Does Edwards still believe the pre-war intelligence?

[DjTj]

There have been a lot of threads quoting from Edwards' Hardball interview. I just realized today that the was on October 13, 2003 – I was surprised to find out it was that long ago. Edwards had remained consistent in his belief of prewar intelligence and support of the Iraq war up until then, but his stance has definitely changed since then.

Edwards showed a slight change of heart when he voted against the $87 Billion, but I the significant change in Edwards’ official position came when David Kay stepped down on January 23, 2004. He has certainly changed his rhetoric and has been expressing more doubt about the intelligence recently.

On January 26, 2004, Edwards went in the “No-Spin Zone” and had this exchange with Bill O’Reilly:

O'REILLY: All right. Did President Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?

EDWARDS: I don't know the answer to that question.

O'REILLY: Do you have suspicions?

EDWARDS: Did I say that? You said that. I -- what I believe -- first of all, I think this is something that we should treat not hysterically, but in a very responsible way. I think it's a good thing that Saddam, who you know that I supported the war in Iraq. I think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is gone. I think we should be proud of what our young men and women in the military did. I think the result of the war is a very good thing. And I think now the responsible thing for us and the Congress to do is to determine if there is, in fact, a discrepancy between what the intelligence community, our intelligence community, told us or told the president.

I don't know what they told the president. My view is we ought to tap down all the emotional response to this, and in a serious way, try to determine whether there's a problem in our intelligence gathering.



On January 28, David Kay testified before Congress, saying “We were almost all wrong.”

In the January 29 South Carolina debate, Tom Brokaw asked Edwards again:

BROKAW: But in fairness, David Kay also told me the other day that he thinks now, looking back, that the two years before we went to war was the most dangerous period in Iraq in a long, long time because it was spinning out of control. Saddam Hussein was not in charge. There were people coming in and going out of the country, including well-known terrorists.

You saw the defense -- you saw the National Intelligence Estimate, Senator Edwards, as a member of the Intelligence Committee. Did you believe it when you saw it? And was that the basis for your vote, which you enthusiastically talked about when you made the vote to authorize war against Iraq?

EDWARDS: Well, it wasn't just the National Intelligence Estimate, it was a whole -- it was actually two or three years of sitting in briefings and receiving information from the Intelligence Committee, not only about the weapons issue, which is what Howard just talked about, but also about the atrocities that Saddam was committing against his own people, gassing Kurdish children in northern Iraq. And I have to say, I think it is not for the administration to get to the bottom of this. It's actually not for the Congress to get to the bottom of this. The American people, we, need to get to the bottom of this, with an independent commission that looks at -- that will have credibility and that the American people will trust, about why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what's actually been found there.

On February 1, Edwards went on Face the Nation on CBS, and was asked the question again:

SCHIEFFER: Let's talk a little bit about some of the issues that have been going on while we've all been focusing on politics, and that is, back here in Washington we had this extraordinary testimony from the former inspector looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and basically he told Congress that it doesn't look like they had any weapons of mass destruction. Now you voted for the resolution to give the president authority to go into Iraq. Do you now feel misled?

Sen. EDWARDS: Bob, I think that's why we have to get to the bottom of this. I don't know--there's no way for me to know why the information that we were given is different than what's been found there. Now I think we desperately need, and this is what I've been saying for--for months now, we desperately need an independent commission. Not the Congress, where it would be partisan, and not the White House; they have a--an interest in protecting themselves. But instead an independent commission that investigates this and finds out why this discrepancy exists. It's--it's important.

The Ameri--we need to get to the bottom of it. We need to find out first, for the very reason you just asked about, because if somebody did intentionally misrepresent this information, they need to be held accountable. But we also need to know going forward so that it doesn't happen again. If there's a structural problem in our intelligence-gathering, it's critically important for the safety of the American people that it be fixed.

SCHIEFFER: Well, now you were on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Senate. You saw a lot of highly classified information. Did you see any the information that--any information that convinced you that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or did not have them, because now it looks like his whole program was smoke and mirrors, or--if--if we're to believe what--what Mr. Kay says.

Sen. EDWARDS: Oh, of course. No, we were given--ab--excuse me, I'm sorry, Bob. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

SCHIEFFER: Go ahead. Uh-huh.

Sen. EDWARDS: All--all--all I was going to say is of course we were given lots of information that indicated that he had weapons of mass destruction. They had--that he both had weapons of mass destruction and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear capability. I mean, we got that information over--over a long period of time, as did other members of Congress.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think the administration lied about what they saw? Do you think they saw what they wanted to see, or do you think the intelligence was simply wrong and bad?

