This is why I just can't get over the Iraq vote. Even if you are against it but have to vote for it anyways. Read the damn report. There should be a law requiring politicians to actually read the stuff they are voting on.

To be fair I don't think Dodd, Clinton or Biden did either but still.

He lied! Lets impeach him! Right Newt?

Bob Graham said that he read the whole thing, and it convinced him to vote against the authorization.

He also says that he begged the other senators to read it, but did not think that all had.

This will be a really important point.  The NIE was the evidence, and if you didn't read it, and later are confused about your having read it or not, that's not good.

this is the kind of thing that the MSM will eat up.  Personally, I think it's stupid trivia, but it'll spread like wildfire.  It's already front-paged at Politico.

Case study in the Right-wing echo chamber.  Drudge is next, then it'll be on Fox News.  You watch.

That is why Edwards's apology is a hoax to me. His vote to authorize the war was very calculated. His apology and shift to the left are also very calculated. I don't trust him.

that Hillary did not read this either.  But, it is neither here or there.  I am not going to jump on either because it will not change anything to what is going on right now in Iraq.

He read it?  That really changes things.  I suppose there is no good answer for him because if he did not read it that would look just as bad.

If he read it, then his vote was a political calculation that ultimately failed.

If he did not read it, then he is naive and unfit to be president.

This progressive is absolutely no fan of Mr. $500 haircut/"Two-America's," but this diary is a complete distortion. Edwards did, in fact, read the NIE, when it was LATER DECLASSIFIED. He has admitted SEVERAL TIMES in interviews and on the campaign trail that he did not read the NIE prior to his Iraq vote. I agree that this calls into question his ability to lead, but calling him a liar over this is completely ridiculous. The question (avaliable below) was totally unspecific, basically asking Edwards if he had read the NIE, and it is very understandable how Edwards was confused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-lccVYge OA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epolitico% 2Ecom%2Fblogs%2Fbensmith%2F

Please understand that I say this as the mother of a soldier.

When lack of due diligence causes you to make a "mistake" that results in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers (to say nothing of the destruction that has been wreaked upon Iraq and the damage to our good name in the world), then "sorry" doesn't make it all better.

Let's not make the mistake of swapping a clueless GOP  commander in chief for a clueless Democratic CiC. You're being jerked around by a snakeoil salesman who will say anything to further his ambition to be President, a job which is clearly above his pay grade. Our troops deserve better.

And I don't mean Hillary either.

Edwards is a typical, say anything to get votes politician.

I'd bet the farm that Edwards still hasn't even read the Patriot act!

Edwards sat on the Intel Committee under Senator Bog Graham for God's sake. Read Graham's op-ed

'What I Knew Before the Invasion'

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

I have yet to hear in edwards' own words, his rationale for that nefarious vote

I have no use for edwards apology (or for hillary's) edwards can just save it for the widows and orphans of those troops who gave their lives and for the thousands of Iraqi civilians who were slaughtered at the hands of our government

...in my opinion edwards' hubris as well as his lack of intellectual curiosity run a dead heat with georgewbush

Yes, the juxtaposition of these comments looks a bit odd and would probably warrant a bit more explanation from either Edwards or the campaign, but given Edwards' long, long history of progressive advocacy and demonstrated integrity, the only reason to jump immediately from this to "John Edwards is a DIRTY ROTTEN PANDERING LIAR!" without giving any benefit of the doubt - like the diarist and many of the commenters have done - is if you already have a preexisting dislike of or bias against Edwards (which several of the commenters openly admit) and are just seizing upon this to justify your preexisting beliefs. This diary is nothing but a transparent, concern-trolling hit piece on Edwards.

I saw this a few days ago, May 29th I suppose: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/c linton.iraq/index.html

They say: "Candidate and then-Sen. John Edwards "read and was briefed on the intelligence" while sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a spokesman said.

They also said: "For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document."

So I guess there's a record of who visited that secure location and who did not.

Now the excuse is that: "Most in Congress were briefed several times, read summary of report."

But who briefed them? If this was a top-secret classified report then I doubt the Senators could get their regular and loyal staff members into that secure location to view the report for them, so I guess it was just intelligence I suspect the briefings were done by intelligence officials loyal to Bush.

1. Hillary took a lot of flak for not reading the NIE. CNN.com ran "Records: Senators who OK'd war didn't read key report" piece among their top stories for a day which criticized Hillary most prominently, but let Edwards off the hook and gave the impression that he had read the NIE.

2. Most errors made by other candidates are embarrassing gaffes rather than potentially self-serving lies (which is not to say that Edwards lied, but it may come across that way unlike a misspelled sign). And even stupid gaffes get media play.

3. This plays into the frame that politicians (or Edwards) just say what the crowd wants to hear.

Anyway, I don't think Edwards is being held to a higher standard on this one. If Hillary or Obama had made an equivalent error the media would have gone after them just the same.

I understand that the subject of this diary is whether he read or didn't read, but I think that all of this clouds the real issue: Should anyone have granted bush the legitimacy necessary to go to war?

Everyone in Washington knew bush was planning to go to war. The stop at the U.N. was just a cover story for the regime's agenda. Why they voted for bush's blank check is a matter of speculation, but I don't for a moment believe that thought that bush was going to emerge as a diplomat.

Reading the testimony that was made to congress, many of the questions from the congress focused on just that: war. And the brighter minds among those giving their opinions advised the congress that this was a horrible idea.

The entire concept was flawed. Just as the entire concept of bombing Iran is a flawed concept. It will not work. Going to war in Iraq did not make sense militarily, strategically or geopolitically.

And so when I look at the votes in the Senate, my view is not whether or not they read the damn report, but rather who had the necessary good judgement to understand how stupid this idea of bush's was. To vote "yes" was the act of the dumb. Is that who I believe should have their finger on the red button? A dummy? Cripes.

If he didn't read it he was derelict in his duty. The fact that other Senators may also have been derelict in their duty's is no excuse. If he did read it and still voted for the war he is unqualified to be President of the United States.

Either way he is unqualified to be President of the United States.

a one word answer will suffice.

I fail to understand why Edwards' supporters hold him to a lower standard than any other candidate.  He has shown exceedingly poor judgement over and over and over. His apologies are getting more annoying as time goes on.  His hypocrisy on the poverty issue is blatant and his hedge fund involvement should prove it.  But his supporters excuse all of this.  I find this to be the kind of unreality based hero-worship that only adolescents can sustain.