Edwards aide: Edwards misspoke on reading the NIE report before voting on IWR

[The Count]

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.

Of course, not reading it implies a dereliction of duty as outlined here:

The Iraq War Vote Was 6-94.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/the-iraq-war-vote-was-69_b_50742.html

But in effect, whatever version he did read, Edwards SPONSORED the bill - and I have yet to hear taking responsibility for THAT!

[PresidentObama]

1. He was wrong. Period.

What more do you want?

He apologized. That's all he can do. He can't go back and change history. If you choose to disqualify him because of the IWR, that is your right as a voter. But it's as simple as this...

He...was...wrong!!

[jenmito]

8. I wonder if he would've said he was wrong...

if the war was still popular with the majority of the country. I just don't like that NOW that he's out of the Senate he's scolding Hillary and Obama for not speaking on the floor before making the right vote against the funding.

[Colobo]

2. It's irrelevant. His vote is what will always count and he apologized for it.

[The Count]

5. Nope. His sponsorship of IWR is MORE relevant - and no apology yet for that

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

[polichick]

3. He has apologized numerous times, which is admirable...

But I still don't get what his thinking was at the time he sponsored that bill. Hillary has explained what she was thinking ~ that Bush was going to allow inspections to continue, etc.

[karynnj]

4. Although the logic follow through if

Hillary voted to get the inspectors in and have leverage in diplomacy with Saddam was that she would have spoken out in January - March 20 th, when the inspectors had been in, found nothing and Saddam was destroying missiles that were not in compliance.

Even the classified version could not have said with certainty that there were no WMD - especially as we had no inspectors in for 4 years. Before sanctions were lifted, we needed inspectors in. The Democratic party would do better moving from what happened in October 2002 to what was known and who made the decision in March 2003. The blame is on Bush and secondarilly on anyone in Congress or the media who spoke in favor of war in early 2003.

[polichick]

9. Yeah, they definitely let us down.

Though I was completely against giving Bush the go-ahead back then, I can sort of follow Clinton's thinking ~ but I suspect a Senator from New York would be concerned with politics as well as leverage in dealing with Saddam.

Has Edwards explained his thinking? Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know.

[karynnj]

16. He has mostly avoided detail - just saying he was wrong

When he has gone further he tends to contradict himself, for instance saying:

- In Oct 2003 on Hardball - That he never thought there were WMD, but that there were other reasons Saddam was a threat.

- In his appology, he says that they were lied to on WMD.

- In a recent New Yorker article - he said that everybody, including Republicans and Democrats thought there were WMD in October 2002.

All of these refer to his belief at a fixed point in time and they are inconsistent.

My point is I buy that you can make a case for that reason, but, after giving your vote and putting your name on that list under "yea", when Bush violated all the promises he made, ignoring that the resolution had succeeded beyond anyone's expectation in getting Saddam to open his country to inspections, made moves to invade. If they honestly voted that way, they would have been angry enough to speak out. I hold Hillary more responsible than most because she and Bill had the biggest Democratic voices and didn't use them.

[The Count]

6. Huff Post article quotes Graham "blood on their hands" speech (PRIOR to vote)

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."

[polichick]

7. I remember that...

Coming from Florida, I've always liked Graham and knew he was dead serious.

Apparently Senators often depend on briefings rather than their own reading and that's unfortunate ~ another reason for public election funding, maybe they'd campaign less and read more.

At the time Hillary made her speech in favor I was mortified and threw pillows at her on TV. I don't remember hearing Edwards speak from the floor back then.

[The Count]

10. I don't either, but it was on W's campaign website! Here it is:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.

If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.

Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.

We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.

That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.

Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.

The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.

Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.

It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.

As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.

Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.

We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament

programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

[polichick]

12. Thank-you!

If I had heard this one, I would have thrown pillows at him too! }(

[FrenchieCat]

11. Here's Edwards' speech--and other speeches and opEds - He was consistent for quite some time, before

he finally became "sorry".....

his floor speech starts like this....
Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make. We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action. Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel.
continue here: http://www.obamapedia.org/page/2002+John+Edwards+speech+supporting+the+Iraq+War?t=anon

He also wrote some op-ed's published in major newspapers--

and made some speeches to Foreign policy think-tanks

http://web.archive.org/web/20020914012714/http://edwards.senate.gov/
Senator Edwards calls for overthrow of Iraqi dictator.

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

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

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

October 7, 2002
This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.
<>
At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.
<>
This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.
snip
We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.
snip
Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.html

December 18, 2002
What we do here is, of course, cast in the context of America's responsibilities abroad. I have said this before and I want to say it again: I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein.

We must disarm Iraq, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. At the same time, we must remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5440/homeland_security_address.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

February 2003
Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295
10/15/03

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

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

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

November 2003
In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq." Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."
When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world." In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.
Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074


"Edwards had always been a firm supporter of the war. I was at the fateful California Democratic Party convention in early 2003 in which Dean exploded onto the political scene. Forgotten from that convention, Edwards was booed for announcing his support for the war just a couple days before bombs started dropping.

But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30

[polichick]

13. Thanks, I appreciate your post...

Hate to say it because I like Edwards and his wife, but he was consistently boneheaded imo ~ falling for Bush's fear-mongering big time.

[Cameron27]

14. Thanks for keeping this fresh in everyone's mind,

whether they like it or not. I'll never understand how anyone could co-sponsor the IWR without studying the NIE docs in detail. It's not a question of accepting an apology, it's nothing less than being asked to ignore a grave lack of judgement on the most serious issue ever to come before a Senator, a resolution that led to war.

If I couldn't trust the Senator's judgment, I certainly can't trust his judgment in a position of even greater power.

One more thing, a sincere apology would have included an apology for NOT reading the NIE with NO finger-pointing afterward.

[tech3149]

15. HORSEHOCKEY!!!

This tired old drunk, apolitical, too busy making a living fool knew at that time the PR campaign was BS. His spokesman is seling more horsehockey. I like JE and think he could be a good POTUS, but I don't want to hear any platitudes or posturing. The information was out there at the time to enable an informed decision. If he didn't avail himself of those resources or delegate the research to others, he's at best a fool or has poor judgment in choosing subordinants. At worst, he had the information presented to him and made his decision based on something other than the facts. In either case, and despite my not intractable support for him, there is some political expediency being played here.

What I want to know is was it then or is it now? In case the "Washington elite" haven't figured it out by now, the general population is pissed off and tired of hearing rhetoric from the professional salesmen referred to as politicians. Good policy and good ideas don't have to be sold, if they're good, they'll be stolen. This country is hungry for the truth and good ideas, if you've got them, you don't need to waste money on PR people. If Elizabeth is still checking in here, I hope you'll pass this along to the old man.

[AtomicKitten]

17. sounds like -