It's clear that the Bush and his minions are uniting around a single talking point ("The Democrats saw the same intelligence"), because they're amoral pragmatists and because the point is effective. We on the left need to know how to disagree with the point, and I'm afraid we're already in danger of losing this battle.
(more below)
These days everyone likes to sound smart about "framing" debates in order to win them. This is really nothing new; it's another example (like "spin" and "hype") of a backstage term coming into open public discourse. Of COURSE all debates are won by framing; that's the essence of forensics; see Hegel etc. What is missing from the Liberal application of this idea is something crucial; the understanding that the opposition isn't just engaged in agressive re-framing; they are consistently playing outside the rules that the entire debate framework is based on.
Other Kos posters have addressed the specifics of this question as bears on the "Democrats saw the same Intel" talking point. While their recommendations (to Harry Reid et al.) are logical and tactically smart, I think they miss the essential point.
The "Dems saw the same intel" argument is based on an idealized model of how our government works, which, in turn, is based on a "Civics 101" understanding of our Constitution and how it's implemented.
In other words, "on paper" the CIA is in the business of fact-finding; the Congress and the Executive all review what's been discovered by the CIA; the President decides what he wants to do and then gets the Congress' permission.
If that was, indeed, what had happened, then the Republicans would be correct.
But the Bush administration has, essentially, shut down that entire system and replaced it with one of their own. Dick Cheney decided to throw away the map of Washington D.C. and draw himself a new one, in which the Vice President is essentially "King." In Cheney's system, the CIA works for the Executive, reverse-engineering justifications for what the executive wants to do.
In other words, the entire "Dems saw the Intel" argument is meaningless because CHENEY WAS CONTROLLING THE CIA and their information. Add to this Cheney's insistence on excluding Dems from all Senate/Exec meetings (Cheney won't even speak to Democrats, except to tell them to "fuck off" on the Senate floor) and you have a working, proven system for getting what you want.
In other words, if a group of people in an automobile are debating which way to drive, and they consult a map, their argument is over. Until it's revealed that one of the passengers TAMPERED WITH THE MAP or, even worse, HIJACKED CONTROL OF THE MAP COMPANY and forced them to draw it wrong. Once this is revealed, all "I'm just following the map and you are too" arguments are moot.
Unfortunately this is the kind of argument that Democrats (Kerry, etc.) are particularly bad at engaging. To be fair, it's hard to argue 1) that your opponent is cheating and lying; and 2) that they're doing so in a brilliantly underhanded way. In my map example, it would take a very long time before somebody actually accused someone else of tampering with the map.
But this is the only way we can win the argument. Howard Dean or somebody else who talks in straight lines needs to say, "Democrats were tricked into voting for the war by Dick Cheney, who forced the CIA to lie to them, went to war against the CIA when they dragged their feet (Plame etc.) and finally refused to let Democrats see the unvarnished truth." (See? It's already too complicated a talking point.)
Democrats MUST learn to argue this way. I have this sick feeling that November 2006 will be just like November 2004 unless we do.