John Edwards and the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate

[Adelante]

"There was this National Intelligence Estimate, that was confidential, that only, that you had to have security clearance or members of the Senate could read. Did you have a chance to read that and was that part of...?" Google's Elliot Schrage asks in the video above. (It's at the 39-minute mark in the interview, which you can watch in full here.).

"I read it. I read it," Edwards responds. "But the idea that somehow we had so much more information — having the information turned out to be bad, not good."

His assertion that he read the NIE seems to contradict what his campaign told me last week, when Edwards spokesman Mark Kornblau said his boss hadn't read the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. That put him in the same position as all the other senators from the time running for president, save Joe Biden.

However, Kornblau said today that Edwards had "misunderstood" the question yesterday, and that he was referring to having read the declassified version of the NIE, and other intelligence documents.

Last week Kornblau e-mailed, in response to my question of whether Edwards was among the six senators who reportedly read the NIE pre-Iraq, "(T)he answer is no. To elaborate, here's what you were looking for. As a member of the Senate Commitee on Intelligence he was regularly briefed on the information that appeared in the (NIE), which is essentially a summary report."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0507/Edwards_on_the_NIE.html

video at link


Edit: changed brackets

[LSparkle]

1. Is this the same estimate Hillary DIDN'T READ?

She went by a summary one of her underlings prepared ... If Edwards at least read the thing himself, then I give him some credit (as well as for admitting he was wrong about his vote).

[sandnsea]

3. It clearly says he didn't read it

He read the declassified version, and probably some notes from his staff, same as Hillary. Funny that Biden did read it, and he voted for the IWR anyway.

I've read the declassified version that's online. I wonder how many DUers have, while criticizing the Senators who actually have read that version.

[Adelante]

6. Do you have a link, sandnsea?

I would very much like to read it. I've only read descriptions.

Thanks.

[sandnsea]

18. Here ya go

A bunch of stuff to sift through. If memory serves, I found it on the FAS site, but I might have found it over at the CIA site too, not sure. If this is too weird, just go to fas.org and type in NIE Iraq. If you sort through this and still don't find it, PM me and I'll go back through some old notes and see if I can get a direct link. I've gone through a couple computers since then, and everything is sort of scattered.

http://www.google.com/custom?q=iraq+nie&sitesearch=fas.org&sa=Search&cof=LW%3A600%3BBIMG%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2F%3BLH%3A50%3BAH%3Acenter%3BGL%3A0%3BAWFID%3A0d60397048482b28%3B&formAction=

There's also a DoD briefing entitled "Denial and Deception", hehe, ironical title, don't ya think?

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3787

[Adelante]

23. Great

I'll put some time into it tomorrow. I'm glad it's online someplace.

[LSparkle]

7. This is what I get for trying to post in between tasks at work!

EGG ON ME FACE AGAIN!!!!!

:argh:

[Adelante]

8. It's a messy presentation

I can see why anybody might have to read it twice to get what it says.

[sandnsea]

20. I keep a dozen handy

Just to smack meself with when I screw up!! :)

[Adelante]

4. No credit

It sounds like he did not read the full NIE, even though he was a member of the Intelligence Committee.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. Niether did Edwards:

Kornblau e-mailed, in response to my question of whether Edwards was among the six senators who reportedly read the NIE pre-Iraq, "the answer is no."

"She went by a summary one of her underlings prepared"? What makes you think that? The official briefing supplied to all Senators wasn't written by Clinton's "underling" was it? That would really be news if true.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. "To elaborate, here's what you were looking for"?

"OK, you have the answer: No. But here's what I want you to think about that..."

[Cameron27]

9. Why would he have read the

declassified version of the NIE, when the full NIE report was available to him as a member of the committee? This makes no sense.

/spelling

[DURHAM D]

10. If I recall correctly -

Senator Rockefeller said they had to go to another building or another area of D.C. to read the full report. This was made available to members of the Intelligence Committee only - Edwards was on the committee but did not make the trip.

Clinton not on the committee - thus not available to her.

[Adelante]

21. I'm pretty sure this is the sequence

The full NIE was ordered by the Intelligence Committee in September and delivered to the Committee on October 1. On October 2 they had a meeting of the Intelligence Committee with George Tenet and other intelligence community to discuss the NIE. Graham then ordered a declassified version for the Congress. A few days later, what they refer to as the "summary" was delivered to the full Congress. Now, rather than a declassified version of the NIE the Intel Committee had, what they got was a whole new document which was making a case for war without including the underlying intelligence. Graham then had the full NIE made available in a locked room for the Senators and Representatives to read, but few actually did, relying on the summary instead.

[Adelante]

11. Did you watch the video?

:spray:

[Cameron27]

13. No, not yet.

Hmmmm

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[venable]

14. This is a bogus smear.

No honest adult would believe that Edwards didn't read the NIE, the basis for what he called, at the time, the most difficult choice he ever had to make.

He read it. He conferred with Tenet. He talked to former Clinton people who had enjoyed access to intel for 8 years. He made a choice, which he regrets.

He is, RIGHT NOW, perhaps the most eloquent, uncompromising voice to bring the troops home. Does that matter to you all? Does that voice, that cause, matter to you?

Seriously, does it?

Or are you more interested in making stuff up to satiate what appears to be an all-consuming hatred of this very decent man?

These tactics are fairly transparent to most here, you should know.

[Texas_Kat]

49. Apparently JE read the Cliff Notes version of the NIE

Kornblau (Edwards spokesman) said that JE had read the 'summary'.... not the full report. He neglected to read the classified copy of the NIE but co-sponsored the bill that authorized the war.

Essentially, he read an executive summary without reading the detail -- the same summary that has been available on the Internet for quite some time.

That's not a smear..... according to Edwards' spokesman, it's the truth.

[CarolNYC]

52. the hatred charge

Geez, venable. I can understand that there are many things that Edwards has said and done over the years that you, as an Edwards partisan or confidant or whatever you are, would not like to to see discussed but I notice you've got this habit of crying "hatred!" any time anyone brings up anything that could possibly paint John in less than a godly light, no matter how true or relevant the point or issue. What the hell is up with that!?!?

[venable]

53. fair charge CarolNYC

I do say it a lot. I don't however say it to every criticism of Edwards, much of which is thoughtful and serious.

I do see it a lot though. You must admit that there is a certain vein that is heard here quite a bit and it seems to come more from - let's call it a predisposition to dislike Edwards - and it is that vein that gets my ire.

