The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94

This has been bothering me for quite some time. I've been increasingly focused on it lately, maybe it was sparked by attention on Senator Clinton and her not reading the report or on John Edwards via Shrum's book's discussion of how he made his decision, but a simple fact has really come to indicate where we are as country, and how off course we've gone.

In October 2002, prior to the October 12, 2002 Iraq War Vote, under lock and key, prepared for our Senators and Representatives by our country's top intelligence analysts, lay a 92 page report about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, and everything we knew about Saddam.

It sat waiting for our elected officials to sign in without staff and read it, 92 pages. No staffers allowed, elected officials only. A five page declassified document was readily available to all but the 92 page document, you had to show up, sign in and read it.

Only 6 Senators did.

Only six Senators thought that sending our country's bravest off to war to die was worth a few minutes of their time. How long a report would you have read before deciding to send our nation's finest to war?

Now, already by now, minions of Senators are scurrying off emails;

Senator So and So was briefed by his staff. The Senator weighed this vote deeply.

Political pundits and DC journalists are smirking at my simplicity of view on this. "This dumb blogger doesn't get how things are done around here."

Bullshit.

And more Bullshit.

First of all, no one could be briefed on it because staffers couldn't see the report, that's the problem.

Second, I don't care how DC operates. You want to stand up and vote on war, you sit your ass down in that chair and read the intelligence briefing.

There are no excuses.

Here's what I have found out.

Senator Biden read it. Senator Dorgan, no. Senator Nelson (Nebraska) no. Senator Graham, Florida? Yes.


Senator Edwards did not.


Senator Clinton did not.


Senator Kerry did not and had the added hypocrisy of accusing the Bush Administration of not reading it in 2004 during the campaign when he hadn't read it. He got nailed on that.

Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid? No.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, yes. Senator Pat Roberts, yes.

Now is a good time to mention that there were a lot of people who thought going to war in Iraq was far from a slam dunk, like Al Gore and Howard Dean for instance. To me, and this is just my personal opinion, to claim now that you want to end the war and to base your political calculations based upon being anti-war is nothing short of hypocritical opportunism.

Back to the research into the six Senators who actually did their jobs; there are two left in addition to Biden, Roberts, Rockefeller and Graham.

Then I found this courtesy of my friends at MYDD.

"The two Senators who pushed hardest to have the US intelligence community compile an NIE, Senator Bob Graham and Senator Dick Durbin, both voted against authorizing military force against Iraq - largely because the full classified 96-page NIE contained many more caveats and dissents than any of the summaries."

This makes my stomach turn. Furthermore, from an UPDATE on the above MYDD post:

Sen. Bob Graham's floor statement urging his fellow Senators to read the full classifed NIE. Here is Sen. Graham's statement:

"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.

Indeed, here's the update as of today. We're pushing 3,500 American dead.

So who was the sixth? I kept digging. But I haven't had any luck and obviously there are plenty of Senators who are willing to have the idea linger that one of then actually read it. I did find the final vote tally here, 77 to 23. I can forgive those who took the time to read it and voted yes.

I will not forgive any Senator who couldn't be bothered to read the report.

And there's a special place in hell for any Senator who couldn't be bothered to read it, even after being encouraged on the Senate floor by someone who actually had, and then voted yes. What Bob Graham said has become reality, we have made our world a more dangerous place for ourselves and our children. Blood is on their hands just as much as it is on President Bush's.

The mainstream media will forgive them for not reading the report but I won't. And neither should you.

Senators Biden, Graham, Roberts, Rockefeller, Durbin and one did their duty. No one else did.

note: I would very much like to find out who the sixth Senator was, if you know, or if you are the Senator who did, please email me. I know a beautiful mother whose son went to Iraq and never came home. I want to know for her.



Display:


Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 7)

Do you mean to say the Edwards, A Co-Sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution, did NOT read the Intelligence Report regarding Iraq?

And some people want him to be President?

That is like jumping of a cliff into the river without knowing how deep it is!

