On John Edwards and the War On Iraq

[AtomicKitten]

Regarding the recent revelation that the Intelligence Committee KNEW Junior was BS'ing about intelligence, this is how their votes went down:

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED NO ON THE IWR -

BOB GRAHAM, voted NO on Durbin/Voted No on Levin, BUT also Voted NO on IWR

CARL LEVIN, who also introduced the Levin Amendment to only vote to force bush to go to UN first, then come back to congress AFTER going to the UN, for another vote for Congress. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...
Amendment Defeated.
Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

RON WYDEN - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

RICHARD DURBIN, who also introduced the Durbin Amendment to limit authorization to an "imminent" threat from Iraq only.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...
Amendment Defeated
Voted Yes on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin
-------------

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED YES ON THE IWR -


JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

DIANNE FEINSTEIN - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

EVAN BAYH - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

JOHN EDWARDS - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

props to and lifted from FrenchieCat's post :)

combined with the fact that the State Department had posted John Edwards' persuasive argument IN FAVOR of going to war, I found these statements:

September 17, 2002
“A mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel”

“Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq’s destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.”

Washington Post, 9/17/02
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm

September 12, 2002
Senator Edwards Calls for Overthrow of Iraqi Dictator

WASHINGTON–Senator John Edwards on Thursday called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. A member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Edwards said Iraq has defied the United Nations and represents a grave threat to the United States and its allies.

“The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein,” Senator Edwards said.

“The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community,” he added.

“If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions.”

The first anniversary of terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, he said, is a reminder that Iraq’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction would wreak havoc if Saddam Hussein let them fall into the hands of terrorists. “The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam’s arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.”

Senator Edwards said the case for removing Saddam Hussein needs to be made openly to the American people, to the Congress, which has an obligation to be part of the process, and to the United Nations and our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush’s father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed,” he said.

An American-led alliance against Saddam Hussein also must be prepared to provide security in Iraq after he is deposed. “We must be prepared to deal with the consequences of success,” he said. The Bush administration “must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root,” he said.

Edwards.Senate.Gov 9/12/02
http://web.archive.org/web/20030219152335/edwards.senat...

September 12, 2002
Indirectly links 9/11 to Saddam Hussein

“As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.”

- snip -

“The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event — or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse — to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: “Iraqi Dictator Must Go”
September 12, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20021214041757/edwards.senat...

I remain really troubled about the fact that John Edwards KNEW BushCo was lying and not only voted YES on the IWR, not only co-sponsored the IWR, but he rallied for the war on Iraq.

All else aside - and I have been a staunch opponent of the big house/hair cut criticism so I, in fact, don't have an agenda regarding candidates, well, maybe Al Gore but I digress - I think this is something that requires serious consideration.

[abburdlen]

1. I give props to Edwards

for recognizing the error of his vote and knowing it was a mistake is important. But for me it will take more of an explanation of how he arrived at the horrid decision of his vote and how he could avoid making similar mistakes again before I could support his candidacy.

There is a long list of 'mistakes' in Edwards short Senate career. I just haven't seen anything convincing evidence that he's grown into the job of President.

He has some great proposals and positions but for me judgment is far more important.

[w4rma]

78. Hillary is by far the worst choice for President but Obama is not what he is selling himself as.

The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
• oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
• expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
• voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
• voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
• opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
• distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
• refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
• makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
• joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
• he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
• “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
…
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
…
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman

Obama Voted yes on free trade agreement with Oman.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm

TPM Compare And Contrast: Hillary And Obama's Votes On Iraq
…
Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one.
…
As you can see, Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.
…
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3189244&mesg_id=3189244

Something smelled funny about Obama in how he mysteriously got so much corporate support so quickly. This is the tip of the iceberg. Obama is slick.

[venable]

2. Edwards thought it was necessary to stop Saddam

and the endless recounting of the various ways that this thought was manifest is of little consequence, and, in my humble opinion, obscures the more pertinent facts of today.

for once and for all, let's summarize:

- he thought that stopping Saddam would save more lives than it cost.

- he came to this from an assurance by Tenet that the WMD were real and that nukes were imminent.

In spite of all the huffing and puffing then and now, in fact there was no way for Edwards to know that the Director of the CIA was lying or wrong. There would be no way for any of us to know at that time that Tenet was leading us to a disaster. We could believe Ritter (I did), we could distrust Bush (I did), we could have no faith in anybody in the WH (I had no such faith), but we also, none of us here, and maybe none on the Intel Cmte, had this conversation (which I was told AT THE TIME happened - I was told, point blank, that 'if the WMD issue was bogus, then Tenet lied to Edwards in a private conversation'. One week later Edwards signed on to the project to stop Saddam. The OP is yet another example of proving that he did support stopping Saddam.

That support is not in doubt. Why keep telling us he supported stopping Saddam? Really. Why? It's not disputed.

He came to a decision to do whatever was necessary to stop what he understood to be a profound threat to the world.

When the war went badly, he felt that he should not tell the loved ones that their children and husbands and wives and mothers and fathers had died in vain, so he kept answering - 'It is good that Saddam is gone'. This would be the sole comfort that could be given to those who lost their loved ones. ie a REASON for their loss.

When it became clear that the war would not end, he had to make the hard decision to say to those families, 'I was wrong'. It was an act of courage and humility, and it was intended to stop the bleeding, even if he had a part in the initial wound.

The point is he did not take lives lightly. On the contrary, he took human life seriously, and thought that an armed Saddam would threaten the world. He was wrong, and he knows it.

Again, I ask you: Why keep telling us that Edwards supported the war at the beginning? Who is saying he didn't?

I ask you further - what does he say now? Is there a reason that many consider him the anti-war candidate, or are all these people stupid and murderous?

[dogman]

3. What will prevent him from repeating this error?

If the polls show the majority of people favor an attack on Iran at some point in the future, will he go for it? How many of the people who support him as an anti-war candidate are aware of the depth and breadth of his support for the Iraq War? There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. The OP is trying to prevent ignorance.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Edwards is opposed to keeping a "residual force" in Iraq, unlike Hillary and Obama

As far as Iraq goes, we know that Edwards will bring all the troops home and close all the colonial bases that Bush, Hillary, and Obama want to keep in Iraq in perpetuity.

As to any other future military adventure in the Middle East, it is up to all of us to break the stranglehold that the Israel Lobby has on US foreign policy in that region. Busting the evil and pernicious influence of the Israel Lobby will go a long way in preventing future Iraqs from occurring.

[Tellurian]

21. yeah, like thats important- seeing he got us there in the first place..

[IndianaGreen]

26. Edwards recognizes the war as a mistake, while Hillary sees the management of the war as a mistake

rather than the war itself. For my part, I count myself among those who see the war as an unjust war, a war of aggression, an illegal and criminal invasion of a country that did not attack us on 9-11. The US invasion of Iraq put us on the same moral plane as Imperial Japan when it invaded China, Nazi Germany when it invaded Poland, and Saddam's Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. As in the Kuwait example, the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately and unconditionally, which is the same thing we demanded from Iraq after the Kuwait invasion.

[papau]

35. The intel was cooked - no one was allowed to see the real intel.

I agree that I do not understand clearly what Durbin was saying as Jay Rockefeller indicated

that Bush 2001 order restricting full disclosure of the intel to the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, meant that Durbin nor Edwards was told the complete story.