Sen. EDWARDS: I think all three of those questions are the reason we need an independent commission. I have--I have no way of knowing. Any of those things are possible or some combination of those things are possible. We need to find out what the truth is. What information did the president have? What information did the Intelligence Committee--I mean, the intelligence community give to the president? Was the information flawed? Was it exaggerated by the vice president or the president? Those are all things the American people deserve to know. We need to get to to the bottom of this.

Mr. McMANUS: Well, either--either way, Senator, it's clear that the intelligence community was giving the president, and members of the Intelligence Committee, like you, information that turned out to be flat wrong. Should George Tenet, the CIA director, lose his job over that?

Sen. EDWARDS: Oh, I--I don't--I don't think the focus is--at least from my perspective, Doyle, is on George Tenet. I mean, George Tenet runs the operation. But the truth is, as you well know, there are many fingers of the--of the intelligence community operating all over the world. I think what we have to find out is--for example, I've had concerns for--during the time that I've been on the Intelligence Committee about us relying too heavily on what--what's known as technical surveillance, you know, eavesdropping, aerial photography, that kind of information, more than we're ly--relying on human penetration. I mean, we've gotten away over the last 20 years, 25 years from human penetration of these terrorist organizations. And I think that's a dangerous thing. And I knew that and was concerned about that before. Whether that's the cause of--of--of this--of this problem, I don't know. I think that's what we need to find out.



I think that is the clearest statement of Edwards’ position. He believed the intelligence before, but he now suspects that the intelligence community failed us. He doesn’t know where the blame should be put; he wants a full investigation. The answer to “Were you misled?” has changed from “No” to “I don’t know.” Pending the results of the investigation, his answer will either become a “Yes” or go back to “No”. That’s how you prove a case in court and that’s how you win an election. There’s a reason that Kerry says there was an “exaggeration,” Edwards says “I don’t know,” and Sharpton says “He’s a liar.” Two of these people are looking toward the general election.

When we discuss an issue on DU, it may be most fair to look to candidates’ most recent statements. In this case, we should consider the Wisconsin debate:

GILBERT: Senator Edwards, Democrats are questioning the president about his service in the Guard and they are saying he misled the country about Iraq. Is President Bush's honesty an issue in this campaign?

EDWARDS: Yes, it is, absolutely it is. Because the -- this president has said one of the most critical things, not only for a candidate for president, for the president of the United States is his integrity, whether he can be trusted.

We are in the middle, as you know, of investigating -- starting an investigation, an independent investigation about why there is a disconnect between what the American people were told by the president and others and what's actually been found in Iraq.

Now, I think integrity, character are critical issues in any presidential campaign.

EDWARDS: And certainly the integrity and character of the president of the United States is at issue -- no question.


So does Edwards STILL believe the prewar intelligence? He did four months ago, but he doesn’t know right now. Just like most of the American people, he is now very suspicious of Bush’s integrity. I think the record makes his beliefs very clear. John Edwards and the American people are moving closer and closer to where most of us stand here at DU. I think that’s a very good thing.

[DjTj]

1. kick

:kick:

[spooky3]

2. Thanks, D. Gray area is tough to deal with sometimes.

I hope we can get clarity from an investigation.

[RafterMan]

3. He gave me nothing.

Here is the problem:

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

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

He says in the HB interview that he already didn't believe the Niger story, and SH's attempts to get nuclear technology in the 90s are not in dispute. They are not part of the faulty intelligence of mobile germ labs and the like. The points Edwards uses to justify invatsion would not be refuted by facts on the ground, because he never claims that Hussein actually succeeded in his quest. There was nothing there, but according to Edwards, this was not a prerequisite for attack.

I'll repeat: Edwards' case for war is independent of the intelligence in dispute.

So good for Edwards for wanting to get to the bottom of the intelligence troubles. But it does not distance him from his stated support.

[DjTj]

5. Thanks for motivating me...

Rafter,

I first want to thank you for your ardent criticism because I would not have researched into this if it weren't for you.

The direct question that Tweety asks him in the Hardball interview is predicated on not yet finding the WMD's. It has nothing to do with faulty intelligence. The fact that there is now a concern with faulty intelligence has a broad effect on many of the factors that led Edwards to vote for the war. These factors are not listed exhaustively in the Hardball interview. In the very quotes I include in my top post, he lists a few additional ones, and I am sure there are many more.