And Clinton Too! If you were in Washington as a Representative of the People and you didn't take the time to read the Intelligence about Iraq before voting to give war powers to the President (particularly THIS President) then, not only do you not deserve to be President, but you don't deserve to represent the People anymore.


"Make it stop! Please! Make it stop!"
by OsoDelMar on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:58:40 AM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

I know senator Kennedy voted against the resolution, but I donot know if he read the report.


by BDM on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so is Biden stupid? (3.00 / 1)

the premise of this diary would be that Biden read this really obvious stuff and came to the wrong conclusion...

So it makes less sense to say someone should be president who's not bright enough to pass reading comprehension...


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so is Biden stupid? (none / 0)

Exactly, that's probably why he has no support.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm Calling Bullshit (3.00 / 8)

Do you think that Hillary and Kerry told Edwards to Co-Sponsor the Iraq War Resolution?

Edwards is responsible for his actions and any one of those three actions is enough to make anyone question his judgment. (Voting Yes for War in Iraq, Co-Sponsoring the Legislation, and/or Not Reading the NIE).

And if he is that easily influenced then I don't want him as President. (What did they offer him for voting yes? Maybe a spot on the 2004 Democratic Ticket?)


"Make it stop! Please! Make it stop!"
by OsoDelMar on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:02:50 PM EST

Re: I'm Calling Bullshit (3.00 / 5)

And he still doesn't have the experience to be president.


by pia on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Calling Bullshit (3.00 / 1)

less experienced? Then what was one so wet behind the ears doing endorsing the goddam thing?


by sybil disobedience on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Calling Bullshit (3.00 / 1)

I'm an Obama supporter, but I like Edwards and even caucused for him in 2004 (I was deciding between him and Dean, but the choice was made for me because Dean dropped out the week before the Minnesota caucuses). I definitely think Edwards made a mistake, but so does he and I accept his apology as I think he was using his best judgment at the time (sure it was the easy political thing to do, but I'm sure that he truly believed that things weren't going to turn out like this).

That said, the Iraq vote is a big reason why I trust Obama more as a leader than Edwards. However, I will still support and volunteer for Edwards if he is our nominee, and I think he has learned from his mistakes enough to make a great President. Like I said, I just trust Obama more.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Calling Bullshit (3.00 / 2)

>>>the Iraq vote is a big reason why I trust Obama more as a leader

How can you trust Obama because of his non-war vote - when since elected - he's voted to FUND the war and voted AGAINST timetables?

I've met so many Obama supporters who like you - base their support on his prewar stand against the war. But sadly, MOST don't know that he's voted FOR the war.  Apparently this isn't a big topic in his campaign speeches.  But it certainly reminds me of the 70% Americans who thought Saddam was involved with 911.

There are reps who were against the war and have consistently voted against all funding!

But not Obama. He took the rightwing DC-DLC  insider route - "supporting our troops" as long as they're in a warzone! - rather than using his voice to call bullshit on the rightwing disinformation that if Congress voted against funding - our troops would be abandoned in a warzone without food and bullets!

While he and Hillary were voting for MORE WAR -and against a timetable - Edwards was admitting he was wrong and screaming to set a timetable to get out of Iraq!

My kind of leader doesn't deceive.
My kind of leader admits he was wrong.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:43:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Calling Bullshit (none / 0)

Obama hastaken responsibility for the mess that Edwards helped create. He did not take the easy way out either in 2002 or today. That's leadership.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:34:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Calling Bullshit (3.00 / 1)

Obama has used the rightwing frame to justify voting to FUND the war! while claiming he opposes it.
That's DECEPTIVE!
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

to anne: (3.00 / 1)

My kind of leader has the wisdom to know something like Iraq will be a mistake from the start.