Also, as Discussed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer Sunday, May 6, 2007 "Ex-Analyst Tells a Tale of Twisted Iraq Intelligence" by Elizabeth Sullivan, the intel that was given even Jay Rockefeller as Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a con job - it was intel that was "cull intelligence to “sell” the idea of war with Iraq, says Pillar". "Some on the right pilloried him for “cherry-picking” his critique for political reasons- Yet Pillar’s allegations parallel similar charges about the Iraq war selling job now being made by ex-CIA Director George Tenet." "In January 2003, two months before the Iraq attack, the U.S. intelligence community produced two still-classified “key intelligence community assessments” on challenges that would face whoever ran Iraq after an overthrow, Pillar says. The grim predictions were ignored. Parts of those findings have since been leaked, but Pillar says he eagerly awaits the day when the reports become public, “because I think they will be shown to be pretty much on the mark.” " Pillar “eschews” the word “lie” to describe such comments, but seems to acknowledge they were purposely tailored to mislead -“The main dynamic that was occurring here was not so much a specific factual assertion that was knowingly false, which I think most of us, all would agree, is a lie, but rather the construction of bits and pieces of reporting of varying credibility with the express and obvious purpose of creating an impression that was incorrect.”

[IndianaGreen]

56. Hello? The British press debunked the intel, and the Kelly "suicide" showed

the extremes to which Bush and Blair would go to launch a new Crusade in the Middle East. Millions of people marched and lobbied against the war!

They knew we were being lied to, but they thought that after a short war no one would care about the lead up to war. They were wrong, and their callous political calculations have created the most FUBAR situation the world has seen since World War I.

[venable]

70. uhm yes, it's very important

nt

[dogman]

22. Edwards says those things.

Sadly, I believe he says them because that is the popular view NOW. He has made speeches catering to the very groups from which you say we need to free our foreign policy. I believe he always has and always will speak to the room. Sadly again, he is a convincing speaker, it has made him millions. I, however, am not convinced by words alone. The only actions I have seen him take seem calculated. He has been running for the Presidency since Gore dropped him as VP contender.

Many claim we have such a richness in candidates. If we could blend them into one, that might be true. Life seldom gives us what we want and I know the GOPers are worse by far. I want a candidate who is not just a milder form of them.

[dave_p]

38. So much for the old war... what about the next?

"Iraq’s destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel"
- John Edwards, 17 Sep 2002

"For years I have argued that the United States has not been doing enough to deal with the growing threat in Iran.... Iran is the greatest external threat facing Israel"
- John Edwards, 6 Mar 2006

[AtomicKitten]

62. It is interesting that you are squishy on matters of war

... especially when you have NO MERCY on issues that are more amenable to mitigating factors. That has really in essence more to do with factoring in cult of personality than the issue itself. In my mind this could not be clearer.

[IndianaGreen]

82. The day you don a military uniform, that's the day you can talk to me about being "squishy on war"

It's bad enough we have to deal with Republican chicken hawks!

[AtomicKitten]

88. whatever you say ...

This is one of those occasions when lobbing an off-topic epithet with feigned outrage has not changed the subject.

Get back to us when you have an explanation for being allegedly anti-war and supporting the Democrat who was so convincing in his case for war on Iraq - in spite of being on the Intelligence Committee and privy to the fact that the WH was presenting faulty data to America - he was quoted on the State Department's website.

[venable]

11. I am aware of the depth of his support for the IWR

and I am, and always have been, against the war.

Yet, I still support him, for a number of reasons, including my belief is that he is the strongest (outside of Dennis) anti-war candidate.

You ask what would happen if the polls show the public wants to attack Iran. I don't think that would matter, because I believe he made the decision based upon his conversation with Tenet, not based upon polls.

What will prevent him from repeating this error? The same thing that will prevent others - the wisdom bitterly and tragically gained from the atrocity of Iraq.

[Cameron27]

5. This is fascinating.

"the project to stop Saddam" ! The IWR that he co-sponsored? The same IWR that he wrote so highly of that Bush featured it on his website? The resolution that led to the invasion of Iraq and thousands of lives lost for a lie?

The reason that it's being brought up is because, unlike you, some of us feel that this is a significant mistake that Edwards has yet to fully explain. This private meeting with Tenet, no links? Did Tenet speak with others like Durbin? Nevermind, it doesn't matter. Whatever Tenet told Edwards, he had the same contrary evidence that Durbin and Graham had, and yet they voted NO and he voted YES.

This is one of the reasons that some of us cannot support Edwards in the primary. Our opinions are no less valid than yours, and this is still open for discussion.

[1932]

7. I think he also thought that vote was necessary to stop Bush

[illinoisprogressive]

9. that doesn't make sense. I think honestly and not meanly that he did it

for his presidential run.

[venable]

12. I think any decision like this would have complex reasons

and saving lives was, in my estimation, the principal one for edwards and for SOME others who supported the IWR.

on the other hand, it would be naive to forget that all of these people are politicians, so he would - at the very least, consider the political implications. If I thought that this consideration carried much weight, I would not support him the way I do.

[papau]

36. At some point is it not Bush and only Bush that's responsible for the cooked intel that sold the war

n/t

[Cameron27]

39. Those who voted yes, after being given

plenty of evidence that the Intel was indeed *cooked* also bear responsiblity in helping to sell the war, by voting yes on IWR. Those who chose to go further and co-sponsored the resolution and gave great speeches pushing the IWR have even more responsibility.

[papau]

41. Durbin feels guilty for not saying that even the cooked intel was weak.

I agree that I do not understand clearly what Durbin was saying as Jay Rockefeller indicated
that Bush 2001 order restricting full disclosure of the intel to the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, meant that Durbin nor Edwards was told the complete story.

Also, as Discussed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer Sunday, May 6, 2007 "Ex-Analyst Tells a Tale of Twisted Iraq Intelligence" by Elizabeth Sullivan, the intel that was given even Jay Rockefeller as Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a con job - it was intel that was "cull intelligence to “sell” the idea of war with Iraq, says Pillar". "Some on the right pilloried him for “cherry-picking” his critique for political reasons- Yet Pillar’s allegations parallel similar charges about the Iraq war selling job now being made by ex-CIA Director George Tenet." "In January 2003, two months before the Iraq attack, the U.S. intelligence community produced two still-classified “key intelligence community assessments” on challenges that would face whoever ran Iraq after an overthrow, Pillar says. The grim predictions were ignored. Parts of those findings have since been leaked, but Pillar says he eagerly awaits the day when the reports become public, “because I think they will be shown to be pretty much on the mark.” " Pillar “eschews” the word “lie” to describe such comments, but seems to acknowledge they were purposely tailored to mislead -“The main dynamic that was occurring here was not so much a specific factual assertion that was knowingly false, which I think most of us, all would agree, is a lie, but rather the construction of bits and pieces of reporting of varying credibility with the express and obvious purpose of creating an impression that was incorrect.”

As to degrees of guilt - Bush has 100% of the guilt - as does the GOP.

The speeches in favor of something you believe in - albeit based on lies you did not detect as lies - are a problem to the folks that told you the lies - IMHO.

But that is only my opinion, and of course you appear to differ. Looks like we will need to agree to differ on this.