I don't believe that every criticism of Edwards is based on hate. Some, though, are.

[Clark2008]

74. Wow. You simply can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

It's not a smear. His staff says he didn't read it. Period. End of discussion.

He read the SUMMARY, not the full intelligence report he was ALLOWED to read as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He did not read the actual document - only a "summary." Don't you think it's important to get all the facts available to you before voting to send troops to their deaths?

This is not a "smear." This is factual. This MATTERS.

The question shouldn't be whether the OP is "interested in making stuff up," but whether you can pull your loyalities long enough to get a complete and accurate accounting of the man you find so "decent."

[benny05]

83. Venable we just have to smile

They drank the kool-aid of the Politico, and they sure were thirsty for it.

[Cameron27]

15. Ok, I just watched it, and it still makes no sense.

I believe he just shucked off his responsibility as a member of the Senate Intel Committee, who had access to classified information that even other senators didn't have, and placed the responsiblity on the American people. How were we supposed to know what was behind the push for war.

This STILL makes no sense. Why didn't he read the full NIE report?

[Adelante]

16. Pretty amazing

I'm hoping there comes along a better source than The Politico to get to the bottom of this question.

[Cameron27]

17. Hey, it was his words in the video that are astonishing.

This is a stunning assertion for an ex-senator to make.

[Sparkly]

19. I can only guess he was side-stepping the question.

Because what he said didn't make sense as an answer, or an elaboration, on the question of whether he'd read the NIE. He seems to be saying there shouldn't be classified intel, and I doubt that's really what he meant. :shrug:

[Cameron27]

22. That's exactly what he seems to be saying.

[venable]

29. It is clear he didn't get the question.

If one can allow (and I would hope that everyone here could) that nobody in their right mind would argue that there should be no classified information, then one must recognize that he is not - in this answer - talking about the NIE.

Didn't someone upthread say that some campaign staffer (Kornblau?) said as much already?

He is calling for transparency in decision making, in government. That is what he is talking about.

He read the NIE. He didn't understand this question. He spoke to the need for transparency.

It is not that complex, unless you really want to find something sinister or incompetent in Edwards.

I thought it was a lovely call for sunshine.

[Cameron27]

35. It was a lovely call for transparency

for everyone but himself. He never answered the question, and he never gave any legit reason why he didn't read the full NIE report. That's what he was sent to Congress for, to make difficult decisions based on the BEST available information.

[Pithy Cherub]

43. The debate on Sunday should ask each of the IWR voters

and war supporters (Richardson) this question. Clearly, Edwards did not give full weight to his responsibilities and duties as a sitting senator on the Intelligence Committee. To not take ALL of the information at your disposal before casting a War vote is an abdication of Constitutional Law while making soldiers pay for his laziness. He gave Bush a blank check without getting the facts. Hillary deserves scorn as well, she was married to a president and knows the importance of those intelligence documents. It speaks to a lack of sound judgment and faulty decision-making.

[venable]

54. I don't think he was being obscure - I think he didn't understand the question

as I said.

It may seem like a lame defense, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. (seriously, I do think that's what happened - it makes sense that way, and doesn't the other way)

[Clark2008]

75. No one's arguing that point, Venable.

He may very well have misunderstood the question. I'm not harping on that and neither is anyone else.

The point we're harping on is that he didn't read the full NIE report when he clearly had access to it and should have.

Whether he misunderstood a question five years later is a moot point. He should have read the full NIE report.

[jenmarie]

24. At TPM this morning:

More bizarre revelations from Democratic strategist and former Edwards/Kerry adviser Bob Shrum, who advised Edwards to vote for the Iraq War.

Turns out he worried that he himself would look left-wing if Edwards voted against the invasion.

If this is true, and really is the reason Edwards not only voted for, but co-sponsored the IWR, he needs to come clean and instead of apologizing admit that he did it purely for his own political aspirations. He's one slick puppy all right. Consider the fact that he made his fortune partially due to his ability to charm people into believing his words were truth. Ugh.

Edit: didn't mean to post as a reply to #19, but to OP. Sorry!

[Adelante]

26. Oh, I dunno about this Shrum stuff

It's a campaign memoir and one person's take on things. A big grain of salt on all of it. I did order the book, though, I'm so bad. :D

[venable]

32. Shrum was let go by Edwards

no matter how much Shrum wants to rewrite this.

The book is a hit piece on someone who dissed Shrum professionally.

It is a load of crap.

Everyone agrees Shrum is a loser - until he does a hit piece on Edwards, then suddenly he is just a hard working activist with good stories to tell.

Too much.

[jenmarie]

39. No. I don't put trust

in anything Shrum says. But Edwards does need to address it, I believe.

[venable]

55. Yes, he should

and I hope he does.

He may not, though, just thinking (wrongly in my amateur opinion) that it's best ignored.

I hope he stands up to it.

Elizabeth has, I believe.

[ArkySue]

45. Re: Shrum

I have no idea if he's telling the truth or not.

What did Edwards mean in the MSNBC "debate" about how he should have gone with his instincts instead of listening to others (paraphrased)?

I thought he might be referring to listening to Shrum on the iWR vote. Comments?

[Adelante]

47. He's said various things

One was "Clinton advisors" I believe. I don't think Shrum would fall into that category.

[venable]

58. I think that there must be some fire behind that smoke but I would guess

it's not as cut and dry as Shrum makes out.

People familiar with the meeting say it didn't happen.

Something like it may have, but Shrum is spreading some pretty outrageous things about Edwards these days, enough that the history of those two must be taken into account.

As I understood it at the time, Shrum was persona non grata when he 'left' the Edwards camp.

[iamjoy]

82. Listening To Instincts - My Take

the way I understand his regretting not "going with his instincts" (or however he phrased it), was this:

He looked at the summary report and other classified documents. His instinct told him Hussein was probably bluffing about WMD. BUT, the intelligence indicated it was possible or even likely Hussein really had 'em. He voted accordingly, thinking he couldn't afford to give Hussein the benefit of the doubt (for the sake of the country).

You can say that wasn't the best decision, and he's admitted as much. You can decide you can't forgive it and nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. It doesn't accomplish anything to continue harping on it for people who have made their peace with Edwards's support for IWR. But, I understand where you are coming from on it.