Had more people in the Senate and House had the foresight shown by Obama, there would be no painful choice between voting to fund the troops knowing that you're effectively giving support for a war to which you've always been opposed and voting against funding knowing that George Bush will do all he can as President to continue this mission in Iraq, the cost to those who serve be damned. (And there certainly are humanitarian issues regarding the Iraqi people to take into account when considering a withdrawal). It sucks, but that's where we were at thanks to those in the party who weren't wise enough or strong enough to oppose this war from the beginning. We still can't even get more than 14 of our Senators to vote to cut off funding.

Like I said, Edwards has apologized and I'm willing to look past that vote and the failure to read the NIE, especially given the leadership he's shown on ending the war. Since all of our candidates are now in the same place regarding Iraq withdrawal policy (by all of our candidates, I guess I pretty much mean the top 3), I'm voting for the one I trust to make the best decisions, and that is Obama. I have many other reasons for supporting him, but this is one of my biggest. So don't accuse me of being poorly informed.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Calling Bullshit (none / 0)

At the time of the votes in 10-02, John Edwards had been in the Senate since 1-99 and sat on the Intelligence Committee, Hillary Clinton had been in the Senate since 1-01 and didn't sit on the Intelligence Committee, so Edwards actually had more Senate experience than Clinton at the time these decisions were made.  


by latinjum on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't read because the war wasn't about WMD (none / 0)

WMD was just the excuse to go in. Everyone knew that Saddam was no threat to the US, just an annoyance.

And when they say they were briefed on the report, I assume they mean briefed by CIA personnel loyal to the Bush admin.


by End game on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 01:49:19 PM EST

um, yeah... (none / 0)

According to WOLFOWITZ

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

- Paul Wolfowitz, quoted by Tim Russert on 'Meet The Press, NBC, 06-01-03

But the point is, it SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN least by Dems.


by bluemoon on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

I was pretty po'ed too. However, my focus now is getting our elected officials to bring home the troops. I think all the Dem cadidates are excellent, inspite of their initial support of the war.

It's sad that if the war had come to a speedy conclusion, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:27:45 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

They were all advised that it would not come to a speedy conclusion and that a civil war was a probability.

...more testimony they did not avail themselves of


by sybil disobedience on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

The President is the only one who has the power to bring home the troops. What are you focusing on that you think will make him do something he has no intention of doing? And are you aware of the simple logistical reality that if we decided today to bring 'em home, it would take at least a YEAR to get all of them out? It's ridiculous to focus on the troops and tactics when we need to be talking about the overall strategy of what the hell we're doing there and what needs to happen in order for us to leave. We're going to be there for longer than any of us likes to think about.


by SusanCLE on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 1)

The President is the only one who has the power to bring home the troops.
huh? Congress holds the purse strings.

What do you want to do? I'm not sure that I understand you. For the record, I have blasted Clinton, big time, on the front page of this forum for being among the galactically clueless who insist that they were elected to blindly follow a Republican president. Even I knew that the Niger paper was a forgery, before the war started.

(3.14.03)http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.ir q.documents/
(3.17.03)http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=235695&&


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

I think this war was a mistake from the start, but it's naive to think Congress is going to cut off the funding and Bush will have to pull the plug. There's not a majority in Congress who would risk the charge that they "don't support the troops" and want to leave them high and dry. We know that's not true, but most of the country isn't too deeply tuned in and they accept what the corporate media feeds them, which is the Bush message--that cutting off funds will hurt the troops. And I wouldn't put it past the Bastard in Chief to make the troops pay in blood so he could blame it on the Democrats.

So, as I said--the president is the Commander in Chief and only he has the power to withdraw the troops--so they aren't coming home as long as he's in office. And next thing you know, we'll probably be caught up in conflict with Iran too, because while we're fiddling around discussing troop levels and whether the surge is failing in Iraq, the forces are in place to respond to any "incident" that they can blame on Iran. They've certainly been laying the groundwork for months.


by SusanCLE on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 1)