I do give extra points to the Dems that had a head start on distrusting Bush on National Security matters.

[sampsonblk]

40. All backwards

'In spite of all the huffing and puffing then and now, in fact there was no way for Edwards to know that the Director of the CIA was lying or wrong.'

So the ones who were right are still wrong, and the ones who were wrong are still right? Is that about it? At best, Edwards exhibited the worst and most unacceptable lack of skepticism. The rest of us, including yourself, were not nuts. Not then, and not now. We looked at the evidence available in the public sphere, and concluded rightly that something was terribly amiss. John Edwards, having more experience and being closer to the info sources than we are, didn't figure that out - until now.

[Clark2008]

73. Because OTHER senators listened to the testimony of

learned military and regional scholars and they DIDN'T make the same mistake as Edwards.

Other Democrats, like Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone.

That's why she keeps telling you that Edwards supported the war. He did, when other people - other Democrats - with the same intelligence didn't.

[AtomicKitten]

89. I seriously think that does not compute with some.

Whether that is purposeful or simply convenient, I can't say.

[Tellurian]

4. My question is:

why wasn't the Intelligence from the Intel Committee shared equally with the rest of Congress? My understanding is the members of the Intel Committee was different, contrary to what was or was not known regarding WMD and Bush's Lying, to the rest of the Dems in Congress. Do I have this right? At least that is my understanding of the situation at the time.

And the reason Durbin voted "NO" to the War!


edited to add the Durbin comment-

[AtomicKitten]

10. My answer is:

Dick Durbin on the Senate floor: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor/

It is my understanding the Intel Comm info was, in fact, different than that shared with the rest of Congress because of this:

10/5/01: Bush Pulls Security Clearances From 92 Senators

“We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest.” - President George W. Bush, 10/9/01

President Bush’s defiant statement came in the immediate weeks following 9/11, as the administration clamped down on the information it provided to Congress. President Bush issued an order limiting access to classified intelligence only to 8 members of Congress — the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/bush-pulls-security/

The bottom line here is that John Edwards as a member of the Intelligence Commitee had the real intelligence and still voted yes on the IWR, worse he co-sponsored the bill, and even worse yet he rallied for a war he knew was based on bullshit.

I realize he has apologized profusely, but Gawd Almighty that's a lot to apologize for IMO. It quite frankly takes my breath away.

[jenmarie]

76. and unfortunately, it's not the ONLY thing

he showed poor judgement on. (Although I don't think this particular vote was poor judgement, but politically motivated.) There are too many other things in addition to this that scare me about him. From his support of mountain top removal in mining, support of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mt, his vote for the Patriot Act (which was in direct violation of his oath to defend our Constitution), on down to his judgement calls in personal matters.

Common sense should have told him that since his platform is 2 Americas/Poverty, he maybe should have tamped down on over-the-top spending during his campaign. That maybe it could appear hypocritical. He either never though about it, or... what? Didn't think it should matter? Well, obviously to many it doesn't, but I don't understand how he couldn't see that it would be painted that way and yeah, some would see it as hypocracy.

All in all, I find it strange that someone who made his fortune partially due to his ability to charm people into believing him is so trusted by so many when his actions in the Senate are in such direct contrast to his words now.

I believe there are enough people with serious (valid) concerns about him that he wouldn't win the GE. I wish he would just retire to his beautiful new home with his beautiful family and awesome wife and consider himself a winner.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. like you I defended Edwards on house, hair and bloggers. However

I have to admit one of my biggest problems with this is that Edwards has gotten a pretty free pass here and on other blogs while Dick Durbin has been raked over the coals.

[venable]

13. Durbin's confession does NOT mean others had his info or ONLY his info

and it's unfair of Durbin to include others in his confession.

There was not consistent, uniform info to any two people, I would guess.

Did Durbin have Tenet say to him that the WMD was a certainty? Edwards did.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Link?

The Intelligence Committee had the intelligence, Dick Durbin makes reference to that in his speech on the Senate Floor referenced above, and I have never heard anything about Tenet speaking privately to Edwards. But still that seems beside the point because Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee and was privy to the info that contradicted the certainty of WMD which you are alleging Tenet told Edwards (sans link). In fact, Tenet says slam dunk was taken out of context and he never said WMD were a certainty. :shrug:

Dianne Feinstein (my Senator btw) was on the Intelligence Committee, voted yea on the IWR, and her hubby got a $600 million contract (which makes me throw up a little in my mouth): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL

What was Edwards' angle? Why did he drive the train to war so convincingly that the State Department posted his OpEd rallying for war on their website?

The answers to those questions are very worrisome to some Democrats. If it doesn't concern you, no worries.

[Tellurian]

15. And John Kerry specifically picked Edwards to be his running mate in 04'

This plot is thickening to the point of overwhelming- If Kerry had fought for the presidency in 04', John Edwards would have been sitting in the WH right now. Can anyone convince me John Kerry didn't know, with Edwards as his VP pick, what Edwards knew, to get us all into Iraq? When Kerry had the chance to End this War during his campaign, with Edwards at his side, why didn't he come clean and do it?

What did he know and when did he know it?

[JI7]

16. when Kerry had a chance to end the war during his campaign ?

if someone can end a war during a campaign, why wont Hillary do it now since she is in a campaign ?

what did Kerry know and when did he know it ? he is one of those who is trying to get as much info released on all of this.

this post is really pathetic.

maybe i can ask what did Hillary know and when did she know it considering her husband has been hanging out with Pappy Bush so much and said he loves him and them considering Bill to be a part of the family. surely they would have told him and he would have told Hillary about everything.

[Tellurian]

17. yeah, try to spin this one away from Kerry..

Lets hear the spin on this one..Kerry was married to Edwards for a year out from the election. Are you trying to tell me Kerry didn't know what Edwards knew? Why didn't he come clean when he had the chance? It would have blown the election wide open. The Dems
would have won easily. There'd be NO OHIO BS- The People would have Frog marched Bush and Cheney out of the White House!

This has nothing to do with Hillary. She wasn't on the Intel Committee. Your favorite son was-

[JI7]

18. Kerry said the Bush administration mislead about intelligence

Edwards says that is not true.

and Hillary IS actually married to Bill who has been adopted by the Bush family. it's about as relevant if not more than your trying to make this into something about Kerry .

especially since you ignore all Kerry is doing such as trying to get info released, support for Feingold,and anything else he said during the campaign.

the only favorite son i have that was on the intel committee is Durbin.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JI7]

20. what the fuck ??????????

[Adelante]

30. Not a marriage made in heaven apparently

That confessional stance has won Edwards considerable credit with Democrats.

Yet as John Kerry’s 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. ...

…one man who had been adamant that Kerry shouldn’t disavow his vote was Edwards. Although Edwards wasn’t with Kerry that day, the two had been traveling by train together over the weekend. Once Bush issued his challenge, the campaign knew the press would soon put the question to the Democratic duo, and so, prior to an event on that Aug. 7 in La Junta, Colo., Kerry and Edwards and various aides huddled to discuss possible responses.

“I specifically remember Edwards having a very distinct take,” says one person in attendance, who paraphrases Edwards’s argument this way: “We need to stick to this. We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war. That’s what the Republicans want us to do.”