However, I feel it is completely unfair to assert that Edwards supported it for political reasons. In my opinion, it was politically a no-win situation. Edwards already knew in 2002 that he wanted to run for President in 2004. Thinking purely politically (an amorally):

* Supporting the Resolution:
- If it was a success, on what grounds could he run against Dubya? Dubya had Iraq as a crowning success. He was just a small part of it.
- If it was a failure, he would be partially responsible for that failure by enabling it (which is what happened)

* NOT Supporting the Resolution:
- If Iraq was a success, his campaign was probably sunk
- If it was a failure - he gets to say he was right and he stood up for that right in the Senate - showing political courage when it really mattered. But then, was it really courage, or done to appeal to the base?

One could say that had Iraq been a success, maybe by 2004 there would be other issues (just as #41 still lost following his success in the First Gulf War). If other issues were that much more important to Americans, how Edwards voted on IWR would be irrelevant. So see, there was nothing to be gained politically from supporting it, and possibly gaining something by opposing it.

I personally give no credit for great courage to anyone in politics who spoke out against the war but wasn't actually faced with the vote. They had little if any accountability for their words. Likewise, I give Edwards no credit for speaking out against the recent Iraq Funding Bill - it wasn't him who had to face any fallout or consequences from that vote one way or the other. I understand Biden's decision on voting for it and actually have a little more respect for him for doing it. Running for the Democratic nomination and voting against the way the base wanted him to vote - THAT took courage.

[Sparkly]

27. Wow.

Shrum:

To my continuing regret, I said he had to be for it. As I listened to this, I watched Edwards's face; he didn't like where he was being pushed to go. The process violated a principle I'd learned long before—candidates have to trust their own deeply felt instincts. It's the best way to live with defeat if it comes, and probably the best way to win.

The meeting we held in the Edwardses' family room did him a disservice; of course, he was the candidate and if he really was against the war, it was up to him to stand his ground. He didn't.

Not good either way. If he was following his "deeply felt instincts" or making the decision he thought best, it shows poor instincts and judgment. If he was pushed into it by Shrum although he felt differently, it shows weakness for putting politics above conscience.

No wonder he changed the subject.

[Adelante]

31. The Edwards have denied this, Sparkly

They say it didn't happen the way Shrum says.

[Sparkly]

34. Oh, okay...

They ought to fight him hard on that one.

[jenmarie]

40. Should have read further

before replying. I didn't realize Edwards had already addressed Shrum's accusations.

[Adelante]

42. Yeah, Jen, there was an earlier release of some of this book

Maybe a month ago or more. It was that particular bit.

[venable]

33. Shrum's a liar.

I have heard from people familiar with the meeting that this never happened.

It's a lie, but now the jury has heard it.

That's the way the RW works, and now it's the way we work?

[Sparkly]

36. Glad to know it's a lie.

I hate RW lies about *any* Democrat.

[Cameron27]

38. I agree with you and I wouldn't take

Shrums word for fact.

[GreenArrow]

44. I wouldn't take Edwards' word for a "fact" either

or here-say via one of his partisans. That Edwards made his vote on grounds of ambition and expediency has been clear for some time. One might judge Shrum on the basis of his being a lousy campaign guy, or in bringing the issue to the fore during an Edwards campaign run, but I suspect his take on the issue is accurate.

[Adelante]

46. If a candidate directly refutes something

I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. You know how it goes, sooner or later, a third party to the situation confirms or denies. I can wait.

[GreenArrow]

50. I usually play it by ear.

In this particular case, methinks the Edwards doth protest too much.

[venable]

56. I think Kerry is too much of a gentleman to get into this

so the general confirmation or denial of the Shrum/Kerry/Edwards stuff would have to come from somewhere else.

I hope Edwards addresses it.

[Adelante]

25. Honestly, I don't know what to make of it

I mean, he like went off into I don't know where with that.

[jenmarie]

28. I didn't watch the video

but from what I've read it would seem that Senator Edwards is being caught up in his own hubris.

If Shrum is to be trusted (and that's a stretch), Edwards didn't want to vote for the IWR, but Shrum convinced him he couldn't be president if he didn't. So then Edwards goes so far as to co-sponsor the damn thing.

I wish JE would just come clean and realize how much more trust he would gain by simply being honest with us. He will sink deeper and deeper in this as times goes on simply because he isn't being truthful.

[Cameron27]

30. Watch it jen,

it's very short and you won't believe what he says.

[venable]

37. It's not hard to believe - if you listen, it's clear he doesn't understand the question.

somehow he decides to speak to transparency in government. he is clearly not saying there should be no classified info. I say he is clearly not because nobody outside of the crack-heads in tin foil hats say such a thing. Edwards is not such a person, I needn't have to remind anyone.

He is answering a different question.

[Cameron27]

41. This is the question:

"There was this National Intelligence Estimate, that was confidential, that only, that you had to have security clearance or members of the Senate could read. Did you have a chance to read that and was that part of...?"

That's not a difficult question to understand venable. Someone from his campaign had answered that he never read the NIE report a few days ago, and they asked the same thing of Clinton and Biden, and I think Dodd. He knew where the question was coming from and what it meant.

[venable]

57. I agree, it's not difficult

but it seems from his indifference and casual manner that he did not 'get it' in the way - admittedly very direct - that it was meant.

[zulchzulu]

105. i watched the exchange three times and still think Edwards had no idea what he was talking about

Did he understand the question? I won't bore myself with a transcript...but he appeared to not really know the importance of where he was on the Senate Intel Committee with obvious evidence of bogus intelligence and still went ahead and teamed up with Joe Lieberman on the IWR.

Sheesh...I've never gotten the "Edwards" thing and this just cements my judgement more imho...

[illinoisprogressive]

48. Does anyone know who the 6 were

[Adelante]

51. One was Senator Byrd

It should be remembered that there were members of not only the Intelligence Committee but also the Foreign Relations Committee, such as Biden, who did read it, who had separate access. I don't know who was on the Foreign Relations besides Biden. But I do not believe the list of six Senators and three or so Representatives who read it in the locked room, as Byrd did, properly includes committee members with separate access.

So:

1-Senator Byrd

[ArkySue]

61. Add

2.Bob Graham

3.Dick Durbin

4. Joe Biden

[Adelante]

79. They were all on high clearance committees

Graham was chairman of the Intel Committee and Durbin was a member. Biden was chairman of Foreign Relations.

They had different access and private meetings on the NIE.

The 6 Senators and few Representatives who went to the locked room, I believe, were not on those committees. The locked room was set up for members of Congress who did not have the same security clearance.

I'm not 100% positive, but for the time being until we have more complete information:

1-Senator Byrd

[zulchzulu]

65. Read this...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/zulchzulu/21

[Cameron27]

66. Good, you've got that in your journal.

Senator Durbin was waving red flags about the NIE docs. Too bad he was ignored.

[sybil]

69. Can anyone translate?

I just watched the video.

What did Edwards' statement have to do with the question posed by the interviewer?


exactly?

[FrenchieCat]

59. Just watched the Youtube footage....

The Iraq war comes up at 35:30.....and lemme tell you, it ain't purdy, although the rest of Edwards' "presentation" is.

In other words, he needs to get his "story" on Iraq together! Lots of "trying to think of what" to say....and digging deeper the entire time.

[dogman]

60. He is right when he said we shouldn't trust him.

To much intelligence is a bad thing? This brings back my point that I do not hate him, I do not question his good intent, I question his competence. Watching this video just highlights the point. In his usual MO, he tries to deflect the original question and spin his talking point, only to spin into a rambling message. His great speaking ability was not seen here. He seemed in need of rest.

[Clark2008]

76. Thank you.

Although, to disagree with you slightly, I think his incompetence is bred of a need to be everything to everyone, politically speaking.

I don't hate him, though, but I'll be honest in saying that I don't find him to be credible. In my mind, all he comes across to me is an intelligent George Bush: someone who'll do and say anything to meet his end game, whatever that is.

I simply don't trust him. Whether I "like" him or not is immaterial. I guess he can be a likable guy and his wife is great, but that doesn't translate to "trust" with me.

[Auntie Bush]

85. That's exactly the way I feel

People ask me why he's not one of my favorites and I have difficulty explaining why to many in my family who like him.

[CarolNYC]

62. finally watched the video....

That is one bizarre answer....Pretty bad. It certainly looks like, in an effort to avoid an uncomfortable question, he attempts to spin away from it and does a really bad job of it....Bizarre piece of footage, for sure.

[Auntie Bush]

86. That's what I thought too.When politicians don't like the question (which he certainly didn't)

they ignore it...change the subject or spin about something else.
This isn't a flame on Edwards as I'm saying ALL POLITICIANS do that and there is no reason to suspect Edwards didn't do it too.

[zulchzulu]

63. So a Senator on Senate Intelligence Committee didn't read a National Intelligence Estimate?

He did...err...he didn't? He saw bogus intel while on the Senate Intelligence Committee and still went ahead to co-sponsor the Iraq War Resolution with Joe Lieberman...

It should be a given that if you are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, you'd read any NIE that gets published...perhaps the last few...

[PurityOfEssence]

64. Extremist Clark Partisans HATE Edwards

Like him or not, the guy's had a consistent record of fighting for the little guy. Why must those virulent acolytes of Clark bend every effort to destroying the man?

John Edwards gives a damn. He cares about the downtrodden. If he didn't step aside to bow at the belated and solipsistic approach of the great warrior king Clark, that shouldn't exile him forever into the netherworld of derision. At least he stands up and declares his candidicy with conviction and clarity.

Hey mods, why is the ugliness of Edwards-hating given free rein while any defense of Edwards is consitently quashed? I've been a loyal poster on this site since the spring of '01 and have been a contributor, but somehow the Edwards haters (especially those from the extremist camps of Clark supporters) dominate. Please explain that.

Is pluralism dead? Do we not stand for some form of decent interaction?

This is beyond ugly.

[jenmarie]

67. Wow.

I don't read hate in this thread. Some of us don't trust Edwards, and point out his inconsistencies, which are in no short supply. Just because everyone doesn't love and trust him doesn't mean they hate him.

To me it is clear Edwards puts being president above everything else. That has been his goal for many years and while there is nothing wrong with having lofty goals, one has to expect that past actions will be closely looked at.

If being president were merely a matter of dealing with domestic issues, I would trust Edwards more. The fact that as time goes on we will be dealing more and more with FP issues, I don't think Edwards has the experience, knowledge or judgement to be president.

If he gets the nomination, all this and more will be slung against him and Edwards supporters need to get their facts, backed up with sources ready. This should be considered the practice round. The real hate is waiting in the wings for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.

[venable]

70. look at the first sentence of the 2nd graph

it basically says what you believe. fair enough.

but given that, can you ever listen to what he says.

that's what is hard for the edwards supporters to accept - the blanket dismissal of the man.

Maybe if you could put aside that predisposition - which is hard, I grant you - you could judge what he says on the merits.

I can't believe that you give his positions a fair shake, if you believe he cares only about being elected.

I believe differently - and while I think he is far from perfect, I think he is a strong, passionate, decent man who puts issues before anything else. I may disagree with him on some things (the IWR vote) but I listen to him with open ears, as I do any candidate. In that listenng, I found my candidate.

It is that very dismissal of the man himself that brings up the accusation of hate ( or any attitude that renders his ideas unworthy, regardless of their merits).

Make sense?

[jenmarie]

99. Right.

It does make sense, but where I think you go a little too far is equating distrust of his qualifications and judgements to be president, with hatred.

Granted, I'm sure there are some who hate him, but I would venture a guess there are far more who simply don't believe he's qualified to be president and when we point out the reasons why, some Edwards supporters get defensive, call out the poster instead of addressing the reasons stated, and it escalates from there.

And you're right -- I don't give his positions a fair shake because while I think his domestic policies are admirable, it's his lack of FP experience that disqualifies him in my opinion. I do not feel confident or comfortable putting him in place to clean up the mess Jr will leave, nor would I feel confident if he were president when the next FP crisis occurs. I think he would have to depend on advisers, and don't trust his judgement enough (on FP issues) to just blindly trust that he would choose advisers who would steer him in the right direction.

I would humbly suggest more Edwards supporters respond with facts, backed up with links when possible and like you did in your post to me, explain why you feel differently.

Thanks.

[venable]

101. thanks for the post

jenmarie.

You clearly are not in the group that some of us have been complaining about.

While I agree that a constant cry of 'hate' can be as unproductive as the thing itself, there are just enough of the vitriolic ones to make us Edwards supporters a bit wary.

Not believing Edwards is up to the job is anyone's choice, as it is yours. You're smart and civil enough that I wish you were on our team, but that's not meant to be. Any criticism from you is taken as serious and reasonable objections.

There are at least a few, though, that might even come up with the same criticism as you would, but they couch it in terms so extreme, and it constitutes such a vast percentage of their contributions here that one can't help but think that it is counterproductive, and comes from something other than Edwards himself, ie some effect that Edwards might have had on them or a candidate of theirs. Something entirely separate from who Edwards actually is. I don't think this is the case with you. In fact, I'm sure it's not.

ie - Take an anti-war poster. That poster has every reason to disrespect Edwards IWR vote, and even his co-sponsorship (though I think of these two things as fragments of the ONE single, serious error - trusting Bush). But wouldn't that poster, if he/she is seriously anti-war, appreciate Edwards eloquent, even ferocious call to bring the troops home now? If they don't appreciate the current anti-war voice that is Edwards, then I wonder if the motivation is anti-war, or simply making sure that Edwards is nailed for the IWR vote. It's an important distinction.

I do believe the vote was a serious mistake, and I also believe that his current voice is authentic, sincere, passionate, and important.

Again, thanks for your civil and smart post. Finally, anyway, we are on the same team - Democratic.

[jenmarie]

104. Wow. Thank you venable.

And yes, we are all on the same team, and once we have a candidate it's going to take all of us fighting like hell to ensure a new Democratic administration! We're going to have to win by such a wide margin that they will have no chance of stealing another election.

The reality is that any of the Democratic candidates will give our country a chance to heal, restore our constitution, and gain respect back from some of the rest of the world. Another 4-8 years of Republic rule, and we can pretty much kiss the good old USA goodbye.

:hug:

[FrenchieCat]

68. Edwards supporters upthread where being pretty intelligent and responding

generally well, till your post.

Guess there are extremes in every group, hey? :shrug:

[CarolNYC]

71. There it is again...

the "hatred" charge. You know, you guys sound just like those right wingers that insist that any criticism of Bush, no matter how valid, comes only because people hate Bush, not because he could possibly have done anything that could warrant criticism. Just sayin'.

I guess if you feel you have nothing to defend your guy with, all you've got to fall back on is the 'hate' charge? :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

89. No no no; the correct Reagan quote is "there you go again"

When engaging in the conservative tactic of ridiculing those with differing opinions, it's best to adhere to the standard tacks. Then again, I guess I'm just whining.

Mercifully, there have been far fewer Clark-worshiping threads of late, and there has been a shocking increase in the number of people enamored with Edwards--which was never the case during the '04 election--but the pattern still remains: Clark adulation is respectfully left alone, whereas virtually any thread in praise of Edwards is pounced on by the usual suspects.

It's tiresome and it's transparent. Edwards isn't some big meanie who destroyed your guy; your guy failed all by himself. The very gall that Edwards didn't obediently step aside when the great knight-in-shining-armor decided to ride in late to save the little folk still sticks in the collective craws of so many partisans. Fine. Go right ahead; it's everybody's right to rain on the parades of others, but ill-mannered and anti-social antics will draw some fire. It's just human nature. To reserve the right to dismiss, deride, harass and hector is within the bounds of comportment, but to do so and demand that one's actions be above reproach is nothing short of elitism. Sling some mud and it's only fair that some will get slung back; to screech for immunity while character assassinating is to claim privilege.

I haven't posted about this much of late because so many other people have fought this issue; it's a joke among many of us on this board and there have been so many posts of incredulity from new members that I thought it had dampened the extremists among the Clark camp somewhat. It has, but the embers still glow brightly.

The very soul of this thread is a "hate Edwards" hit-piece by a partisan of such extreme affiliation that his/her very moniker is one of adulation. To take this person to task is perfectly warranted; the whole point of this thread was to slag Edwards, so it's not as if this is some kind of innocent musing over facts. This is a typical and tiresome dynamic of the screeds from the extremists within the Clark camp: attack derisively, then scream bloody murder for being picked on when taken to task for it. Talk about conservative tactics, sheesh.

It's like the quote from the boss-monster from hell in an old Matt Groening "Life in Hell" cartoon: "How DARE you duck when I throw things at you!"

[CarolNYC]

92. Well, no surprise...

that you've got a Reagan quote on the tip of your tongue....

Just a suggestion...you might want to stop all of the projecting and start trying to deal head on with the issues you seem to have. Might make for a happier existence, you know?

Peace.

[PurityOfEssence]

96. Thanks for the condescension

Sweetness and the feigning of sincerity can't hide the pretense of breathy, eyelid-batting self-righteous ridicule. Passive-aggression is as tiresome as it is transparent, and sniping from one's self-proclaimed mountain of moral superiority has long since worn thin.

To attack someone personally while currying favor for being understanding and nurturing is the height of hypocrisy and a sign of dishonesty.

Thanks for the facile diagnosis of my personal problems; at least I don't hide behind oozy moral superiority when confronting someone, whereas you play to the cheap seats trying to seem like some kind of ethereal goddess of understanding as you rip and shred. When being abrasive, I actually admit it instead of trying to suck adoration from others for being some kind of dispassionate observer or vox populi.

Admit your disruptive confrontation and then a reasonable dialog might be had. However, with your endless sanctimoniousness in our barb-trading of the past few years, I don't expect much.

Butter WOULD melt in your mouth.

How very, very pathetic.

[Clark2008]

102. Clark whipped Edwards ass in five of the eight primaries in which the both competed.

Why would I think Edwards "destroyed" Clark?

That's the most idiotic thing I've read all day.

[PurityOfEssence]

108. They contested 13 primaries; Edwards beat him in eight of them; can't you read?

Are you extremely ignorant or deliberately deceptive? I'm not counting the Iowa Caucuses, because the late-arriving savior decided to not contest this race. He had some good runs, but he got his ass kicked conclusively. I've posted this before, but no Clark supporter has EVER disputed these facts, which come from CNN. (As Daniel Patrick Moynihan so aptly put it, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.) For all the furore and bluster, Clark stumbled terribly. At the end, he resorted to lying about Edwards' and Kerry's votes on the Bush tax cuts to try to salvage his futile cause.

These are facts. Please contest them. Please. I'd love to hear any equivocation.

It went like this:

Since the messiah didn't contest Iowa, we won't talk about how Edwards took 32% there.

--Clark took 3rd in New Hampshire, besting Edwards' 4th by four tenths of a percent (27,254 v. 26,416) Oooh.

--Clark walked all over Edwards in Arizona taking 2nd with 27% against Edwards' 7% (60,109 v. 15,583)

--Edwards took 3rd to Lieberman in Delaware by a heartbreaking 26 votes, but still beat Clark. (Edwards: 3,657 or 11%; Clark: 3,145 or 10%)

--Edwards beat the living shit out of Clark in Missouri, taking 2nd with 25% of the vote (103,198) while Clark could only scrape up a 4th place showing with 4% of the vote (18,328)

--Clark then clobbered Edwards in New Mexico by taking 2nd with 21% of the vote (19,828) while Edwards gasped to 4th with a mere 11% (10,953)

--Clark also stomped Edwards in North Dakota by taking 2nd with 24% (a tiny little constituency of 2,502) while Edwards came in 4th with 10% (not much of a party with only 1,025)

--Clark actually won a primary (Oklahoma) but it was a mighty thin victory. Edwards was second and Kerry was third. The margin of this ONLY VICTORY FOR CLARK was anemic to say the least: less than four tenths of a percent, a very similar margin to the triumphant trouncing in New Hampshire. (Clark: 90,526; Edwards 89,310) Let's stop here for a minute. The only victory Clark had in the primary season was so very very thin.

--Now we come to South Carolina. Edwards absolutely annihilated everyone. He took the state by 45%, while Clark could only cobble up 7%. This was one of the biggest blowouts of the whole campaign. Edwards: 131,174; Clark: 21,011.

--Michigan: Edwards took 3rd (13% and 21,919 votes) while Clark could only claw his way to 5th (4% and 10,986)

--On to Washington. Edwards got his ass kicked with a 4th place showing (7%, 1,571) but Clark floundered at 5th (3%, 768 votes) Let's revisit that: he couldn't even get a thousand votes.

--Maine continued the trend: Edwards was 4th with 8% (1,167), but Clark could only eke out a 5th with 4% (564 real live entire persons)

--Tennessee was where Clark staked his hopes, lying about Edwards and Kerry voting for the Bush tax cuts, but even there he could only manage 3rd (Edwards: 26%, 97,746; Clark: 23%, 85,182)

--The deathblow came the same day in Virginia. Once again, Kerry won, but Edwards was 2nd with 27% (104,813) while Clark spluttered in with 9% (36,474)

I've heard this idiotic claim of Clark besting Edwards before, and I've posted these statistics many times. I defy anyone to deny these facts. Clark got his ass kicked by Edwards. The facts are irrefutable. Do any of the harassing Clark extremists have a scrap of decency or maturity to admit this?

You're wrong. You're incredibly wrong. If you have a shred of decency you should admit it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Your facts are correct P.O.E. & it is fair to be annoyed

I have never had trouble admitting that John Edwards overall did better in the 2004 race than did Wes Clark. Some of the back story to this though is that a year or so ago several (predominantly) Edwards supporters were pushing a MEME that Clark did terribly in the 2004 race for the Democratic nomination, using that particular "spin" to support a contention that Wes Clark was a wretched campaigner.

The nugget of truth to what you rightfully point out is a misrepresentation of facts though is this: Clark held up relatively well against John Edwards through several weeks of Primary contests closely following Iowa's results, where Clark as you correctly note did not compete. The significance of that to Clark supports really rests in how the history of 2004 is retold and passed on. When it is simply presented that when all is said and done Edwards did better than Clark in 2004, most Clark supporters have no trouble clearly acknowledging that as fact. But when the myth is pushed that Clark did terribly, then Clark supporters do focus more on the earlier contests where Clark scored well in a number of them relative to Edwards. That's because we think Clark deserves credit for holding on to third place in New Hampshire in the face of the media storm that engulfed both Kerry and Edwards after the Iowa results were in.

But more than that even, I will admit to nursing a grudge against the media who acted like it was John Edwards who beat Wes Clark in New Hampshire, not the other way around. Nor was there even much talk of them having virtually tied in New Hampshire. The morning after that vote the media meme was that Kerry and Edwards had all the momentum in the race, and they got almost all of the positive publicity (while Dean got most of the negative publicity.) Given that, Clark supporters are proud that Clark still pulled off three second place finishes in the next round of contests (Arizona, New Mexico, and North Dakota). That too was given very little media attention, which pretty much sealed Clark's fate in my opinion. Instead the media only focused on Kerry winning every primary except South Carolina which John Edwards won, and Edwards got deserved respect for having won that primary.

But yes of course, John Edwards did well in 2004, better than Wes Clark, and second best in the overall field.

[benny05]

110. Which ones

OK, barely
AZ, barely

I wouldn't call that "ass whoppin" exactly.

[Catchawave]

72. I question the sources being used to "nail" him...

with Ben Smith articles. I noticed another thread using Ben Smith to bash Kerry and Clinton.

Read the comments to his articles. Very telling :(

[Clark2008]

77. Because it's legitimate criticism.

It's not "hate" or "Clark partisanship." May I remind you that Clark isn't running (yet).

It's allowed to have free rein because it's NOT hate. It's valid questioning.

Some of you Edwards supporters need to grow thicker skins. As a matter of act, the Clark partisans might be the very people you'd need to go to in order to learn how to do that. Instead of crying, "oh, boo-hoo, you hate my candidate of choice," Clark supporters actually give REASONS why said statements are inaccurate, false or out-and-out lies. We're good at that.

Edwards supporters, for the most part, seem only to try and tug at non-existent emotional heartstrings, which doesn't fly too well with the analytical majority of DUers, Clark supporters included.

I don't care how you "feel," show me why you're right.

[Adelante]

81. Physician heal thyself

Your extreme hatred of other DUers who are Clark supporters is exhibited regularly as you attempt to derail open discussion in this primary.

The matter of the authority that took us to war is a grave one. The prewar intelligence our representatives in Congress based their votes on is a timely one as Phase II of the investigations in Congress moves toward conclusion and as we decide on a nominee for our party. Any candidate for highest office has an obligation to all Americans, as John Edwards points out in this video, of transparency on this issue. WE as voters have the obligation to understand what happened before electing someone as complicit as John Edwards was in 2002 in co-sponsoring and hawking the IWR.

If you have something to add in this discussion, something on topic, please do it.

However, I ask you to kindly refrain from any further disruption of the thread.

Thank you.

[PurityOfEssence]

97. You start a divisive, deliberate hate-thread and somehow I'm out of line?

What version of coexistence stacks up in your worldview?

There is not, nor has there ever been, a partisan flame-frenzy to match the extreme Clark supporters vengeance against John Edwards on this website. The Deanies at their worst were far more tolerant and they weren't focused against one particular rival in the way that extremists of the Clark camp have been for quite some time.

Your moniker defines you as a Clark partisan; it literally defines you as someone who's such a disciple that he/she doesn't have any other personality than "what he said". To start a thread to slag Edwards simply makes you another cliche in the ongoing nastiness.

You don't run this board, so please don't demand that I cease and desist if I don't have anything suitable to add to your discussion; we abide by the rules of those who run and moderate this board, and I've already had one post on this thread flushed by the usual self-righteous raging of the extremists within the Clark camp.

As for your basic premise, it's simply crap. Edwards did NOT know all of the information, especially the dissenting views that correctly pointed out the doubtful nature of the WMDs. This is well documented, yet it's dismissed.

Meanwhile, Clark counseled others to vote for the IWR and has publicly stated that he would have voted for it as well as having publicly stated that he never said such a thing.

The tone of this response is a fine example of polite bullying: "thank you", "kindly refrain" from doing anything you don't like and "add to the discussion" following your self-generated rules. This is not pleasant or communal, it's derisive, abusive and solipsistic.

He did not see all of the information and he had problems with the whole thing. What he did was a mistake and he's admitted that. Has Wes Clark ever apologized for repeatedly lying that Kerry and Edwards voted for the Bush tax cuts? Has he ever apologized for distorting Edwards' voting record into being in accord with Bush 76% of the time? Even though Hugh Shelton's comments were off-the-cuff in a Q&A session after a speech, do extremist Clark supporters ever lay off this crap? Has he ever explained how he spoke with endless praise for the foreign policy wisdom of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell four months into the administration? Has he ever explained how he was always against school vouchers when he stated very clearly that he was for them in some instances before joining the race? As for the IWR, it's very clear that he's played both sides of the street and denied having done so.

You started an attack thread; I responded to that. Do you feel you have the right to attack, ignore contrary information and never have to stand and defend yourself? From what lofty perch do you view the rest of us peons?

You attacked. I responded. That's how the world works. Join the human race and stop expecting some kind of privilege.

[Pithy Cherub]

98. John Edwards is NOT running for sainthood.

"Join the human race and stop expecting some kind of privilege." Take your own advice and stop with the Bullshit of how harmed your psyche is when Edwards gets called for NOT doing his job and he is held to account. If your delicate sensibilities can't handle the Truth, stick to JE's website and stop the self-righteous condemnation of people who don't hold your narrow view point. If you want a fight, bring it!

[PurityOfEssence]

100. Ooooh, testy, aren't we? Isn't that line supposed to be "bring it on"?

He was caught in a nasty situation and he did the best he could. Not having seen all of the information, he dealt with what he had. To err on the side of safety is hardly the worst thing a person could do, yet armchair emperors love to kvetch and puff up with after-the-fact wisdom.

As a good friend and political scientist likes to say: "a critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse".

We've tussled before; if your bellicose superiority can't stand contradiction, then perhaps it's you who needs to look in the mirror and grow up. (Yes, when speaking to conservatives, I use their own tactics.) Somehow you feel that you have a greater right to express yourself here than I do. You don't.

My psyche isn't harmed by any of this puerile bickering, nor have I claimed that my pathetic little world is infringed upon by those who deign to contradict me. On the other hand, the concept of standing up to tin-horn barkers seems to be an assault on those who demand the right to belch forth invectives with impunity.

Suck as I do in many ways, I'm certainly not a shrinking violet, and much as you and others of your loose cult wish to slag all who disagree, I don't play pissy little games of moral superiority to quash the voices of others. Either you can't read or you're just playing games. This thread was a hit piece. It was another in the long line of extremist Clark partisans raging to destroy John Edwards.

Sure, people in this community have the right to be disruptive partisans and pick fights, but they don't have an aristocratic right to never have to face any resistance. Demanding that is just plain ugly and shows a lack of understanding of how the world works. Respond to that if you have a scrap or integrity or a scruple or two.

Once again, this was an extreme Clark supporter starting a thread to destroy John Edwards and using the standard conservative tactics: ignoring facts, raging against any opposition and playing the victim when countered.

The Messiah isn't coming. Even if he does polish up his shining armor and climb up onto his oh-so-high horse, he doesn't stand a chance: he'll get whipped worse than he did last time. (Don't cry about that taunt; it's just sparring in kind with the tough-guy posturing that started this revolting waste of time.)

My suggestion to you is to find a new cult.

[Clark2008]

103. So, you're saying we shouldn't be discussing a senator

not doing his job? Because, to do so is "slagging?"

Oh, dear Lord.

I think we know who the cult member here is.

[dogman]

106. Once again, it's attack the messenger.

I suppose that's far easier than to explain the video that can be seen at the link. You turn to bashing Clark rather than decipher the rambling message that Edwards spins to avoid answering a basic question. No one is destroying Edwards. He is accountable for his votes and seeks to remove himself with an apology. There are many Clark supporters who have no problem supporting Edwards, there are many who don't. Clark is not the factor. Edwards was contending for President before Clark was drafted. Dissatisfaction with the field or their prospects led a large number of people to draft Clark. I had considered Edwards but found him lacking in experience. I was supportive of Kerry but realized his negatives were high in a general election. I looked on Clark as an admirable alternative to the field. The attacks on Clark at DU and other sites were relentless, but by researching counterpoints and reading posts by others doing the same, I became more convinced of his suitability for President.

During the primary debate I witnessed Edwards brush through the question he was asked and ask to revisit a question Kerry had answered about a neo-con who linked the Iraq War and 9-11. Edwards' point was to say that 9-11 was all he needed to justify the Iraq War and that Kerry was wrong to disassociate the two. At that point I realized that Edwards was not capable of handling foreign policy and I could not support him. His apology is too late for me, the damage has been done and I see no reason he will not repeat that kind of mistake if confronted with a similar situation in the future.

You have every right to counter the OP, but personal attacks on a person are not a reasonable defense of your choice. To attack a third party not involved in the OP is ridiculous.

[CarolNYC]

109. attacking the messenger, a 3rd party, etc.....

