Durbin's statement does not make Edwards look bad: the SIC's investigation concluded the intel

[JohnWxy]

provided to Congress before the 'authorization vote' was distorted and made case against Saddam Hussein much stronger than it was.

Referriing to thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3259845&mesg_id=3259845

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511040008

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in its "phase one" report examining the intelligence community's assessments on Iraq, determined that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress in October 2002 misled policymakers. The following are the first two conclusions in the 2004 report:

Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in the analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.

<...>

Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.
~~
~~
(more)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTe that the "intelligence" used by the WH was from Cheney's zealots under protege Doug Feith hidden away in the Pentagon. Sojeof the "intel" ws developed by Naval REseve Officers. Nobody in Feiths group had any training in intelligence. They treated rumours which the intelligence professionals at CIA cast doubt on as solid intel - because that's what Cheney concluded before they were appointed to the White HOuse by the Tony "the Reign-Maker" Scalia.

This is why Edwards said if he know then what he knows now, he wouldnt' have voted to authorize military option. HE was not dissimulating. They fed the intelligence committee phony intel.

[FrenchieCat]

1. So how to do you explain the fact that.....

THE NIE, BOTH THE CLASSIFIED AND DECLASSIFIED VERSIONS WERE BOTH AVAILABLE PRIOR TO THE VOTE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1171

ALTHOUGH SOME MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN THAT A 90 PAGE VERSION EXISTED, THOSE ON THE INTEL COMMITTED CERTAINLY DID KNOW. THE TWO NIE VERSION WERE INCONSISTENT TO EACH OTHER, AND CONGRESSIONAL MEMBER READING THE LONGER CLASSIFIED VERSION WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE INTEL HAD BEEN "COOKED" FOR MARKET TO SELL WAR.

one senator who did read the whole N.I.E., the now retired Democrat Bob Graham of Florida, asked that a declassified version be made public so that Americans could reach their own verdicts on the war's viability, he was rebuffed. Instead the administration released a glossy white paper that trumpeted the N.I.E.'s fictions ("All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons") but not its doubts about much-hyped evidence like aluminum tubes and uranium from Africa.
http://www.beltwaybump.com/2006/10/facing_facts.html

GRAHAM BEGGED HIS FELLOW CONGRESSMENBERS TO READ THE LONG VERSION, BUT MOST DID NOT.
http://nh2008.blogspot.com/2007/04/heated-exchange-for-hillary.html

Sen. Graham has explained that the classified version did not support the later claim by George Tenet that the WMD issue was a "slam dunk." The former Florida senator has also explained that the 25-page declassified document didn't accurately represent the classified NIE; "gone" were the assessments of Saddam Hussein's intentions to use WMD, omitting "a huge component" selectively removed.

And Graham has said the "slick" 25-page document was "substantially different" from the classified document, and selectively put forth risks in favor of invading, while omitting other key information. A "livid" Sen. Graham had complained to George Tenet of the "wildly different impressions" created by the two documents. Sen. Graham's book "Intelligence Matters" recites the contemporaneous evidence available to Sen. Hutchison, had she read it as requested: Saddam Hussein was not going to attack us unless we attacked him. We know the far greater terror risks were known then and served as the focus for the Graham Amendment: war on Al-Qaeda, Abu Nidal, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Liberation Front, and Hezbollah. And, he explains the rational priorities known then: finishing the job in Afghanistan, with General Franks's honest assessment of where the war on terror needed to be fought, known in February of 2002 (Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen) at a time when General Franks disclosed that the intelligence on WMD in Iraq was 'weak.'
http://www.radnofsky.com/blog.php?items_id=1238


Here's the timeline!
(They all knew or could have known if they would have read the classified NIE that Sen. Grahm begged them to read.....and those voting YEAH on the IWR who sat on the intel committee are the most culpable; Republicans AND Democrats)......

(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


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
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_146

[Adelante]

10. I hadn't seen that Radnofsky blog - "Blood is going to be on your hands"

The cafe format permitted a lengthier explanation than in the debate's 90-second answer, so I discussed the classified intelligence contrasted with unclassified at the time of the Iraqi war vote in October 2002, when Sen. Bob Graham begged his colleagues on the floor of the Senate to read the 90 page classified NIE on WMD (as opposed to the 25 pages of declassified materials).

"Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." He warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands"

Sen. Graham has explained that the classified version did not support the later claim by George Tenet that the WMD issue was a "slam dunk." The former Florida senator has also explained that the 25-page declassified document didn't accurately represent the classified NIE; "gone" were the assessments of Saddam Hussein's intentions to use WMD, omitting "a huge component" selectively removed.

And Graham has said the "slick" 25-page document was "substantially different" from the classified document, and selectively put forth risks in favor of invading, while omitting other key information. A "livid" Sen. Graham had complained to George Tenet of the "wildly different impressions" created by the two documents. Sen. Graham's book "Intelligence Matters" recites the contemporaneous evidence available to Sen. Hutchison, had she read it as requested: Saddam Hussein was not going to attack us unless we attacked him. We know the far greater terror risks were known then and served as the focus for the Graham Amendment: war on Al-Qaeda, Abu Nidal, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Liberation Front, and Hezbollah. And, he explains the rational priorities known then: finishing the job in Afghanistan, with General Franks's honest assessment of where the war on terror needed to be fought, known in February of 2002 (Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen) at a time when General Franks disclosed that the intelligence on WMD in Iraq was 'weak.'

[krkaufman]

22. Great post, FrenchieCat.

Your post highlights the problem with Edwards' position of "If I knew then what I know now, I would have voted differently." Edwards could and should have known more then, just like several other members of the S.I.C., but his knowledge or judgement fell short.

Has Edwards ever stated whether he read the full NIE document, before the authorization vote?

(Edwards isn't alone in having failed on the authorization vote, as a member of the S.I.C., but he's the only one of them running for Pres. Judgement and intellectual curiosity are key characteristics we're looking for in a candidate, after 6+ disastrous years, and Edwards has some ground to make-up.)

[jillan]

2. The question I have on the op

is what made Durbin aware of the inconsistencies, but not Edwards?
Why did Durbin know to speak out as much as he could, and vote against the IWR, and Edwards didn't? They both were on the same committee, and neither of them were the chairman of the intel committee, so I would assume that they both received the same intel:shrug:

[GreenArrow]

15. answer: ambition

.

[FrenchieCat]

3. From the same Media Matters source you yourself Cite.....

Five of the nine Democrats on the committee -- including Durbin and Graham -- ultimately voted against the Iraq war resolution. Eighteen months later, the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report concluded that the white paper had "misrepresented" to the public the intelligence community's judgments. The report further concluded that the document had downplayed dissenting views and "provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511040008

so......"the white paper had "misrepresented" to the public the intelligence community's judgments."

again.........to the public.....

Not to the Senate Intelligence Committee, although they tried.... which is why a majority of the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee ended up either voting NO on the IWR, or at least voting for another provision.....except for John Edwards and Evan Bayh.

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/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235
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/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
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

-----------------

[jcrew2001]

16. Do you think being a Red state Dem causes

Senators to vote how their constituents support/approve these laws? Are they concerned about being re-elected.

[Cameron27]

4. Peter Zimmerman

who was the scientific adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who twice saw the same NIE document that the Intel Committee members saw, had this to say:

..."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."

"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."

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


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3261770&mesg_id=3263873

[Adelante]

5. You are looking at the wrong report.

Graham, Durbin and Levin, all three of whom voted NO, were the ones who pushed on the intel, certainly not Edwards, who ignored the intel deficiencies and discrepancies that Graham, Durbin and Levin brought out, and he went to co-sponsor the IWR, anyway.

The 2004 report was only Phase I - three parts of Phase II have since been released. The remaining two parts have been suppressed while there was a Republican majority, but are expected to be released soon, covering the issue of the Bush administration's public statements at the time that conflicted with the intel the Intelligence Committee saw.