Adds a senior adviser who was there: “There was a discussion about how to answer the question: ‘Was your vote on Iraq a mistake?’ John Edwards had a very strong opinion that we should not waver, and it would show a sign of weakness if we did.” A third source confirms those accounts.

In late September, Kerry struck a different tone at New York University, calling the Iraq war a “profound diversion” from the war on terrorism and making it clear he would not have gone to war knowing Iraq had neither WMD nor ties to Al Qaeda. In campaign discussions preparatory to that speech, Edwards is said to have argued again for sticking by the war resolution votes.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/17/john_edwardss_changing_tune_on_the_iraq_vote/

Hillary's 2008 and Kerry's 2004 stances are not dissimilar, but Kerry is not running in 2008. It's Hillary and Edwards who need to be answering for their IWR votes, and Edwards has the added burden of co-sponsorship. Because of the prewar intelligence investigations, Edwards as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee is first up, but Hillary's turn to answer for her IWR vote is just around the corner. I imagine Edwards will have to see to it. Fine by me. The more sunshine the better. Trying to shine light on suppressed information on prewar intelligence, who knew what and when, is something greatly to John Kerry's credit.

[geek tragedy]

32. Kerry was much more responsible in the debate

over the IWR in 2002.

Unfortunately, he lacked the skill of Hillary and Edwards in using rhetoric to obscure their shameful records.

[ProSense]

34. Huh?

Skilled?

Kerry beat Edwards in the 2004 primary and won the anti-war vote. Kerry is the one who advanced the debate about a deadline with his legislation.

Hillary is having a hell of a time convincing anti-war Democrats that she's genuine and Edwards is benefiting from Hillary's indecisiveness on the war.

[Adelante]

42. Kerry is the much better debater

And has done more to advance the cause of withdrawal, as well as transparency. But I have to agree with geek tragedy that Hillary and Edwards are more skilled in spinning their IWR YES votes and therefore more effective. Not that I think it's a good thing.

[ProSense]

46. Spinning the vote:

Kerry doesn't have to. He has long said and continues to say why he voted the way he did, and has said his mistake was trusting Bush. As for being effective in delivering his message, that goes to your first point.

So I agree, Hillary and Edwards are better at spinning.

[karynnj]

58. Kerry is a very skilled speaker , but he wasn't trying to obscure anything

His vote was an error in trusting Bush to use the authority given as he said he would. Kerry, unlike Hillary and Edwards, was NEVER for the war itself. He spoke of Iraq being the "wrong war", that it was not a "war of last resort", that "Bush misled us into war".

In 2005, he was the Senator who demanded the investigation into the data manipulation be done - including looking into the Downing Street Memos. (I wonder if Brown as Prime Minister will help Kerry get to the truth - per the London Times, they are good friends.) hillary Clinton was NOT one of the Senators who signed for this. You would thing that those who were deceived would be the first to sign.

By the way, neither Hillary or Edwards have really hidden their records. There are still questions for Edwards as he has said both that he was deceived and that he wasn't - as he was speaking of a fixed moment in time - only one is true. Hillary, follows Bill Clinton, in using Kerry's position on the vote in 2004. In Kerry's case, when Bush clearly violated what he said he would do, he spoke out saying it was not a war of last resort and saying not to rush to war. He was called anti-war before the war started.

[karynnj]

54. This is sheer nonsense

Kerry was "married to Edwards a year out from the election - NO, they were competitors. Kerry was and still is married to the lovely Teresa.

Kerry was Not on the intelligence committee, so no he had less information, just like Hillary. There was one difference though - Kerry spoke out when Bush abandoned his promises to exhaust the diplomacy and go to war only as a last resort. Hillary did NOT.

Kerry said we were mislead into war at least a million times. In 2004, it was KNOWN the intelligence was wrong, it was NOT provable that it was fabricated. Kerry did speak of those things that were known such as the Niger information.

[venable]

23. same stuff for the billionth time

If one believes that Edwards had no 'angle' other than a misguided approach to what he thought would be saving lives, then there ARE no more questions to be answered, other than what does this prepare him to do in the future.

As to the conversation between Tenet and Edwards: There is no link - I have written this elsewhere, and you can believe or discount what I say: In the run-up to the vote I was lobbying as much as I could for him to vote NO. I was in close contact with people close to him, and we argued this out pretty comprehensively. I was told, finally, that 'if the WMD were not real, and nukes not imminent, then Tenet has just lied in a private meeting with the Senator'. Because no one at that point would believe that the CIA Director would be lying, Edwards made the only decision he could - he voted, and acted, to help bring down Saddam. He thought he was saving lives.

Let me repeat, for the zillionth time: Armed with information from the Director of the CIA, he did what he thought would save human lives.


So, I don't care what Durbin says, I know what was going on for Edwards, and I know what he thought he was doing - saving lives - and I know what he based this on - the CIA Director telling him the WMD were real and ready.

So, no, I don't have the worries you do, because, unlike many here, I don't see Edwards having an 'angle'.

And why in hell don't people be honest and call this Bush's war. Why is it Edwards' or Durbin's or Kerry's? It's not. It's Bush's war. There are few modern wars that one can put more firmly at one person's feet than this war, at Bush's feet. Why the charade? I don't support HRC, but I do not think for a second that she would lead us into a war like this, nor Kerry, nor Edwards, nor any single Dem outside of Joementum.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Considering that you offer no proof beyond your "connections"

To the insiders in Edwards' campaign and the fact that you claim to know what Edwards "thought", you are correct in assuming that we "can" discount what you say.

You have taken a whole lot of liberties in your paragraph, considering anything to document anything beyond your personal word as someone who has supported Edwards through thick and thin!

You stated....
"As to the conversation between Tenet and Edwards: There is no link - I have written this elsewhere, and you can believe or discount what I say: In the run-up to the vote I was lobbying as much as I could for him to vote NO. I was in close contact with people close to him, and we argued this out pretty comprehensively. I was told, finally, that 'if the WMD were not real, and nukes not imminent, then Tenet has just lied in a private meeting with the Senator'. Because no one at that point would believe that the CIA Director would be lying, Edwards made the only decision he could - he voted, and acted, to help bring down Saddam. He thought he was saving lives.

Let me repeat, for the zillionth time: Armed with information from the Director of the CIA, he did what he thought would save human lives.


So, I don't care what Durbin says,

I know what was going on for Edwards, and I know what he thought he was doing"


So my question becomes, why did John Edwards still believe that going into Iraq was the right thing EVEN after it was clear that no WMDs were in Iraq a whole year after the war had started? Did he still believe that he was saving lives? He certainly did not think he had been "lied" to.....according to his own words on Television (as opposed to your words as to what you say he "thought"!) :shrug:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.
MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWARDS: But now we're getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there's clear inconsistency between what's been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there's a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don't think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn't believe-But you weren't misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn't put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don't-that I don't have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the "don't tread on me and if you don't we'll leave you alone." We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn't get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don't.

I don't think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush's approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn't work with others. He doesn't build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we're seeing what's happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Right.

[AtomicKitten]

69. *

Thanks for the data you supplied that I used in my OP - with props, of course.

[Cameron27]

29. I don't put much stock in an anonymous poster's

unsubstantiated claims, however, even if I wildly speculate that you're right about Tenet, it still doesn't eliminate the NIE report Edwards was given that contained strongly contradictory information for all the evidence the bushies were pushing.

