Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Edward’s War Vote: "The Clintons made me do it" (UPDATED)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Ok maybe it's not quite that drastic but its close. While being interviewed on Meet the Press, John Edwards was asked why he voted for the war and why he was so wrong:
SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment ...
So John Edwards, having seen the intel offered by the Bush administration then sought independent corroboration of that information.

Fine. A prudent thing to do.

And where did he go? To officials in the previous administration, the Clinton administration, who had helped develop the intel that the Bush administration had on Iraq. And the Clinton camp essentially validated the Bush administration's take on the subject.

So what does that tell us? At least two things:

1. Bush apparently didn't "lie" or manipulate the intelligence if Edwards is to be believed. Whether the intel was true or not is another topic, but it seems it was believed to be true by both administrations, and Edwards admission validates that point.

2. Given the Edwards revelation, it becomes impossible to believe Hillary Clinton when she says she was duped by the Bush administration. She certainly may have been duped, but it is more likely she was duped by intel developed by the Clinton administration to which she would have been privy. My guess is, like Edwards, she was assured by those same Clinton administration officials that the threat was credible and the intel was good. Her war vote was most likely based on their information and intel, and not exclusively on that of the Bush administration.

But that just speculation, although I have a feeling it is darn good speculation.

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton on the intelligence she received prior to her vote for the AUMF:
[Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York said] "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability … The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD".
So much for the "Bush lied" meme. And for all you consensus fans out there, note carefully what the "consensus of the intelligence" produced re: Iraq.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
While I was watching Meet The Press, I was waiting for Russert to ask something along the lines of:

"So if you are subject to the same flawed decision-making as the current President, what hope do you offer to the American people?"

My little fantasy is that the silence would be deafening for a few seconds, and then Edwards head would explode.
 
Written By: st4rbux
URL: http://
SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we-the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d-beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon-weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment ...
Well hot damn! Can somebody tell Cap and the rest of the "Bush lied" crowd this bit of old news?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Edwards is trying to throw Hillary under the bus by pointing out that Clinton era intelligence was used by D’s & R’s to inform their war votes.

Before Obamamania, I wouldn’t have thought the tactic could damage Hillary, as the press wanted so badly to have her in the White House. But now, with the media solidly behind Obama, Hillary may not be as protected.

Unfortunately for Edwards, his is essentially a ’suicide bomber’ strategy, since he is ’guilty’ of the same offence in the eyes of the Aniti-war crowd.
 
Written By: S.
URL: http://
Actually, it does not follow that intelligence wasn’t manipulated.

Consider: Clinton and Bush both believe Saddam has WMD based on the evidence they’ve seen (their interpretation). Yet they can’t make a clear case because there are gaps in the evidence, and inconvenient bits of evidence that suggest the contrary. If they are certain they are right, they will find reasons to discount or disbelieve contrary evidence, and defend their pre-existing belief (something that seems pretty common).

So when they go to the public or allies, they’ll ignore or hide the contrary evidence, oversell existing evidence, and make claims that can’t be verified, all because they are certain they are right. In short: they aren’t really trying to determine IF Saddam has WMD, but they want to find evidence to support their belief that he does.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
it does not follow that intelligence wasn’t manipulated.
...So when they go to the public or allies, they’ll ignore or hide the contrary evidence, oversell existing evidence, and make claims that can’t be verified, all because they are certain they are right.
Which is it? The latter is a clear case of evidence manipulation; hiding contrary information. That would be treated as evidence tampering in any court of law and, therefore, directly contradicts your former claim.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
In short: they aren’t really trying to determine IF Saddam has WMD, but they want to find evidence to support their belief that he does.
And since we did, in fact, find WMD, where does that leave you Scott?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Actually, it does not follow that intelligence wasn’t manipulated.

Consider: Clinton and Bush both believe Saddam has WMD based on the evidence they’ve seen (their interpretation). Yet they can’t make a clear case because there are gaps in the evidence, and inconvenient bits of evidence that suggest the contrary. If they are certain they are right, they will find reasons to discount or disbelieve contrary evidence, and defend their pre-existing belief (something that seems pretty common).

