of opposing the war, have a lot riding on whether the administration, as both men have suggested, manipulated intelligence about biological and chemical weapons in Iraq.

At first, Dr. Dean aggressively challenged Mr. Bush's credibility on the issue. But he has since held back as pressure on the administration has built in Congress. "Howard Dean said for a long time that the president didn't make the case for war in Iraq," said Steve McMahon, one of Dr. Dean's senior advisers. "Now the question is, was the case the president made based on facts or ideology?"

Some of Dr. Dean's supporters said he would be vindicated if no weapons were found.

The article implies that there's still some question as to whether intelligence was manipulated. Former and current intelligence agents are already saying that Bush's people "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" and worse. Why is not every single Democrat in Congress signing Henry Waxman's letter calling for an explanation of the bogus nuclear evidence, insisting that the upcoming hearings be open, and joining Dr. Dean in demanding, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"