It doesn't explain his judgment then, or later, when he publicly stated that he would have voted the same way even knowing there were no WMD.

It doesn't explain why in 2004 as the VP candidate, he was pushing Kerry to stick by their yes votes and not admit it was a mistake.

No one doubts that this is Bush's war, but anyone on the Intel Committee bears a responsibility for their votes and should be held accountable, and Edwards has more to answer on this than those not on the committee.

As far as trusting his judgment, after the Iraq vote Edwards came out swinging hard in his speech about Iran during the Herzliya Conference in Israel which he later tempered in his interview with Ezra Klein.

I don't think he knows his ass from his elbow about foreign policy, and I think that he's been politically motivated when making his past and present policy decisions.

/didn't see FrenchieCat's much better post when I hit reply.

[Pithy Cherub]

31. Because Edwards is certified Stupid

and apologizes for giving a Village Idiot the power to wreck the world, is not a platform to speak to his judgment. It is on the record, in the Books of History yet to be authored and incontrovertible that Edwards neither listened to his inner voice or his conscience as he teamed up to give Bush war powers. Edwards was in bed with Bush giving him that authority, no way to clean it up or pretty it up. Edwards failed, again.

As to his new/latest reincarnation, his words convince some people he has reformed his mistaken past to embrace a new reality. He didn't reform until he saw his way clear to run for president again with his eXtreme Presidential Makeover. Not good enough, not smart enough, not true enough, but those that like pretty words and discount judgment are free to vote for the next Village Idiot. It is what makes America the Land of the Free. HRC is just as complicit and duplicit.

[AtomicKitten]

49. you do have a way with words

I've had that "icky" feeling for quite some time and it always comes back to not being able to swallow one iota of the Iraq Backstep. I don't have the burden of being capable of being ga-ga over a candidate due to age and a lifetime of hard knocks, but I'm actually glad for that because it leaves me free to see this clearly enough to know our party should never have signed on to the SS Bushit in any way, shape, or form, and particularly and most certainly not on matters of war - all else conceivably forgivable, this not so much.

On edit: Happy Mother's Day to you and everybody at DU.

[Pithy Cherub]

53. A Clear Conscience

is what I seek in a candidate. Compromised Character on matters of War & Peace make one a non-entity in my eyes for president.

As always, thank you for your kind words and llife-lived introspection. May the original intent of Mother's Day, Peace, follow you and everyone else always.

:pals:

[papau]

37. I have also noted the cooked intel makes it solely Bush's war - but we need to fight each other it

seems as to who was too trusting of the dozen folks feeding twisted intel to Congress.

I agree that I do not understand clearly what Durbin was saying as Jay Rockefeller indicated

that Bush 2001 order restricting full disclosure of the intel to the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, meant that Durbin nor Edwards was told the complete story.

Also, as Discussed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer Sunday, May 6, 2007 "Ex-Analyst Tells a Tale of Twisted Iraq Intelligence" by Elizabeth Sullivan, the intel that was given even Jay Rockefeller as Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a con job - it was intel that was "cull intelligence to “sell” the idea of war with Iraq, says Pillar". "Some on the right pilloried him for “cherry-picking” his critique for political reasons- Yet Pillar’s allegations parallel similar charges about the Iraq war selling job now being made by ex-CIA Director George Tenet." "In January 2003, two months before the Iraq attack, the U.S. intelligence community produced two still-classified “key intelligence community assessments” on challenges that would face whoever ran Iraq after an overthrow, Pillar says. The grim predictions were ignored. Parts of those findings have since been leaked, but Pillar says he eagerly awaits the day when the reports become public, “because I think they will be shown to be pretty much on the mark.” " Pillar “eschews” the word “lie” to describe such comments, but seems to acknowledge they were purposely tailored to mislead -“The main dynamic that was occurring here was not so much a specific factual assertion that was knowingly false, which I think most of us, all would agree, is a lie, but rather the construction of bits and pieces of reporting of varying credibility with the express and obvious purpose of creating an impression that was incorrect.”

[papau]

33. I agree that I do not understand clearly what Durbin was saying as Jay Rockefeller indicated

that Bush 2001 order restricting full disclosure of the intel to the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, meant that Durbin nor Edwards was told the complete story.

Also, as Discussed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer Sunday, May 6, 2007 "Ex-Analyst Tells a Tale of Twisted Iraq Intelligence" by Elizabeth Sullivan, the intel that was given even Jay Rockefeller as Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a con job - it was intel that was "cull intelligence to “sell” the idea of war with Iraq, says Pillar". "Some on the right pilloried him for “cherry-picking” his critique for political reasons- Yet Pillar’s allegations parallel similar charges about the Iraq war selling job now being made by ex-CIA Director George Tenet." "In January 2003, two months before the Iraq attack, the U.S. intelligence community produced two still-classified “key intelligence community assessments” on challenges that would face whoever ran Iraq after an overthrow, Pillar says. The grim predictions were ignored. Parts of those findings have since been leaked, but Pillar says he eagerly awaits the day when the reports become public, “because I think they will be shown to be pretty much on the mark.” " Pillar “eschews” the word “lie” to describe such comments, but seems to acknowledge they were purposely tailored to mislead -“The main dynamic that was occurring here was not so much a specific factual assertion that was knowingly false, which I think most of us, all would agree, is a lie, but rather the construction of bits and pieces of reporting of varying credibility with the express and obvious purpose of creating an impression that was incorrect.”

[Adelante]

44. Link to Cleveland Plain Dealer, please, if you have it

I would like to read the entire article. Thanks.

[papau]

45. link below

http://www.cleveland.com/news/esullivan/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1178354731234600.xml&coll=2

[Adelante]

47. Thank you, I will read it

One point, unless I don't understanding something about ranking members on committees. Rockfeller is now the chairman since November 2006; when the Repugs had the majority, Rockefeller was the ranking member. In October 2002, the Dems had the majority and Bob Graham was the chairman, but would have been the ranking member had the Repugs held the majority. Again, I might not have it exactly right, but I believe Rockefeller was not the ranking member at the time of the IWR vote. Graham was until he left the Senate to run in the 2004 primaries.

Bob Graham's November 2005 op-ed talks about the NIE he and Durbin wrangled out of Tenet for the Intelligence Committee. He notes that Senators at large would not have had access, (I'm not entirely convinced, since information was coming from many sources, but okay). I see no reason, from what Graham says here, to think that members of the Intelligence Committee itself were shielded from the information he had as chairman. Durbin, obviously, was not, since it was he who wrote a letter to Graham asking for it, although Durbin was an ordinary member of the intel committee and not ranking or chairman.

What I Knew Before the Invasion
By Bob Graham

Sunday, November 20, 2005; Page B07

-snip

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

[papau]

51. The Bush directive stopped intel flow to any but the listed persons - so the listed persons broke

the law if they told anyone.

As to the who is on first question:

Bob Graham was the Chairman of Senate Intelligence Commmittee 2001–2003, and followed in that role by the GOP's Pat Roberts of Kansas. Grapham was ill much of 2003 (heart) and retired at the end of his term (a couple of weeks post 12.31.2004). As to ranking member after he left, it was Rockefeller.