On the 2004 phase of the prewar intelligence report, in Durbin's addendum:

The responsibility for problems related to prewar intelligence regarding Iraq should not be confined to intelligence analysts and their managers in the Intelligence Community, but to policymakers as well — particularly those policymakers at the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the National Security Council and the White House. Nor should the intelligence oversight committees of the Congress, which are supposed to scrutinize intelligence analysis as part of their oversight mandate, be excluded from criticism. Former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Richard J. Kerr, who conducted a review of prewar intelligence related to Iraq at the request of DCI Tenet, told the Committee:

If I were a Senator not on the oversight committee, I'd say you guys failed. What happened here? Why didn't you know more about this — you, the Senate Select Committee — which are our eyes and ears on intelligence? What did you do to deal with the issue? What did you do to systematically look and see if the resources were appropriate or the subjects were appropriate? ...I'm just saying you have an obligation there too.

-snip

After the completed NIE was delivered to the Committee on October 1, 2002,1 reviewed the Estimate and attended several hearings and briefings by Intelligence Community officials regarding the information contained in the document. While I was certainly concerned about the threat posed by Iraq's WMD programs as described by the Intelligence Community, I was not at all convinced that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our nation. And to my knowledge, no U.S. Intelligence Community analyst or official suggested at the time that Iraq's WMD programs posed an imminent threat to the United States. For example, I noted that there was not a consensus among Intelligence Community components regarding the most potentially threatening element of Iraq's WMD infrastructure — Iraq's nuclear program. The Department of Energy, which retains the greatest Intelligence Community expertise regarding nuclear programs, along with the Department of State's Intelligence and Research Bureau (INR), did not agree that Baghdad's pursuit of aluminum tubes was related to a uranium enrichment effort as part of a nuclear weapon program, but was more likely intended for conventional weapons uses.

On October 3, 2002, the Senate began debate on S.J.Res. 45 "to authorize the use of military force against Iraq." Because I believed there was a paucity of intelligence, as reflected in the NIE, that Iraq's WMD programs posed an imminent threat to the U.S. -- and certainly not to the level of urgency as was reflected by Administration statements, I offered an amendment to the resolution on October 10 which would have authorized the use of military force against Iraq only to address an "imminent threat" by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, instead of counteracting a "continuing threat" by Iraq. My amendment was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 30-70. On October 11, 2002, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, which passed in the Senate by a vote of 77-23.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_richard-durbin.htm

[Adelante]

6. The Phase II investigation stems from the 2002 NIE

Two years ago, Graham was outflanked when he attempted to force the White House to make public the intelligence assessment on Saddam Hussein's WMD. Graham has described those events in a new book, "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia and the Failure of America's War on Terror." The book describes a closed-door meeting on Sept. 5, 2002, with George Tenet, in which the Senate Intelligence Committee sought to clarify whether the increasingly dire threat painted by Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials was real, and whether it justified a preemptive invasion. Graham and senators Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., assumed an NIE on Iraq must already exist, given the gravity of an invasion. (Such assessments can be initiated either by the White House, Congress or the CIA). And the senators asked to see it. Tenet and other intelligence agency representatives replied with "blank stares," Graham wrote. The Democratic senators demanded that Tenet get to work immediately on the report.

Three weeks later, Tenet turned over to the congressional intelligence committees a 90-page classified NIE that minimized the view, held by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Department of Energy, that Saddam had probably not reconstituted a nuclear program. The NIE buried their many caveats in footnotes even as it also concluded that Saddam had shown little desire to attack the United States, and that Iraq had few contacts with al-Qaida. Graham pushed for its declassification. He got it on Oct. 4, 2002, only a week before the Congress voted on the Iraq war resolution.

The declassified report was 25 pages long and appeared to have been produced in advance, judging by the slick graphics and maps that accompanied it, Graham said. Gone were the caveats that the classified version had included, and gone were the assessments that Saddam didn't appear interested in attacking the United States. What was left was "a vivid and terrifying case for war," Graham wrote.

Salon 9/17/04
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/17/intelligence_estimate/index.html

The two remaining parts of Phase II have been covered up by the Senate Repugs and the White House. The Senators have been battling to have the information made public for three years.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Hey, where did the Op Go????????

:wtf:

[JNelson6563]

8. Who knows?

Work? School? Taking care of kids? Could be anywhere, you know, where "real life" might require them to be.

Remember, not everyone lives for brawling on obscure political forums.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

12. riiiight.....start a thread proposing a view, and then don't respond

to those responding to the thread you started.

standard MO at DU. Got it!