Good diary.  I agree 100%.  I think Obama was correct in saying as a Candidate he's not going to say voting for the war disqualifies someone to be President, but certainly we as voters have every reaason to make that disqualification.  Edwards can apologize all he wants and Hillary can couch it in trusting the President, the simple fact remains in the most crucial vote of their careers they didn't have the foresight, like Obama did, to know this was a bad decision AND they didn't even have the work ethic, like the 6 Senators, to read the full report. There is a time to be briefed and a time to do due diligence.  And in the real "moment of truth" they failed us.


by dougdilg on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:46:25 PM EST

Hillary is Obama's competition (none / 0)

not Edwards....

why doesn't Obama more forcefully contrast himself with Hillary.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Obama's competition (none / 0)

Obama is a counter-puncher.  He's going to forcefully present his case, his opinions, his vision.  He's not going to go on the offensive like Edwards tried to do, but he will zing back if directly attacked, as Johnny found out.  The contrast is pretty clear, she was for the war, he was opposed.  


by dougdilg on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Obama's competition (none / 0)

He is not going to win by counter punching. Hillary wont attack him, she has no reason to.

Does he want to win? If so he better step it up and be more forceful on telling people why he is the correct choice and she isn't.


by okamichan13 on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Obama's competition (3.00 / 1)

He's pretty forceful about telling people what he is stands for.  If I had to point to one thing, no make that two things, which stand out why I support him it would be 1. he had the insightfulness to analyze the Iraqi situation completely accurately and make the correct decision. And 2. I want a President who talks about the "empathy deficit" in this country and asks people to "to broaden, and not contract, your ambit of concern".  This isn't the stuff of 8 person debates and who won scorecards.  You say he can't win that way.  It appears he disagrees.  


by dougdilg on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is Obama's competition (none / 0)

I generally agree with you, with one caveat.

My sense is that Obama would rather that Clinton self-destruct first, before
he has to go on the offense. It is reasonable to believe that, if Obama picks
up $5M to $10M more than she does in this quarter, Clinton -- who, despite
appearances, I believe is already getting nervous and a little desperate about
Obama -- will start to overreach and get sloppy.

But I do think that if Obama has not fairly significantly closed the gap to
Clinton by September or October -- the run-up to the fall debates and the
primaries -- he will have take the gloves off.


by horizonr on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:10:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 1)

Obama has failed everyone by supporting and voting for the rightwing frame on the war - afraid of angering the DC-DLC elites.
John Edwards has moved FARRR AWAY from the DC-DLC crowd, however Obama and Hillary are still very much a part of it. Still.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:51:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

For me, it really comes down to this: both of them want to end the war in the exact same way, which I think is the correct way: a gradual withdrawal of forces. I'm impressed that Edwards publicly  and clearly called for such a withdrawal a year and a half before most Democrats (and a year before Obama). However, I still place more trust in the ability of Obama to evaluate future foreign policy decisions, given that they're in the same place now and Obama was against starting the war in the fist place.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:40:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bravo! Great piece! (3.00 / 6)

You hit so many nails right on the head!

I hope everyone reads THIS diary!

By the way, I would like to include Wes Clark in the following statement from your diary:

"Now is a good time to mention that there were a lot of people who thought going to war in Iraq was far from a slam dunk, like Al Gore and Howard Dean for instance."


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:00:25 PM EST

Re: Bravo! Great piece! (3.00 / 1)

I second that.

I agree with Gore, but does Dean really count?  It's easy for those not in the Senate to say after the fact what they would have done; I'm not sure Dean really said anything at the time, but perhaps I'm wrong.

For the record, I tend to think Clinton's explanation is what should have been correct for most Democrats.  Vote yes, defaulting to trust, but speak up loudly the moment that trust looks like it will be violated.  To my knowledge, no Democrat who voted for authorization spoke up when that trust was violated, a point that still angers me far more than the vote itself.

Great Diary, BTW.  No excuse for anyone who voted yes not to have read the report, and probably no excuse for those that voted no either.


by Mark Matson on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo! Great piece! (none / 0)

and Barack Obama


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 5)

This is an excellent diary and sheds some light on a very important topic. And although you include a lot of important information, I am curious if there is more to this story.