I was listening to an episode of NPR's This American Life yesterday that dealt with the debate on Iraq between Salt Lake City's liberal mayor (who's been calling for Bush to be impeached) and Sean Hannity. The mayor, Rocky Anderson, gives his opening statement about how Bush lied us into Iraq and how it's now a mess and stuff. Hannity counters, not with answering anything that Rocky said, but by attacking Rocky, mentioning numerous times Rocky's "hatred" for Bush, and then going on to attack Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton etc...Seems like our buddy here has got Hannity's method down pat, although I guess I understand his attempt to spin the discussion far away from the topic at hand. How Edwards could not have read everything available to him before deciding to support the invasion and that IWR so strongly and not support the limiting amendments that others put forth on the IWR is a hard thing to defend.

And I remember that debate and how he came back to chastise Kerry for saying that the President had exaggerated the threat in the lead up to the invasion. "How can you exaggerate when 3000 are dead?" he said, something stupid like that. Although, I must say, I knew I could not support him long before that, long before I'd ever heard of Clark, when I first read his gung ho support for the invasion before it happened.

[Pithy Cherub]

107. Next time defend Edwards rather than your wounded vanity. n/t

[Clark2008]

73. How come Edwards and/or his staff have to go back after nearly

every substantial statement and change what they meant?

Sorry, this isn't strictly on topic, but it seems that Edwards says one thing on a news show one day, waits for crowd reaction and, if it isn't positive enough, he or his staff have to go back and say, "Well, that's not what he meant," or "we need to clarifly this."

It happened with his speech on Iran, it happened with his vote on Iraq, it happend with his "protesting on Memorial Day" initiative and so on.

Odd.

[Adelante]

78. New York Times: Edwards did not read NIE

Aide Says Edwards Misspoke on Reading Classified Iraq Report

By PATRICK HEALY and MARC SANTORA
Published: June 1, 2007

Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in Iraq, but his campaign retracted the statement yesterday.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards said the candidate had “simply misunderstood the question” and noted that Mr. Edwards had read only a declassified version of the intelligence report.

The issue of who had read the full report has bubbled up over the last week with reports that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, had not read it before voting to authorize force in Iraq, even though she and other senators had access to the document. The report was the government’s most comprehensive intelligence assessment of Iraq’s prewar capability for unconventional weapons.

-snip

The Edwards spokesman, Mark Kornblau, noted that Mr. Edwards had often said he read intelligence documents that were summarized in the classified report.

“He simply misunderstood the question,” Mr. Kornblau said. “As Senator Edwards has said many times before, he read the declassified version of the N.I.E.,” not the full report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01rudy.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[Sweet Pea]

80. Edwards is not ready for prime time...

in my opinion.

[leveymg]

84. Both versions of the NIE were misleading about Iraq WMD

The classified and declassified versions of the 10/02 Iraq NIE was both profoundly flawed, downplaying the view of officers within the Agency's Counterproliferation Division (CIA-CPD) -- including Valerie Plame -- that there was no real evidence of a reconstituted Iraq nuclear weapons program. That dissenting view was relegated to an appendix that was little more than a footnote in the classified NIE. What Congress read was the product of extreme pressure Cheney and Libby had applied to senior managers at the Agency to falsify intelligence.

The NIE instead highlighted false intel about aluminum tubes stovepiped from corrupt CIA contractor MZM, which had bribed Duke Cunningham and Jerry Lewis, and a bunch of other GOP Congressmen on the Appropriations Committee.

While the public's attention has been diverted to Plame's husband, Ambassador Wilson's criticism of the Administration's false claim about Niger Yellowcake, in fact, within CIA nobody seriously believed the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. As Richard Grenier testified during the Libby trial, the aluminum tubes issue was the real focus of conflict between two groups of analysts. The NIE reflected the view pushed by Cheney and Libby that a batch of Chinese aluminum tubes intercepted on their way to Iraq were intended for use in building centrifuges. Valerie had actually flown to Jordan to inspect the tubes and talk to exile Iraqi nuclear scientists. She concluded the tubes weren't suitable or intended for Khan P-1 type centifuges.

Recall, Cheney claims to have summarily "declassified" the 10/02 NIE just before Scooter met with Judy on July 11, 2003. The relevant extract of that document, naming Valerie Wilson, ended up in the classified NIE Notes passed around AF-1 that same day. Two days later, Novak published his infamous column "outing" Valerie Plame as a covert CIA officer working on nuclear proliferation matters. Several days later, Novak published a second column, revealing Brewster-Jennings & Co. as her employer. That company had been set up by CIA-CPD to provide cover for Plame and some of her colleagues. By outing Plame and Brewster Jennings, the White House in effect destroyed the Iraq unit at CIA Counterproliferation Division.

The 10/02 NIE has an enormous importance in both these scandals, as well as in misleading Congress to approve the IWR.

[venable]

87. excellent points, thanks. n/t

[Cameron27]

88. Both versions of the NIE were misleading

but there was enough dissenting evidence for caution, and if not an actual no vote for the IWR, then at minimum, a vote for Levin's resolution or others that were better alternatives than co-sponsoring Lieberman's.

The very least that an elected member of Congress owed his constituents was to study the classified documents that were allowed him as a member of the Intelligence Committee. The fact that this decision involved matters of war makes it more significant.

…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.


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

[leveymg]

90. On the other hand, even the unclassified version had brief reference to the dissenting view

on both aluminum tubes and Niger yellowcake. It's only one paragraph, tucked away, near the end, all by its lonesome. See the declassified version, p. 87 of 96. http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf

In NIEs, the lie isn't entirely by commission or even ommission. It's by forcing a false appearance of consensus within the Intelligence Community, and presenting that in the key findings, up front, which are far more likely to get read than the footnotes and dissenting views at the end.

[Cameron27]

95. Thanks, I hate pdf's.

Here's the paragraph from the unclassified version at your link:

“INR’s Alternative View: Iraq’s Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes

Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq’s missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magneti-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipment—including a variety of machine tools—and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

[leveymg]

91. That pretty much confirms what I've read elsewhere. The aei link doesn't work, though.

This one should lead you down that page to Isikoff's statement: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:V9n4B8hPQ90J:www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1383/transcript.asp+this+is+a+passage+that+deals+with+the+recollections+of+Peter+Zimmerman,+who+was+the+scientific+adviser+to+the+Senate+Foreign+Relations+Committee,&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[Cameron27]

93. Self-delete

see post below lol.

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

[Cameron27]

94. Ah, it's the same link lol.

I need more coffee.