of course he didn't read your post.  that would have interfered with the kneejerk "Edwards is the worst thing in the world" post.

I wish these people would learn to read.

too much out of a loose statement by Kornblau.

Graham's Oped places things in context:

What I Knew Before the Invasion

By Bob Graham

Sunday, November 20, 2005

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

......

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq.

An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment.

I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

...

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy.

...

Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

...

Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

Now, let's see: "The Edwards spokesman, Mark Kornblau, noted that Mr. Edwards had often said he read intelligence documents that were summarized in the classified report."

1. Without knowing the contents of 92 page NIE, how do Edwards or Kornblau know what's in it, to tell us (as you claim that he statement does) that its content in contained a set of whatever other documents he may or may not have read.

2. Graham's oped indicates that the source for the dissents was wide ranging, including state and energy departments etc. When did Edwards read those up? Where is the evidence?

3. When Graham says that he "was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared" he is implying that such an estimate would be the definitive and most comprehensive intelligence available, even to the whitehouse.

You're making too much hay out of a lose statement made by Kornblau. This diary is therefore a very poor attempt at exonerating Edwards from his dereliction of duty in not reading the 92 page NIE, the basis for the the war, before voting to engage American troops in a preemptive invasion of Iraq.

...But you don't ever seem to explain why. Again: "why should he have read the NIE - which was simply a 90-page summary of intelligence, compiled by George "Slam dunk" Tenet (hardly a credible source) - when he, as a member of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, could (and did) simply read the intelligence himself without filtering it through a spin man from the Administration?"

You're making an assumption not backed up by facts.

That is without doubt, the most twisted reasoning I've heard yet.

You have made absolutely no case for Edwards not to have read the full NIE.

Actually, the opposite is true. If the information had not been independently verified and came mostly from exiles and third parties who had an interest in the US removing Saddam--that alone should be enough for a person with good judgment to put on the brakes instead of handing Bush a blank check.

Yes it is, in spite of the fact that Senator Graham urged, in a speech from the floor of the senate prior to the vote, that all of the senators read the full 90 page NIE

Thanks for posting these important words from Robert Kennedy. I had forgotten this, and you have found the perfect place to print them.

I never know what to say in a thread like this one. Senator Edwards is a good man. He was a Senator from my state of North Carolina, and he was a good Senator. While he was in the Senate, I learned that he actually read a lot of bills himself and that many, (most), Senators had staff read through them and give them summaries. In my own thinking, I believe that his pattern of work makes it likely that he would have read everything he felt he needed to read to make a decision on this - or any - vote. He has shown great courage in admitting his vote was wrong.

I guess I don't know what to say to convince anyone who has concerns about this issue that Edwards acted rightly in this. I do care that someone may have a genuine concern, and may miss finding out about the many wonderful plans and programs this man has because of doubts. I would ask those with doubts to listen carefully to John Edwards over the coming weeks and months of this campaign. If you will do that, you just might find for yourself the trust in this man that I have. I do not trust many people. I trust John Edwards.

Well the issue of Edwards speaking out against the Iraq War in 2003 in regards to voting against funding and criticizing the conduct of the War (even if at the time he had yet to repudiate his own vote) is 100% accurate.  Its in the damn Congresional Record.

Stop telling people where they should be.  Just because your dishonest posts got you and your  sockpuppets banned several times at Dailykos don't start lecturing people here about who can post where.  Your credibility leaves much to be distrusted.

Interesting interpretation of facts.  Obama tells everyone to not vote for the $87B appropriations bill in 2003, which was the right thing, Edwards actually voted against that appropriations bill when the war and Bush were still popular - the vote was 88-12; but then when Obama got to the senate and he actually had to vote for appropriations he didn't have the courage to vote his principles, instead voted with the Repubs and our weak Democrats to keep the war going.  He didn't support Kerry-Feingold and underminded Feingold just recently.  Finally when he decides to vote against the appropriations bill, he quietly tiptoes into the senate, doesn't tell anyone how he is going to vote, and casts the vote without speaking up.  Same as Hillary.  That is supposed to be leadership?

Edwards did vote against the appropriatins while in the senate and spoke up against the war ever since.  It is all these enabling weak Democrats that have allowed Bush to continue his war.  I know most Democrats have wanted to end the war.  But they need to speak up and stand up against the Repubs.  They need a spine.  Obama has not demonstrated leadership in the senate.

Edwards against all odds is speaking up and showing leadership to the Democrats.  They still are shell shocked and are fearful of standing up to the worst president ever and wimp out.