The NIE is a compilation of intelligence from every intelligence agency - which sounds nice - except we all know it was put together by George "Medal of Freedom" Tenet. This document was design to be a "slam dunk", in Tenet's own words, and not an accurate account of the threat posed by the Iraqi regime.

So, when we say we are upset that Edwards, Hillary and the rest of the bunch did not read this document, we are basically saying we are upset they didn't spend some time reading the President's custom-made propaganda.

Here is what I REALLY want to know - how did Edwards and Hillary go about gathering their information about Iraq? If someone truly wanted to understand the threat posed by Iraq, I would hope they would do more than simply read a Cliff Notes document that summarizes the intelligence from more than a dozen agencies, and is, as we now know, politically influenced. I would rather they speak to the top professionals from our intelligence community and be briefed by More Than One Source about the threat posed by Iraq.

Is not reading the NIE excusable? Maybe. It all depends on what they DID read and who they DID talk to. That's what I really want to know.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:00:40 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 2)

Here's some of the "more to the story" that may help you--Bob Graham's Op-Ed:

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


by SusanCLE on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

Thanks, very helpful.

What I would ideally like is a clear statement from both Edwards and Hillary stating exactly the steps they took, the documents they read, and the people they talked to that shaped their vote on war authorization.

They could dispel a lot of criticism if they did so (assuming they have a convincing tale to tell).


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 1)

Is Obama's vote to fund the war he opposed - excusable? Why couldn't he stand strong like other reps who opposed the war and have voted against funding?
Why did Obama go the rightwing route of claiming he had to "support the troops" in a warzone?
If just once - just once - Obama had gone on TV and stated emphatically that defunding the war would NOT leave our troops in harm's way without food and water - I would respect him more.
But - he was silent.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:56:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

Well, the first thing you need to realize is that the decision whether or not to initiate a war is quite different than whether and how to end it. Obama can consistently maintain his original opposition to war while having reservations about abruptly ending the war. The mistake of waging this war has led to a terrible mess, we have some responsibility to contain the costs of that mistake before pulling out--if we reasonable can. Pulling out immediately would likely create even more problems (for Iraq and the U.S) Hence, a phased withdrawal was proposed by Barack and others, but this was vetoed, which presented a dilemna for those who would want to withdraw troops more cautiously.

I hate this war and opposed it before it began, but I'm not going to ignore further problems that might arise were we to immediately leave. It's just a shitty situation with no clear solution.  


by DPW on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:37:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

That sums up about how I feel... I already linked to it up thread, but here's a great New York Times article about what happens to the Iraqi people after withdrawal, which I don't think we on the Democratic side talk about enough (not that they talk about it on the Republican side without getting any deeper than "if we pull out, the terrorists win," but we do need to be able to tell the American people exactly what we are planning on doing if we expect to win).

If anyone wants a good book about life inside Iraq during the war, I'd recommend <u>Night Draws Near</u> by Anthony Shadid. It's a little dated now (2005), but it's great nonetheless.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:49:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 2)

Feingold, right? Isn't he the sixth?

Obama (of whom I am not a particular fan) also opposed the war.

As did several millions of others without access to either report, but who could smell the stench of bullshit & lies from their television screens, keyboards & computer screens thousands of miles away from Washington D.C.


by bluemoon on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:27:12 PM EST

It goes to competence (none / 0)

I was just rewatching parts of the debate available on Youtube and I was struck by the part during the section on the NIE where Edwards explains why his apology is important.  The way he explains it is it is very important a candidate has the honesty to admit when he's made a mistake, especially since there has been so much dishonesty these last 6 years with this Administration. That's true, very true.  

But side by side with the dishonesty of the Bush administration has been a complete and total incompetence, an incompetence you can't apologize away.  So shouldn't the American public demand a certain level of competence from its next President along with a level of honesty?  When Edwards says he had all the information he needed to make a proper decision and yet he still made a mistake, are we to dismiss that incompetence because at least he's being honest about it?


by dougdilg on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:39:06 PM EST

Re: It goes to competence (3.00 / 1)

I'm not clear Edwards is being honest about it.

From all the information I've seen it's very confusing.

From some things I've read it sounds like he didn't want to vote for it -- his conscience told him not to vote for it -- but he based his decision on how he would "look" to the American public, instead. Then he goes even further to look tough and co-sponsors LIEberman's resolution.

But then, I think he also still stands by what he said when he co-sponsored and voted for the IWR -- that he honestly did feel Saddam was a threat that had to be dealt with immediately because he talked to people he trusted and believed them.

Then again, maybe he felt Saddam was an immediate threat up until he apologized, which is when he had realized he'd made a mistake thinking/believing that.

See, my problem with Edwards is no matter what the truth of his decision was -- either he showed very poor judgement, or he put his political aspirations ahead of everything else. Neither of those things qualify him to be president of this country, nor to be a Senator, Governor, or any other position that puts him in a place of representing us.


by jen on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It goes to competence (3.00 / 1)

Obama has showed his dishonesty by voting to fund the war.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:57:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It goes to competence (3.00 / 0)

Can you stop repeating this bullshit idea everywhere? Please. We know what you think already.

There is nothing dishonest about being against the war and then take responsibility for it after Edwards and company started it. Obama is acting like a grown up, like a leader. Edwards follows public opinion like a turncoat - twice. First when supporting the war, then with pie in the sky proposals from outside the Senate where he know he can't change anyting. Pandering pandering pandering. At least Obama follows his own principles consistently.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:39:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It goes to competence (3.00 / 0)

How was he dishonest? You may disagree with his judgment to fund the war, but I don't see any instance of misrepresentation. As I note above in response to you, his decision to fund the war is not inconsistent with his initial opposition to the war. Whether to fund an already existing (and problematic) engagement depends on many considerations that did not exist before the war was waged.

To be sure, many people have ended up being parents despite their best efforts to avoid parenthood, yet you wouldn't call them dishonest for supporting/feeding the child, would you? Would you?


by DPW on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 08:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Eaxactly (none / 0)


by horizonr on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very well said (3.00 / 3)

Although John Edwards is not my first choice, is too early to say whether
he is now being a "hypocritical opportunist" on Iraq. I would like to think not.

But no one should ever, ever, ever stop hammering Hillary Clinton on this,
given her perpetual and daily whining that "George Bush made me do it."

George Bush didn't make Hillary Clinton not do her duty. That was her choice.
She didn't stand up then, and she's not standing up now.

Which places her supporters in the pathetic position of having to justify her
actions with appeals to all the other people who didn't stand up.

But some people obviously did stand up.

Hillary Clinton didn't stand up. Hillary Clinton failed.

And she still can't admit it.

That's not a president.


by horizonr on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:51:03 PM EST

Re: Very well said (none / 0)

I am grateful for annefrank's "3" for my comment, but I do not accept her
uninformed attacks on Barack Obama. I am in sympathy with the reasoned
defenses against those attacks already offered by others.
by horizonr on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My guess for the sixth would be Wellstone (3.00 / 2)

Wellstone may have been the sixth.  He had a tough election coming up and voting against the war was not in his  best political interest.  He did anyway and faced a very tough reelection campaign.  His honesty is sorely missed.


by Licorice on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:07:08 PM EST

Re: My guess for the sixth would be Wellstone (3.00 / 5)

I think that's highly likely. Or perhaps Senator Boxer...

Nevertheless, both Wellstone and Kennedy heard General Clark's testimony before SASC because they both cited him and attributed their NO votes, in part, to his testimony.


by sybil disobedience on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My guess for the sixth would be Wellstone (3.00 / 1)

Wellstone is a possbility. MY guess however is Carl Levin (who voted against the IWR).


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My guess for the sixth would be Wellstone (3.00 / 3)

Yes, and was on the committee?

if I remember correctly?

Another very good possibility.


by sybil disobedience on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My guess for the sixth would be Wellstone (none / 0)

Levin is definitely a possibility.  I recall statements of his (don't remember from where) that talked about caveats in the intelligence, which sounds like this report.  It's also consistent with his bookish senatorial style.  And of course, he's on the committee.  If it's not Levin, it's somebody more in that sort of mold rather than a Feingold or a Boxer.


by fwiffo on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 08:23:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They didn't do their job (3.00 / 1)

The Senators who didn't read the classified NIE didn't do their job. It's as simple as that.


by Korha on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:52:34 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 2)

It occured to me today that all these guys and gals probably didn't read the NIE on purpose.

They had decided how they had to vote politically.  It was an inside job.  No one was willing to go up against the Bush machine.  so if they didn't read the NIE--it sort of got them off the hook.  Made their vote easier.

Maybe that's what they were thinking.


by aiko on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:23:54 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 5)

This diary isn't really about the presidential race is it? It's about a full Senate of folks who can't be bothered to educate themselves.  It isn't partisan, and it isn't about the next president. It's about the current culture of governance that doesn't reward responsibility so much as responsiveness.

It's amazing how outraged people suddenly become when there's flaming to be done, but I haven't noticed many people discussing how this is bad for say, the soldiers. the country. the world.  Nope. Everything exists only in the context of Clinton v Obama v Edwards.

If you want better candidates, work for a government that will produce them.  This isn't some sort of exception where top-down is the way to change things.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:47:34 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 2)

The six senators and two or three representatives who logged in for the NIE could have been anyone. It was available to the entire Congress. Senators Graham, Durbin, Levin and Edwards, and the rest of the Intelligence Committee were unlikely to have a need to go to the locked room at all. The Intel Committee requested the NIE in the first place and it was delivered to that committee; but Foreign Relations was also having hearings based on the NIE, where Biden read it. I suggest that these high security level committee members should be in a different category than the locked room visitors.

Here is a list:

2008 Candidates:
Biden (Read Yes; Voted Yes) (chair, Foreign Relations Committee)
Clinton (Read No; Voted Yes)
Dodd (Read No; Voted Yes)
Edwards (Read No; Voted Yes; Co-sponsored) (Intelligence Committee)
Kucinich (Read No?; Voted No)
McCain (Read No: Voted Yes)

Others:
Byrd (Read Yes; Voted No) (Armed Services Committee)
Durbin (Read Yes; Voted No) (Intelligence Committee)
Feinstein (Read Yes; Voted Yes) (Intelligence Committee)
Graham (Read Yes; Voted No) (chair, Intelligence Committee)
Rep. Jane Harman (Read Yes; Voted Yes) (House Intelligence Committee)
Kennedy (Read Yes?; Voted No) (Armed Services Committee)
Levin (Read Yes; Voted No) (Intelligence Committee)
Rockefeller (Read Yes; Voted Yes) (Intelligence Committee)

http://intelsuss.wordpress.com/


by zac on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:07:05 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

Brownback said in the debate last night that he had not read the full NIE.


by zac on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 2)

What do you mean we will never know how he would have voted? He said in an interview on television days later that he would have voted "the same way as Illinois senior Senator, Dick Durbin...no". Check it out for yourself. He was quite vocal in his opposition at other public events as well. Even though people like Dean and Obama weren't in the Senate to vote, they were still leading on the issue by using their stature as public officials outside the Congress to galvanize opposition.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:23:18 PM EST

Sort of unrelated, but... (3.00 / 1)

Anyone else seen the Tom Allen ad on the side of the page that says, "How much would you pay to re-defeat Joe Lieberman?" I laughed out loud--that was awesome! He must have someone on the campaign familiar with the netroots. If I had any money, I'd donate.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (3.00 / 2)

Sadly, Obama hasn't used his voice to oppose the war - AFTER he was elected.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:45:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please look at Obama's record... (none / 0)

...before making these uninformed pronouncements.