BTW, where's the "Brawl"? :shrug:

[Adelante]

13. Let's hope the OP returns before the day is out

Or we might have to think this is a disinformation thread.

[JohnWxy]

14. J Nelson is right, I don't have the time to devote to this that some do.

I appreciate the info provided by others who know more of the details of this matter than I do.

I do however, think it's kinda easy for us in hindsight to know so confidently that we would have done better than those 'on the firing line'.

fortunately, for Obama, he wasn't really voting on this authorization. I compliment those with the perspicacity to vote against the authorization but I am not really quite ready to condemn those who voted for it. Remember, the authorization was not a green light to go to war. In international relations the negotiations efforts are sometimes are enhanced when you have the threat of enforcement in you back pocket. It's very possible that those voting for the authorization still thought (in error, we now know) that Bush would use the threat of military action to enhance the diplomatic efforts to get Hussein to let inspectors back in. It turns out that was not a good judgement call. Could I have done any better? -- I am just as egotistical as others -- of course I would have been smarter(uh-huh). (but of course, conveniently, I wasn't there.) Actually, at the time I was totally against the whole 'runaway train to get Hussein' mentality being fomented by the WH. But I also believe, in retrospect it is easy (and all too human) to think it was more obvious perhaps than it was and that we would have done better.

I confess to feeling this whole issue of how prescient or smart various senators were in this vote holds less interest to me than how the hell we clean up the fucking mess Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rummy got us into. I think the situation when the vote was taken was sufficiently confusing that a well meaning person could have made a mistake (and again, the vote was not a automatic "go button" for going to war).

I like Edwards. I think the guy is genuine and sincere. I think he would make one of our great presidents. I think also, that he is very smart. I think he would be very good in dealing with Repubs and in conducting international relations (as a consummate trial lawyer making cases to juries he has had great training for this). Remember how cool he was when members of the corporate media tried to get him pissed off with smart ass questions (probably written by Repub politicos)? He always kept his cool.

{ I remember in his debate with the evil puppet master, Cheney, when Gwen Awful, after asking Edwards a question about Israel, to which he gave a very intelligent answer to (not one of buzzwords), Awful said (looking at cheney): "was there anything about Israel in there?". Edwards didn't even get angry (I would have) even though he gave a perfectly good answer which DID address Israel. I sent an email to PBS telling them if Gwen Awful wanted to join the cheney-bushter team she should quit her job pretending to be a newsperson with PBS and join the Cheney-Bush campaign team. I also said if Awful was going to make a remark she at least ought to be factually correct.}

Obviously, Obama is very attractive as a candidate too. He is smart and I like his way of looking at problems. I just think Edwards would prove to be better able to get things done once in the White House. Being a great campaigner and speechmaker doesn't necessarily translate into being able to work with the other party to get things accomplished. I just feel there is more evidence there to conclude Edwards has got the stuff it takes to accommplish things once in the White House.

I guess the problem we Dems have in '08 is we are blessed with a wealth of good people. I just hope we dont' start needlessly cutting down are own people, any one of which would be infinitely better than any puppet the fascists will put up.


Sorry for being so slow getting back, but I thought you guys were doing very well without me (some very interesting stuff posted)!

[Adelante]

17. Thanks, JohnWxy

Sorry for the snark!

[FrenchieCat]

19. oK....glad to see you being able to "eek out" some time to respond

to those who responded to your OP posted topic.(snark)

What I find is great irony in your original thread being based on Links, etc...that you were putting up as documented evidence to attempt to absolve John Edwards on his actions in 2002....

But interestingly enough, your second post does not address any of the counter evidence posted in response to the original set of information you had posted (although you do remark that the reponses are "interesting"). In fact, your 2nd post is based on nothing more than your opinion as to why it is OK about whatever John Edwards did, cause you like him and find him to be a "superior" candidate to say...someone like Obama (who in 2002, seem to have a better judgement on what was actually going on although he wasn't sitting in the Intel Committee day in, day out).

However, I do agree with this opinion of yours that you stated in that 2nd post: Being a great campaigner and speechmaker doesn't necessarily translate into being able to work with the other party to get things accomplished."

and I disagree with this opinion of yours in where you compare OBama to Edwards and find Edwards to be "better", because I find not real evidence supporting this opinion beyond you thinking that it is so...."I just feel there is more evidence there to conclude Edwards has got the stuff it takes to accommplish things once in the White House."

When you have a down moment from your busy schedule, I would very much appreciate getting a glimpse at this "evidence" that you cite which leads you to conclude that Edwards has got the "stuff" to accomplish things once in the White House.

I think that beyond Obama being a Black man (and therefore some saying that he is "unelectable") versus Edwards not being a Black man (and therefore some saying that he is "electable") I don't see what Edwards has actually "done" that leads you to think that he could accomplish anything more than Obama once in the White House.

If you don't have the time to respond, I will understand. I run a business, have kids and a husband and a house (no housekeeper for 3,000 Sq Ft.) and various hobbies in the real world, and so I would completely understand and sympathize with the lack of time that you mentioned.

[JNelson6563]

20. Too late, sadly.

I guess the problem we Dems have in '08 is we are blessed with a wealth of good people. I just hope we dont' start needlessly cutting down are own people, any one of which would be infinitely better than any puppet the fascists will put up.

The long knives have been out since the 2004 primaries. Fortunately many agree with your view and not too many spend much time in the mud pits.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

23. I 'm glad to see differing opinions have been out since the 2004 primaries......

and before. It is the democratic way which should be welcomed on these boards as long as the discourse isn't made personal by disparaging individual DU posters.

Is there some indication that some are needlessly cutting down our own DU members that you wanted to point to? :shrug:

although I keep reading sarcastic commentaries from those who seem to want to instigate negativity by needlessly cutting down DU posters who aren't of the same mindset.....Weirdly, those same sarcastic poster rarely address the political issues at hand as specified in a thread.

Are these mud pits you keep alluding to near the Brawls that you earlier made mention of?

The op stated that Edwards was better than Obama. Was that needless? :shrug:

[JNelson6563]

27. Different opinions good, nastiness bad

Perhaps one day you will be able to offer a differing opinion without being nasty.

Hope springs eternal.

Julie

[Pithy Cherub]

31. Hypocrisy is easily sighted

in those that tell others how to post. The irony escapes most.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Thanks for the hope that you give me.........

Judge Julie!

[Adelante]

34. Perhaps one day you will correct mistaken OPs in DU's best interest

But that takes time and diligence. Much easier merely to be insulting. It's a bore, but after four years of the nasty from you, no hope springs at all.

[CarolNYC]

25. Ain't that the truth!

If I had just half the time you spend chasing Clarkies around these boards and throwing snark, I'd be a very happy camper indeed.

[JNelson6563]

26. Thoughtful time savers

All one need do to come across nastiness from your ilk is click on any Edwards thread. Think about it.

Julie

[CarolNYC]

30. Hey thanks..

...for the tip, although I don’t quite know what my “ilk” even is. Still, I don’t choose to spend what time I do have chasing around after any kind of ilk, time saving tips or no. Apparently, you choose differently. Hey if it’s important to you and you have the time, go for it. You’re obviously good at it.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Those of your ilk who worship St. John without question might agree with you......

That anything said that ain't calling him "sooper dooper" is to be defined as pure unadulterated nastiness......But fortunately y'all are not the only DU members, nor are your ilk judges of any credibility.

It simply boggles the mind how a supporter of Howard Dean (who's main platform in 2003-04 was his strong stance against the war in Iraq) could now become a supporter of one who not merily simply supported the war until November of 2005, but also one who pushed, lobbyed, and argued for it and felt justified of his actions even after WMD had long not been found! And beyond that irony, your ilk would go as far as to call out those who have the "audacity" to question St. John during primary season nasty in a nasty way! Guess that democratic principles don't count in this game of yours....but then, considering.... why should I be surprised from those who support actions that are wrong and sorry because of how "prettily" they are packaged and presented. :puke:

[pat_k]

9. Can never "know" what the players were thinking. . .

Whether or not a member of Congress could reasonably conclude that Iraq posed a real threat based on the bushwacked intel avaialble to them is arguable. We cannot "know" their minds. We can argue that they "should have known." Unfortunately, this is an argument that leads down an unnecessary rat hole. Picking apart the "intel" to support or refute the assertion is not an effective road to the action required to rescue our constitutional.