Durbin was never permitted to see the total intel over that period, unless someone broke the law and is not confessing that fact just yet. "What I Knew Before the Invasion" By Bob Graham is an excellent summary why we Dems should not be beating up other Dems over the IWR -

BUT AGAIN- extra points to Obama and the dozen or so Senators and others that saw that Bush could not be trusted with national security before the rest of us did.

[Adelante]

55. I am not sure about "stopped intel flow" - in practice

The Bush directive stopped intel flow to any but the listed persons - so the listed persons broke the law if they told anyone.

-->Who were those people by name if you know?

-->What is the date of the Bush directive if you know?

As to the who is on first question:

Bob Graham was the Chairman of Senate Intelligence Commmittee 2001–2003, and followed in that role by the GOP's Pat Roberts of Kansas. Grapham was ill much of 2003 (heart) and retired at the end of his term (a couple of weeks post 12.31.2004). As to ranking member after he left, it was Rockefeller.

-->Therefore, Rockefeller was not the ranking member in 2002 at the time of the IWR, as I said, although somehow he was able to view the NIE, along with Graham. If Rockefeller could, I don't see why Durbin couldn't or Levin or Edwards, or anyone on the committee.

Durbin was never permitted to see the total intel over that period, unless someone broke the law and is not confessing that fact just yet.

-->It was Durbin who requested the NIE for the Intelligence Committee:

CNN 9/12/02

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it is impossible for lawmakers and other government officials to adequately answer the questions about Iraq because the Bush administration has not yet produced a comprehensive threat assessment and may be "missing key intelligence information."

Durbin wrote CIA Director George Tenet Tuesday, as well as Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, and ranking Republican Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, asking that a the CIA put together a so-called "National Intelligence Estimate," an authoritative written judgment on national security regarding Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/senators.iraq/index.html

On October 10, 2002, Durbin said:

I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge... There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon."

http://durbin.senate.gov/issues/iraq101002a.cfm

In August 2005, CNN special "Dead Wrong, Inside an Intelligence Meltdown":

DURBIN: I walked out of those <2002 intelligence committee> hearings having heard something that was truthful and accurate and picked up the newspaper and saw someone from the White House or administration has just said the opposite, or they've said it much differently. I am bound by law not to go to the press and say, something's wrong here. I can't do it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/21/cp.01.html

So even if the Intelligence Committee is not in the class of the Senate at large when it comes to access, even if restricted by Bush's directive, whoever did see the NIE would surely have come back and reported to the committee. It's what they were there doing, after all, their whole reason for being.

Bob Graham on Frontline:

Well, the next big chapter in my involvement in this begins in the late summer of 2002. We had a meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a closed meeting with Director Tenet, and several of us ask him as he was presenting the case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, "What did the National Intelligence Estimate say about this issue?"

-snip

I was stunned. So we immediately utilized congressional authority. We said, "We want to have a national intelligence assessment." Tenet was reticent to do that. He said: "We're doing a lot of other things. Our staff is stretched thin." We said: "We don't care. This is the most important decision that we as members of Congress and that the people of America are likely to make in the foreseeable future. We want to have the best understanding of what it is we're about to get involved with."

-snip

Well, let's distinguish between two stages. The first stage was the classified version, which was tilted towards weapons of mass destruction but contained a number of areas of disagreement with that conclusion. We asked that that classified version be scrubbed; that is, any security-related information be redacted and then the rest of it be made available to the American people.

Well, what we got three days later was not a redacted version of the original classified report but a wholly new report, which had eliminated all of the conditions and doubts and was a full-scale argument for weapons of mass destruction: imminent threat; we don't get Saddam Hussein now, you're responsible for putting the American people at risk. I was incensed at that point that the American people were being told one thing, and we, in a classified situation, were prohibited from saying anything about it, were being told a significantly different assessment of how sure we were of Saddam Hussein's capabilities, and particularly his intentions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/graham.html

"What I Knew Before the Invasion" By Bob Graham is an excellent summary why we Dems should not be beating up other Dems over the IWR -

-->I disagree. I think it provides an excellent reason why the party should not nominate an IWR YES voter. Supporting them on this reduces the credibility on national security necessary for a win in the GE.

BUT AGAIN- extra points to Obama and the dozen or so Senators and others that saw that Bush could not be trusted with national security before the rest of us did.

-->23 Senators who voted NO to the IWR, five of them on the Intelligence Committee.

* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Richard Durbin (D-IL)
* Russell Feingold (D-WI)
* Robert Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
* James Jeffords (I-VT)
* Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)

[Adelante]

57. I see one of my initial questions was answered above

By AtomicKitten

10/5/01: Bush Pulls Security Clearances From 92 Senators

“We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest.” - President George W. Bush, 10/9/01

President Bush’s defiant statement came in the immediate weeks following 9/11, as the administration clamped down on the information it provided to Congress. President Bush issued an order limiting access to classified intelligence only to 8 members of Congress — the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/bush-pulls-security /

[ProSense]

24. Hillary says initially backing the war in Iraq doesn't matter,

here.

[papau]

43. Cooked intel makes it Bush's war and no one elses - but I give extra points to Dems that had a

head start on distrusting Bush on national security matters.

I agree that I do not understand clearly what Durbin was saying as Jay Rockefeller indicated
that Bush 2001 order restricting full disclosure of the intel to the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, meant that Durbin nor Edwards was told the complete story.

Also, as Discussed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer Sunday, May 6, 2007 "Ex-Analyst Tells a Tale of Twisted Iraq Intelligence" by Elizabeth Sullivan, the intel that was given even Jay Rockefeller as Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a con job - it was intel that was "cull intelligence to “sell” the idea of war with Iraq, says Pillar". "Some on the right pilloried him for “cherry-picking” his critique for political reasons- Yet Pillar’s allegations parallel similar charges about the Iraq war selling job now being made by ex-CIA Director George Tenet." "In January 2003, two months before the Iraq attack, the U.S. intelligence community produced two still-classified “key intelligence community assessments” on challenges that would face whoever ran Iraq after an overthrow, Pillar says. The grim predictions were ignored. Parts of those findings have since been leaked, but Pillar says he eagerly awaits the day when the reports become public, “because I think they will be shown to be pretty much on the mark.” " Pillar “eschews” the word “lie” to describe such comments, but seems to acknowledge they were purposely tailored to mislead -“The main dynamic that was occurring here was not so much a specific factual assertion that was knowingly false, which I think most of us, all would agree, is a lie, but rather the construction of bits and pieces of reporting of varying credibility with the express and obvious purpose of creating an impression that was incorrect.”

[SaveElmer]

50. It doesn't...unless you make your "apology" a campaign issue...

Which he has done...

Just like I could care less if a Republican is gay or not...unless they have a history of voting for anti-gay legislation...

[ProSense]

25. Kick! n/t

[geek tragedy]

27. Shameless panderer then, a shameless panderer now.

John Edwards is a unifying candidate only in that, at one point or another, he has agreed on Iraq with everyone from Richard Perle to Cindy Sheehan.

[Tinksrival]

71. That's how I read it.

I remember very early in the '04 primaries, Edwards gave an interview on his bus and I swear he sounded just like big Dick and shrub. "I don't regret my vote. Sadam is a bad man that must be contained." Blah blah blah...... That is when I checked him off my list. He just doesn't have what we desperately need to lead us out of this cluster fuck.

[Clarkie1]

48. K & R. Good Research. nt

Oh, Damn. I posted under my old screename by mistake...need to log out of this computer and log back in!

[AtomicKitten]

63. *

:hi:

[Adelante]

79. I don't think DU allows two screen names

Have you checked with admin on that? If you're taken for a sock puppet, you could get the tombstone.

[eridani]

52. What the "Yes" Dems were really afraid of--

They knew that the Iraqis were pretty well beaten down by the first Gulf War and the sanctions. What that means is that the extent of Iraqi resistance was pretty unpredictable. It's certainly possible that they might have tolerated foreign occupation as no worse than living under Saddam. If they had, the basic policy of expanding the US empire would have been regarded as a success, and cheered by most of the people who are now opposed to continued occupation, and the naysayers would have been politically screwed.

[The Magistrate]

77. An Excellent Analysis, Ma'am

You have brought out a salient point that is rarely touched on here.

[karynnj]

81. Of the yes voters, this would not apply to Kerry

His comments before the war started of it not being a war of last resort and his comment after the war started when 70% of America favored it, that we should have let diplomacy have more chance (not to mention saying we need regime change here) would have left him labeled as anti-war if the war had gone as you describe.

In his case, his vote was very likely for exactly the reason he gave.

[eridani]

90. Are you sure he wouldn't have changed his mind and backed "success"--

--regardless of the fact that successfully conquering another country to strip it of its resources is vile and immoral?

[Cameron27]

84. See post 60...

"Given the nature of the demographics of Iraq, the make-up of the Middle East region, and the dynamics of the Sunni-Shi'ite problems of Iran and its neighbors, any person believing that good could come out this invasion was lacking in good judgment."

"...General Hoar who told the Senate straight up that this action would result in a civil war (urban warfare) in Iraq."

I believe that there was more testimony warning about this, but I have to go back and look it up. However, the Senate Intelligence Committee was given documentation about the lack of evidence for WMD, and the Niger yellowcake story, so no one had an excuse for voting yes.

[Adelante]

59. This may be helpful

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=com...

(8:00pm) October 1, 2002: CIA Delivers National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to Congress

The CIA delivers the classified version of its 90-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) to Congress. It is available for viewing by Congresspersons under tight security in the offices of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. But no more than a half-dozen or so members actually come to review the NIE, despite the urgings of Peter Zimmerman, the scientific advisor to the Senate foreign relations committee, who is one of the first to look at the document. Zimmerman was stunned to see how severely the dissenting opinions of the Energy Department and the State Department undercut the conclusions that were so boldly stated in the NIE’s “Key Judgments” section. He later recalls, “Boy, there’s nothing in there. If anybody takes the time to actually read this, they can’t believe there actually are major WMD programs.” One of the lawmakers who does read the document is Senator Bob Graham (D-Fl). Like Zimmerman, he is disturbed by the document’s “many nuances and outright dissents.” But he is unable to say anything about them in public because the NIE is classified.
Entity Tags: US Congress, Peter Zimmerman, Bob Graham, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 2, 2002: Closed-Door Congressional Testimony by Top CIA Officials Undercut Conclusions Made in NIE

In a congressional closed-door hearing, CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was released the day before (see (8:00pm) October 1, 2002). When Tenet is asked whether the agency has any of its own spies on the ground in Iraq who can verify the NIE’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged arsenal of illicit weapons, he replies that the agency does not. “I was stunned,” Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) later recalls. At some point during the hearing, Levin asks McLaughlin: “If didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?” McLaughlin responds that under those circumstances “the likelihood… would be low.” But the probability of Hussein using such weapons would increase, McLaughlin says, if the US initiates an attack. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) asks McLaughlin whether he has read the British white paper (see September 24, 2002) on Iraq and whether he disagrees with any of its conclusions. McLaughlin says, “The one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We’ve looked at those reports and we don’t think they are very credible…” Graham and Levin ask the CIA to release a declassified version of the NIE so the public will be aware of the dissenting opinions in the document and so members of Congress can have something to refer to during their debates on the Iraq war resolution. The CIA will comply with the request and release a declassified version of the document two days later (see October 4, 2002).
Entity Tags: Jon Kyl, Carl Levin, George J. Tenet, John E. McLaughlin, Bob Graham
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 4, 2002: CIA Releases Public Version of National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq

The CIA releases a 25-page declassified version of its October 1 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) and posts it on the agency’s website for public viewing. The document, titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs,” presents a very different assessment of the threat posed by Iraq than the original document. Printed on slick glossy magazine-style paper, and full of colorful maps, graphs, tables, and photos, the document contains few of the caveats and nuances that are in the classified version. Nor does it include the dissenting opinions of the Energy Department’s in-house intelligence agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center. Paul Pillar, the principal author of the paper, will later admit, “In retrospect, we shouldn’t have done that white paper at all.” Instead of intelligence analysis, the “paper was policy advocacy,” he admits.
Entity Tags: Paul R. Pillar, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 4, 2002: Senator Angry over Omissions in CIA White Paper

When Senator Bob Graham reads the CIA’s white paper on Iraq, a document written for public consumption that was supposed to have been an accurate summary of the agency’s recently released NIE (see October 1, 2002), he begins “to question whether the White House telling the truth—or even an interest in knowing the truth,” he later says. The document includes none of the dissenting opinions or caveats that were in the NIE, and therefore makes the CIA’s evidence against Saddam Hussein appear much stronger than it actually is. When Graham calls Tenet to ask what happened, the CIA director becomes defensive and accuses the senator of questioning his professionalism and patriotism. Graham then sends the CIA a letter requesting that the agency declassify the dissenting opinions as well as the passages that contained more nuanced and cautionary language. He also requests that the agency declassify his October 2 exchange (see October 2, 2002) with Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin concerning the NIE. In that exchange, McLaughlin had conceded that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein launching an attack with weapons of mass destruction were “low.”
Entity Tags: Bob Graham, George J. Tenet, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

* * * * * * INSERT

10/5/01: Bush Pulls Security Clearances From 92 Senators

“We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest.” - President George W. Bush, 10/9/01

President Bush’s defiant statement came in the immediate weeks following 9/11, as the administration clamped down on the information it provided to Congress. President Bush issued an order limiting access to classified intelligence only to 8 members of Congress — the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/bush-pulls-security /

* * * * *

October 7, 2002: CIA Declassifies Some Iraq Intelligence at Senator’s Request

In response to a letter from Senator Bob Graham of the Senate Intelligence Committee (see October 4, 2002), the CIA agrees to declassify three passages from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) that said Saddam Hussein is unlikely to use chemical or biological weapons unless he is attacked. The CIA also agrees to release a portion of the October 2 exchange between Graham and Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, in which McLaughlin stated that the probability that Saddam would initiate and attack was low (see October 2, 2002). Finally, in response to Graham’s request for additional information on alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the CIA says its “understanding of the relationship… is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information… received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.”
Entity Tags: George J. Tenet, Bob Graham
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion

[Cameron27]

61. By the time Bush

pulled the security clearance on Oct. 5, 2002, the Senate Intel Committee already had the 90 page NIE report confirming Saddam had no WMD; on Oct. 2, 2002 a day later, they learned that the Niger yellowcake story was false.

No excuses for voting yes, certainly no excuse for co-sponsoring Lieberman's amendment.

[Adelante]

64. Fairly horrifying also

That only six Senators and three Representatives went to view the NIE before Bush pulled the plug. Graham is mentioned as one, but I wonder who else?

[AtomicKitten]

65. this was a watershed moment

... that separated the wheat from the chaff, and I think we citizens would be remiss if we didn't pull up our socks and make an informed decision about our leaders. IMO supporting this detour in Iraq was a mistake of monster proportions that cannot be excused for such reasons as being misled or bamboozled; in fact, that makes it worse.

[Cameron27]

66. Apparently some didn't bother to read the damned thing,

how's that for an excuse?

[AtomicKitten]

67. yikes

:scared:

[Adelante]

80. After a night's sleep

I see that Bush directive was dated 10/5/01, not 10/5/02.

[Cameron27]

83. I didn't notice the date either,

but the Senate Intelligence Committee did get the 90 page NIE document on Oct. 1, 2002 that showed Saddam had no WMD, and the yellowcake story was disputed the next day in the closed-door session. No matter what else Bush's directive prevented others from knowing, based on the information they had, there still was no excuse for voting yes.

[Adelante]

85. I'm wondering now if the Bush directive was even in effect for 2002 NIE

This fellow for instance. Not even the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was on the 2001 list, but an advisor to that committee gets in in 2002?

But no more than a half-dozen or so members actually come to review the NIE, despite the urgings of Peter Zimmerman, the scientific advisor to the Senate foreign relations committee, who is one of the first to look at the document.

I agree, though, the Intelligence Committe had the document in hand; even if the rest of the Senate had the option of looking at it, but may not have done so.

[Adelante]

86. Correction: He got to read it TWICE

Transcript

American Enterprise Institute

September 7, 2006

-snip

And I want to talk about the national intelligence estimate on Iraq that was submitted to the Congress in secret on October 1, 2002, about 10 days before the vote on whether or not we should authorize the President to go to war in Iraq. That NIE, portions of which have since been declassified after the war, of course had the views of all the US intelligence agencies about what was known and what was not known about Iraq weapons of mass destruction. And if you forgive me I’m just going to do a very short reading of one portion of the book, in which we highlight what happened when that NIE went up to Congress.

We talked to - this is a passage that deals with the recollections of Peter Zimmerman, who was the scientific adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is eagerly awaiting the NIE because he thought this was a crucial document that was important to the debate on Iraq. And as soon as he could, Peter Zimmerman the scientific adviser rushed to the US capital to read the CIA’s classified NIE on Iraq weapons of mass destruction. He read the NIE twice. He was, he later said, astonished. The document offered bold and definitive conclusions in its key judgments. Iraq, it said, “has chemical and biological weapons” and is “reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.” But the actual evidence, he thought, was hardly overpowering.

Deeper in the NIE there was information that undercut those dark conclusions on critical points - the aluminum tubes, the unmanned aerial drums, the nuclear program. Some government agencies had argued that the NIE was wrong. “The dissents left out. They are in bold, almost like flashing lights they are called.” He had read on NIEs before and never seemed to sense as striking as these. I remember thinking he later said, “Boy, there is nothing there. If anybody takes the time to actually read this, they cannot believe there actually are major WMD programs.”

Well, that was classified information submitted to the Congress on the eve of the vote, and yet it would have been a federal crime for Peter Zimmerman to call me up, or call Stuart up, or any other member of the news media and tell them, “Do you know this document we just got has striking dissents on key portions from major US intelligence agencies?” Now maybe somebody can articulate a reason why the dissenting views of key US intelligence agencies on major questions of war and peace should not be shared with the American public, but I’m hard-put to see what the harm to national security would have been.

I do know that had there been a full disclosure of that, had somebody leaked the NIE prior to the vote, it would have certainly caused a major ruckus. It would have certainly gotten a lot of attention, and I would argue it would have contributed substantially to a healthy and honest democratic debate about whether the United States government should take this consequential decision of going to war in Iraq.

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1383/transcript.asp

[Cameron27]

87. Michael A. Ledeen...

Mr. PNAC, possibly Mr. Italian doc forger himself starts the discussion. (just mumbling to myself)

If Zimmerman had that much access as the scientific advisor, then the committee members had to have had equal or greater access.

This is interesting: "Deeper in the NIE there was information that undercut those dark conclusions on critical points - the aluminum tubes, the unmanned aerial drums, the nuclear program."

..."I remember thinking" he later said, “Boy, there is nothing there. If anybody takes the time to actually read this, they cannot believe there actually are major WMD programs.”

edited to add quotation marks

[Adelante]

68. Direct link to "Events Leading to the Iraq War"

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq

[Donna Zen]

60. Who knew what and when:

Yes, these questions are important, although I've believed for a long time that all of them knew that there was no imminent threat, and that bush was chaffing to take the country to war. And isn't that why we were told that we needed to invade a country that had not threatened us? There was an imminent threat...except it was clear that there wasn't. A war of choice. Imagine that.

But beyond this WMD burning questions, there is a more important issue...a greater failure in judgment: the entire idea of invading Iraq was a flawed concept. Given the nature of the demographics of Iraq, the make-up of the Middle East region, and the dynamics of the Sunni-Shi'ite problems of Iran and its neighbors, any person believing that good could come out this invasion was lacking in good judgment.

And they were told. They were warned by serious foreign policy experts on the dangers of this policy, one that did not need to be taken because there was no imminent threat. This was a war of choice.

Those of us who opposed this war weren't dangling love beads. No, we'd actually done our reading; we'd actually looked at a map.

I think it was General Hoar who told the Senate straight up that this action would result in a civil war in Iraq.

There certainly was a massive deception on the part of Tenet, Cheney, bush and their toadies, but there was also a massive failure in judgment on the part of those who grabbed the bait. That is what should weigh heavily on our minds.

[Clark2008]

75. Regarding General Hoar: Yes, he did and he correctly said

that fighting (he called it urban warfare rather than Civil War)... that fighting urban warfare would look like the last brutal 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan."

[ripple]

72. It was purely a political vote

Back then, the Bushies were essentially tagging the weak-kneed traitor label on anyone who disagreed with their agenda. And they made sure they played the fear card hard and heavy, so that the voters would reject any dissenters.

I like that Edwards has apologized for his vote, but to be honest, I don't think any senators who voted "yes" have been particularly candid about their reasons for doing so.

If anything, I hope this will be a lesson for politicians who vote based on polling and their own political aspirations. Obama took a principled and very unpopular stance, but it was the right stance and I think he'll be better off for it.

I still like Edwards over other candidates, but his handling of the IWR continues to disturb me, especially in light of Senator Durbin's revelation.

[Clark2008]

74. There you go pointing out the truth again.

:)

Seriously, you have been a big advocate of NOT knocking ANY Democrat on this board.

I sincerely hope that posters remember this about you and give your post the attention it deserves as a result of your past defenses of Edwards.

I've made it no secret I don't like him - and your points are major reasons why (I, too, couldn't give two shits about his hair or his house) - therefore, my opinion on this matter is known and jaded. Yours, however, comes from the knowledge that you have been MORE THAN FAIR regarding ALL the current candidates.

[Big Pappa]

91. k&r

n/t