Since going to the Senate, Obama has consistently pushed for the
most agressive start dates to begin drawing down troops from Iraq.

Moreover, Obama understood and argued in 2002 that one of the
most basic reasons for not starting a "dumb war" is that it is always
much easier to get in to a war than it is to get out -- not least, because,
when you start a war, you also have to be prepared to clean up the
damned mess you made.

A list of Obama's major speeches and statements on Iraq -- including
a link to a page that includes links to all of these -- is here.


by horizonr on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

What do you mean we will never know how he would have voted?

Max, not to cast aspersions on Obama - who most certainly deserves credit for his 2002 anti-war oratory - but, just to make a philosophical point, only two of the following statements do we actually know with certainty:

1) Obama may well have voted the against the AUMF had he been in the Senate

2) Obama may well sincerely believe he would have voted against the AUMF had he been in the Senate

3) Obama would have voted against the AUMF had he been in the Senate

Because statements 1 and 2 are certainly true, it's not surprising that Obama has publicly said how he believes he would have voted.  But that public statement, as sincere as it may be, cannot alter the fact that we cannot know with certainty how Obama actually would have voted in an alternate universe where he had been in the Senate.  Imagine an alternative history, where Obama became a U.S. Senator sooner than 2004 - let's say, 2000.  How would those years in the Senate have shaped his perspective?  How would being in the Senate when 9/11 occurred, have affected him?  Would his oratory, and perhaps his voting tendencies, in that universe, be more conservative, than the Obama who existed in our universe, in October, 2002?

No one can know.


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

Feingold

I think it was Russ Feingold


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:53:52 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

It's been documented that Barack Obama would have voted NO. He even stated so when the war was STILL popular and it was not yet "cool or convenient" to oppose it. He still stated that he would vote NO when John Edwards ran for President the first time and was still defending it because his new Revelation did not kick in until November when he lost. So, Barack Obama did, in fact , make clear that he would have voted no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWED js


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:59:21 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

zac

thats a great list, thanks for finding it


James Boyce
by jamesboyce on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:03:47 PM EST

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

Note that Zac's list identifies DIanne Feinstein as the 6th person who read the NIE.


by pontificator on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:08:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

Oh, okay.


"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama
by ObamaEdwards2008 on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94 (none / 0)

Feinstein was on the Intelligence Committee which ordered the NIE in the first place and to which the NIE was delivered on October 1. I find it doubtful that anyone on that committee would have had to go to the locked room, since they had the NIE in hand, had been briefed on what it would contain on 9/24 and briefed again on 10/2 after they had received it. The locked room access was set up for the rest of Congress, not the Intelligence Committee, as I understand it, at the insistence of Bob Graham.


by zac on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:06:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dianne Feinstein (3.00 / 2)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), who wrote a letter to Bush on Sept. 13, 2002, asking for his assistance in making sure that Tenet produced the requested NIE about Iraq, said she did in fact read it before casting her vote in favor of the war.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i d=10375


by pontificator on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:06:49 PM EST

It's About the Climate of Fear (none / 0)

WHY didn't Senators read the NIE?  That's an important question.  WHY didn't anyone read the Patriot Act before it passed?

Why did so many Demcorats fall for this ridiculous notion that if they voted for a timeline to withdraw troops they would be smeared as "abandoning the troops?"

I think that we are seeing the results of a climate of intimidation.   Today every politician is more aware and afraid of how the right's attack and smear machine will portray them than they are of anything else.  This pervasive atmosphere where the smear is more important than the truth is distorting every policy decision.

That is what this really comes down to.  A climate of intimidation, where fear of the smear is more important than doing the right thing.  

On my blog I have called this the "Afraid Rush Limbaugh Will Say Something Bad About Them Syndrome" - where Democrats make decisions based on how Limbaugh will portray them, forgetting that Rush Limbaugh will ALWAYS ALWAYS say bad things about them no matter what they do.


-- Seeing the Forest
by davej on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:47:07 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.