« Previous | Main | Next »

Edwards' Reading List Draws Scrutiny

Share

May 31, 2007 5:49 PM

ABC News' Rick Klein reports: Did he or didn't he?

Last week, a spokesman for John Edwards' campaign said the former senator didn't read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's purported weapons program before casting his vote in favor of the war in 2002.

But Wednesday, when Edwards, D-N.C., was asked that question directly at a Google forum in the Silicon Valley, he quickly answered that he did read it, though he suggested that he would have been better off if he hadn't.

"I read it, I read it," Edwards said. "But the idea that, you know, somehow we had so much more information -- you know, having the information turned out to be bad, not good."

The issue of which lawmakers read the National Intelligence Estimate in 2002 has been thrust into the presidential campaign with the revelation in a recently published biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., that Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before casting her vote in favor of the war. Instead, Clinton said, she was briefed by aides on its findings.

Edwards spokesman Mark Kornblau told Politico's Ben Smith last week that Edwards did not read the classified report, either.

"As a member of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, he was regularly briefed on the information that appeared in the NIE, which is essentially a summary report," Kornblau said.

Kornblau told ABC Thursday that Edwards misunderstood the question posed at the Google forum, where he was asked about the "confidential" National Intelligence Estimate. Edwards has said repeatedly in recent years that he read the non-classified version of the NIE, in addition to other intelligence reports, while serving on the intelligence committee.

The 90-page classified report -- summarizing US intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs -- was made available to members of Congress starting Oct. 1, 2002, 10 days before the Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war.

The then-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, former senator Bob Graham, D-Fla., has said he urged all of his colleagues to read the complete report before casting their votes. Graham voted against the war.

But according to the intelligence committee’s current chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., only six members of the Senate read the report, though no complete list of those lawmakers has been released.

As for other presidential candidates who were in the Senate at the time, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., has said he read it, while senators Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., have said they didn’t. All of them -- like Clinton and Edwards -- voted for the war.

May 31, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (10)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

clinton can not be a president she is not honnest.

Posted by: alain | May 31, 2007 7:29:14 PM

Another example of John Edwards' dishonesty. This man is a joke.

Posted by: Anna Burke | May 31, 2007 7:34:59 PM

Another example of gotcha journalism. ABC News is pathetic.

Posted by: davidjrames | May 31, 2007 9:34:32 PM

how is this a story?

edwards is a great candidate

there is nothing dishonest about his answer, the explanation makes sense

COVER HIS POLICY PROPOSALS YOU COWARDS

Posted by: Joe Justice | Jun 1, 2007 12:12:28 AM

John Edwards is a piece of work! (not one you should admire)

Posted by: Micah | Jun 1, 2007 2:05:06 AM

ABC News catches him in a lie and it's considered pathetic on their part??? I guess we know where your loyalties are. No doubt if it had been a Repub you would be hailing them for courageous journalism.
Edwards is a trial lawyer...that puts him in the same category as car salesmen.....just with a better education. He's slim and hopefully people will see it.

Posted by: Tom | Jun 1, 2007 7:12:42 AM

I hit the high spots on all the candidates - and dig a little deeper on the ones I consider important. Of the covey, Edwards seems the most concerned about re-establishing the middle-class. Since I consider the middle-class the USA's backbone, I feel we should all give him definite consideration as our next president. The USA is not in good shape,folks, and it's going to take someone like Edwards to lead us back in the right direction. If we keep listening to the McCain's and the Clinton's, the big fat wealthy individuals and corporations will gain total control.

Posted by: peace6348 | Jun 1, 2007 11:36:25 AM

'Edwards is a piece of work' (one that he shouldn't be proud of)

Posted by: Micah | Jun 1, 2007 12:46:04 PM

The real political scandal in America is the fact that our elected leaders continue to do the business of government without bothering to get the facts. I thought I was jaded and cynical enough to not be shocked by most political skeletons, but the information we are getting now as the 2008 elections approach is absolutely depressing and enlightens us to the degree that democracy in America has withered and crumbled away to the palest, feeblest, and most worthless state we have ever endured in our history. I realize reading documents and reports is not nearly as exciting as meeting with lobbyists and major campaign donors but, I never understood how pervasively and regularly our leaders only read the Cliff Notes versions of practically every piece of legislation or resolution they vote on or sign (if they read anything at all.) This really does explain very clearly how our country's government has gotten so far off track.

The most egregious and historically reprehensible instance of this slacker approach to leadership was the selling of the invasion of Iraq to the American people and the world. We are now finding out that it wasn't just the usual suspects of Bushies and neocons who are responsible, but major senate Democrats including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Journalists, please stop asking if they regret their votes. Please start asking, "How could you in good conscience vote on something so cataclysmic without getting as much information as possible?" I can respect disagreeing with decisions and votes that were reached after a thorough education of the issues, data, etc. But I have no respect for votes cast in ignorance or based on "audience/voter research." This vote was not about building a new dam, but about taking our country into a highly controversial war. How could the audience voters be fully informed since so much pertinent information was classified? Presidential candidates at risk, stop invoking the "everyone had it wrong" argument. We are sick of the blame game. At long last, we get it now: you were guilty of not doing your job. Don't ask for my vote, or my money.

Posted by: J | Jun 1, 2007 7:41:54 PM

Come on John, you at least could have thumbed through it when you were getting your weekly pedicure.

Posted by: Serene | Jun 2, 2007 4:55:04 PM

Post a comment