What we do know is their actions and public statements. We know Bush/Cheney terrorized the nation into war with threats of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes." Whether or not the White House "knew" that the "16 words" were a fantasy, no amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq had the capability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States in 45 minutes.

But that crime is not the central crime Bush and Cheney committed against our constitutional democracy. It is their unconstitutional and Un-American claims to unitary authoritarian power to torture and spy on us w/out warrant to "protect us" that is truly devastating. Impeaching for those crimes is what Congress must do if they are to become champions of the People's government and the Constitution.

[Adelante]

11. The pre-war intelligence investigations, once completely reported,

along with other investigations, is what can lead to impeachment, can form the basis for impeachment, if it is too happen. Don't take this lightly even if it is not the central crime.

...

As for 2008 candidates:

If a Senator knew, in October 2002, there was a difference between the intel provided in the NIE and what was publicly being spread by Bushco, which is the situation examined in the suppressed segments of Phase II of the report - in other words, if they KNEW the intel was Bushwhacked, and went ahead and voted YES on the IWR, as Bob Graham warned them, they have blood on their hands. To know it, they would have to have been responsible enough to read the NIE the Intelligence Committee demanded be made available for them to read; or they were on the Intelligence Committee itself where the whole matter was analyzed and thoroughly discussed. Either way, as to a primary vote, no sale.

[pat_k]

18. Certainly it "can" -- but impeaching on torture is a far simpler. . .

. . .and more compelling case. It also goes to the heart of their war on the Constitution -- a war to clear, hold, and build their way to a unitary authoritarian executive. They do something we have forbidden, claim it is not forbidden, and dare Members of Congress to stop them. When Members of Congress refuse to impeach -- the ONLY thing capable of stopping them -- Bush and Cheney "hold and build": **Hey America, told you it wasn't forbidden. Now, let us get on with clearing habeas (or whatever takes our fancy) out of our way.**

Every time Bush and Cheney claim "unitary authority" to to commit war crimes (e.g., to declare Gitmo a Geneva-free zone; to abduct and hold prisoners indefinitely in secret prisons; to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment with a signing statement) they are daring Congress to impeach.

It's all public record. The war crimes at Gitmo have even been adjudicated.¹

Impeachment on torture is the simplest and most compelling case. They could vote out articles in a week. There is nothing to investigate. Bush and Cheney say they have absolute power to "protect us." The Constitution says they don't. The only way that members of Congress can reject their fascist fantasies is to impeach. The House just needs one charge to impeach. The simpler, the faster, the better. If the Senate fails to impeach on the first charges, the House can impeach on another. Tragically, they have plenty of blatant and intentional war crimes to chose from.

=====================

1. February 7, 2002, the Office of the President published http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-13.html">Fact Sheet: Status of Detainees at Guantanamo, in which they declared "The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees."
   
   There was never any doubt the conventions applied to all the abductees/detainees held by the USA, whether on or off shore. In Hamdan, even a Supreme Court stacked with their fascist minions couldn't escape that inescapable reality when they ruled that the conventions applied (and with that ruling, declared that three years of War Crimes had already been committed -- something that had been self-evident all along).
   
   Under the Geneva conventions, Parties to the treaty must enact and enforce the conventions under domestic law. To this end we enacted U.S. Code Title 18 section 2441 (War Crimes). When the Office of the President asserted the power to arbitrarily dictate which groups are, and are not, subject to the Geneva conventions, they gutted our War Crimes statute, an act that is in itself a War Crime. We know J.T.F-170 employs "harsh interrogation" (torture), but there is no need to argue or prove the point because, whether or not they actually engaged in torture, they committed a War Crime when they gutted the law.
   
   There is a reason that violators of Geneva are subject to the death penalty -- to give those with the power to commit such crimes a compelling motive not to step anywhere near "the line." And to give those with the power to stop the crimes a compelling motive to do everything in their power to do so.

[Adelante]

24. And I don't undervalue that case in the least

Except for one thing and that is public opinion. While Americans don't like torture, very many can find it in their hearts to explain it to themselves as something that "happens in war" or in the movies or even necessary for interrogating terrorists. I don't like it, but there it is for a lot of people who haven't spent the last five years as we have connecting every dot. Congress will never go for impeachment without public backing. It won't happen. But if they can show, as it seems they can, that the crime is lying the American people into this war and then covering it up, it could happen. Nixon wasn't set to go down for the burglary, but because he covered it up and deceived the American public. The unforgivable. I say go with the torture, for sure, but I don't agree it's the simplest component.

[pat_k]

28. The American public is WAY ahead of Congress. . .

. . .They know that GWB has made America a pariah in the world. They also know that we have lost any moral standing we once had. Whether or not they connect these facts to the fact that we have become a war criminal nation that spies on its own citizens, the connection is obvious. Our leaders need only speak the simple truth to bring it home. Sure, many Americans could care less about torturing "them," but they care a great deal about the fact that when GWB and Cheney put torture "on the table" they made it fair game for "them" to torture our sons and daughters. They destroyed any moral standing we have to object.

On torture there are really no "dots" to connect. It is a fact that GWB and Cheney declared Gitmo a "Geneva-free zone." One need only replay the statements Bush and Cheney make on the subject. Cheney, GWB, and their co-conspirators and minions, proudly declare their contempt for our law. (Remember, Geneva is not some "external" law. When we committed ourselves to that treaty, we enacted its provisions in our own War Crimes statute, as required by the treaty.) It is a fact that GWB nullified McCain's anti-torture amendment -- the overwhelming will of the people which passed the Senate 90-9 -- with a signing statement. It is a fact that with the stroke of his pen he gutted our War Crimes statute. It is a fact that declaring the war crimes statute null is a violation of Geneva (i.e., a war crime).

These acts are enough. There are of course other intolerable offenses that are easily demonstrated, but more is not always better. In simplicity there is power. Even those who "approve" of torturing "our enemies" will find it hard to stand and defend violations of our common values -- values we codified in our laws. Values we hold so dear that we have made violation punishable by death.

Americans also know that GWB cut them out of the loop. They don't need to know the specific provisions of the Constitution violated to know that arbitrarily overruling the voice of the people is intolerable in a True America. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force. In January, 58% of them said they "personally wish" the Bush unitary executivecy "was over." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2753090">Newsweek). That number has undoubtedly gone up as Bush's numbers have plunged even further.

Torture really is the simplest, most self-evident, and most compelling case for impeachment, and therefore the fastest route to end the Bush unitary executivecy and make the wishes of the American people come true. Making the case for impeachment on torture is certainly simpler than picking apart the intentionally obfuscating intel to demonstrate their intent to terrorize the nation with threats of "mushroom clouds." When it comes to war crimes, the question of intent -- always hard to "prove" -- doesn't enter into it. Once violated, there is no "unringing" the war crimes bell. Terrorizing us may anger Americans, but it does not provide a solid basis from which to renew the contract Bush and Cheney are breaking as they act our their fascist fantasy of an all powerful executive.

Going after them on torture allows our leaders to remind Americans who we are as a nation. The principles embodied in our Constitution inspire. Saying NO to torture is a way to remind us that individuals may commit horrors in the pressure cooker of war/occupation, but that in a True America, our values demand that we act to bring those responsible for the horrors to justice. It allows them to point to the fascists and say "That is the OPPOSITE of who we are, and Americans must prove it by removing the threat they pose to the Constitution; our common contract; the soul of the nation."

[Adelante]

29. We'll have to disagree

I don't need convincing on torture, I'm there, I've never dismissed the torture case. However, it goes to the conduct of the war, deep into it. The straightest, simplest line to impeachment is through the lies at the outset that established the case for war and the subsequent cover-up.

[AtomicKitten]

21. It's clear Edwards had the same Intelligence Committee intelligence

that Durbin had, yet they cast different votes. Then Edwards took it a step further and went on to champion the rush to war so convincingly that an OpEd he wrote was posted on the State Department's website; see below. That, my friend, makes him look like an opportunist at best and at worst I am not permitted to say at DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3261770&mesg_id=3261770