So when they go to the public or allies, they’ll ignore or hide the contrary evidence, oversell existing evidence, and make claims that can’t be verified, all because they are certain they are right. In short: they aren’t really trying to determine IF Saddam has WMD, but they want to find evidence to support their belief that he does
So will you at least change your mantra to "Clinton/Bush Lied!"

In the interests of accuracy and such.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Oh for crying out loud.

Wouldn’t the final determinant be that Saddam refused to comply with the inspections regime? That he was plainly hiding something? WTF are we supposed to conclude from that? What sort of non-corroborative evidence could we willfully ignore that would overcome that elephant in the room?

Lefties are so forgetful!
 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
S.
Unfortunately for Edwards, his is essentially a ’suicide bomber’ strategy, since he is ’guilty’ of the same offence in the eyes of the Aniti-war crowd.
But Edwards has repudiated his vote, Hillary hasn’t.

All Edwards needs to do now is spend a couple of weeks in rehab and he’ll be squeaky clean on the issue.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Wouldn’t the final determinant be that Saddam refused to comply with the inspections regime? That he was plainly hiding something? WTF are we supposed to conclude from that? What sort of non-corroborative evidence could we willfully ignore that would overcome that elephant in the room?
And of course, Saddam had actually used WMDs against the Kurds and Iranians. Prior use + refusal to comply = strong reason to suspect current program.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"Actually, it does not follow that intelligence wasn’t manipulated.

Consider: Clinton and Bush both believe Saddam has WMD based on the evidence they’ve seen (their interpretation). Yet they can’t make a clear case because..."

Well, at least it was a bipartisan effort to manipulate intelligence. Evidently Bush was a uniter after all.

What an extraordinarily paranoid argument. Bitter political enemies unite in one vast conspiracy. Let’s call it the "Vast Bipartisan Conspiracy". All those differences are but a facade, concealing the fact that there is actually only one cabal running the world. No wonder Sandy Berger hasn’t been pushed into taking that lie detector test by the Bush administration. Think of the dark secrets and conspiracies he might expose. He is lucky to be alive.

Somebody is not wearing their AFDB.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
All those differences are but a facade, concealing the fact that there is actually only one cabal running the world.
Tim, everyone knows that the real cabal is the Illuminati.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Scott Erb didn’t say "lie" he said "manipulate" and that’s slightly different.

Any time you have to "sell" something of course you highlight the selling points and ignore anything that won’t help sell it.

I guess you could call that "manipulation" but what else can you do in a world without hard data or certainty? Every intelligence report also features such "manipulation" when the analyst has to leave some stuff out...

Also, if both Clinton/Bush believed that Saddam should be toppled for a variety of reasons, its’ not that big of a deal. Anyone here doubt that if sanctions had been lifted that Saddam/Uday/Qsay wouldn’t have fired up those WMD programs in a heartbeat? (hell, they must be worried about Iranian nukes as much as the Israelis)
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"So when they go to the public or allies, they’ll ignore or hide the contrary evidence, oversell existing evidence, and make claims that can’t be verified, all because they are certain they are right. In short: they aren’t really trying to determine IF Saddam has WMD, but they want to find evidence to support their belief that he does."
Paraphrase: "So when Professor Erb comments, he’ll ignore...the contrary evidence, oversell existing (his choice of) existing evidence, and make claims that can’t be verified, all because he is certain that he is right. In short, he isn’t really really trying to determine IF global warming is due to human practices, but he wants to find evidence to support his belief that it is."

Jeebus, Professor, read you own stuff. Better yet, have a friend read it and tell you what you are saying.

By the way, I agreee with what you are saying about Bush, et al. They clearly did that. I was there. I saw that they werer doing that. Unfortunately for your political agenda, they were right to do so. Let us agree to leave it at that. We disagree. I am content to let history rule on who was right - just as it has on Vietnam.

 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
So much for the "Bush lied" meme. And for all you consensus fans out there, note carefully what the "consensus of the intelligence" produced re: Iraq.
LMFAO, brilliant....2 memes dead in one shot
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Tim, everyone knows that the real cabal is the Illuminati."

That’s the one! Pat Robertson is wiser than we know.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider