"Edward’s War Vote: 'The Clintons made me do it'"
Excellent analysis by neo-libertarian blogger QandO:
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:Part of this revelation from Edwards may be to throw his primary opponent, Shrillary, under the bus on the issue of Iraq. However, the anti-war left's belief that intel was doctored or manipulated takes a big blow here unless they are prepared to concede that said intel was doctored or manipulated by Bubba's admin. Something tells me, though, that the left will react with more "Whoopi feeling" than logic. Logic and facts tend to short-circuit the left's mental switchboard.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. (Keep that in mind when you hear there is a "consensus" on global "warming"! - Ed.)