If we could get Edwards' Senate staff to sit down and give us all the things Edwards considered to go to war, we would be able to make a definitive statement about whether the intelligence failures are crucial to Edwards' case for war. Without that kind of information, it is impossible to make such a blanket statement.

I mentioned in another post that I think a lot of Edwards statements are politically motivated. This does not mean that he is lying. What I mean is that he keeps things decidedly ambiguous. You must admit that it is impossible to conclusively find out what he would have done if he were President - he almost always backtracks a little when asked the question that directly. He is genuinely afraid of giving Bush a soundbite where he sounds weak on national security, so he makes statements that err on the strong side. However, his true beliefs remain ambiguous. All we can do is collect evidence and even if we could see inside his head, we would never know what he would have done as President, because it is a purely intellectual exercise. You never know how someone will act until they actually are in that situation. We can only examine evidence and attempt to draw conclusions. My conclusions are somewhat different from yours, and that is because the evidence is ambiguous.

These are the things I feel are unambiguous: (1) Edwards believed many elements of Bush's case for war in October 2002, including the intelligence regarding WMD. (2) Edwards continued to believe this and support the war at least through October 2003. (3) Edwards is now very skeptical of the pre-war intelligence, and he would like to see an investigation.

Most of everything else you and I say is only our best guess.

[joyautumn]

4. Huh? A U.S. Senator only just found out?

What? By October 13, 2003, when Edwards had so much faith in Bush, surely he and his staff had already read everything Kucinich -- ranking Dem on a key subcommittee overseeing intelligence and homeland security -- had to say about Bush's lies. Why did Edwards believe Kay but not Kucinich? Because Kay works for Bush, but Kucinich is just a left-wing nut? Kucinich is a leading member of Edwards' own party for goodness sakes, and was already running against Edwards for President!

There is NO excuse for Edwards flip-flopping DURING this campaign, especially when he's running against Kucinich, who has been leading the charge against Bush's lies from the beginning.

Where was Edwards when Kucinich was sticking his neck out to fight Bush two years ago? Edwards knew darn well where Kucinich and the entire progressive wing of the Democratic party stood, and he knew Kucinich had access to all the intelligence because of Kucinich's committee position. He knew where to find the evidence that Bush had lied -- pick up the phone and call Kucinich. Why didn't he do it? Because he wanted to go to war, that's why. Because he did not want Kucinich to succeed in getting the truth out BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE>

Now it's too late, so he can just admit he's wrong. For goodness sake, even Bush has admitted he's wrong NOW.

Are you going to excuse Bush for being "wrong" (refusing to see, know, acknowledge the truth) too?

[boilerbabe]

6. I think that this excerpt tries to make Edwards look incompetent

If you look at it from a critical standpoint...though the more I read about the guy, the more I like. Being a Deanie Weenie, I am sort of on a precipice for now, i know that I will support whomever winds up winning the Dem ticket, but whether I will be able to work on a campaign again is another story...
This is the second interview I have read that tries to (in my eyes, anyway) make Edwards look like a stumbling uncertain person...am I wrong?? try to look at it from a viewpoint of someone that has nothing invested in his candidacy...I actually have been swayed toward him as a result of this , though...I can see through the "Left wing media" portrayal of him..haha. He may be alright, but I must say, that my boy Howard Dean would have been much better!! and being a veteran of Howard Dean's campaign would make me very aware of how the media can make a person seem totally insane, incompetent, whatever they want to make him seem...
Keep me updated....
XXXOOOO

[DjTj]

7. I'm glad Edwards has not backed down from these interviews...

...most candidates are very wary of going on the O'Reilly Factor or having long interviews with Chris Matthews, but Edwards has not been afraid to step into the fire. He hasn't backed down from challenges, and it makes him a stronger candidate every day. He has really become a much better politician between even October and now.

Although he has given the people at DU a little bit of fodder in some of these interviews, he hasn't said much that will be fodder for the Rove machine, and I think that's what is most important.

I hope you continue to learn more about Edwards and that you come to like him more and more. You shouldn't rush to work for another candidate, but if you ever feel ready, we will welcome you in the Edwards camp :hi:

[boilerbabe]

8. Now, I see this...Kucinich is probablythe best...

though that would get him nowhere...
Dont' you know it....
XXXOOO
I would have loved to see him as either the President or Vice...
XXXOOO

[JohnLocke]

9. Kick