Clinton "did her due diligence on Iraq?" Why didn't she bother to read the NIE?

[Stephanie]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/report_clinton_.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before she voted in 2002 to authorize the president to use military force against Saddam Hussein, according to new reports.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10782562

At both debates, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates whether they read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in 2003. A new book about Sen. Hillary Clinton says she did not read the NIE, a document so highly classified that even her senior staff did not have access to it at the time.

Blitzer asked Clinton on Sunday whether she regretted not having read it.

"Wolf, I was thoroughly briefed," Clinton said. "I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying. And I sought dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts."

At Tuesday night's Republican debate, both John McCain and Sam Brownback said they had not read it, either.

But former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the Intelligence committee at the time, has said he read the NIE. And Graham says that not only did he read it — it is what moved him to vote against authorizing Bush to invade Iraq.

*edited to add a more palatable source

[moondust]

1. Bad link.

Extra character at the end.

[Stephanie]

3. thanks

fixed

[speedoo]

6. If you get to the article, it says...

in part:

"Back in 2005, a conservative publication, Human Events, says it asked Clinton if she was one of the six senators who reportedly read the 96-page report before they voted on the use-of-force resolution. “I’m not going to say anything about that. Just let the intelligence committee do their work, okay?” she said at the time, according to a report on the magazine's website."

Has she been asked about whether or not she read the NIE in any of these debates? Sure would like to see her answer that question. Although she probably would not actually answer it.

[Stephanie]

8. Check the OP

I added another source. Yes, she was asked about it.

[speedoo]

10. Thanks.

Same old shit from Hillary. I am totally disgusted by her, and Schumer, my other Senator.

[Stephanie]

11. I put in many volunteer hours for Schumer.

He really let me down. So did she.

[speedoo]

12. Yeah, they both have let us all down.

Schumer's boy Mukasey is just a wonderful AG, isn't he. We have to hold them accountable.

[Stephanie]

19. The Clinton quote from the transcript, for reference.

Did not have this transcript when I posted the rest.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/index.html

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time -- and certainly, I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. That's from a new RW anti-Hillary book

"Her Way" ... it's gotten a reputation for being just a little slanted.

--p!

[Stephanie]

4. It's a simple fact, it doesn't matter who reports it.

She didn't bother to read the NIE. She just claimed she did her due diligence. She did not.

[Dogmudgeon]

13. It's a rumor. Gossip. And you believe it because ...

... you want to believe it.

If Hillary admits to it, THEN it's a "simple fact". Until that time, it's hearsay.

And, yes, I DO apply the same standard to everybody.

--p!

[Stephanie]

14. Why didn't she say, "Yes, Wolf, of course I read it"?

Because she DIDN'T READ IT.

[Yossariant]

5. Ah! From the slime who "broke" and embellished Whitewater.

:puke:

[Stephanie]

7. I've added second source

Killing the messenger doesn't alter the facts, you know.

[ErnestoG]

9. Stephanie, they've GOT NO answers for you.

Other than "ooooh it was in a RW book". Notice the trend here? When backed into a corner, they either try to point a finger at Obama or where the moon was on the night of the IWR vote, or more outrageously, try to downplay the importance of this issue to the voter and to our posterity.

Seriously, watch them on other threads. Same pattern.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. It doesn't take a genius to recognize gossip

If Hillary admitted to it, then it's true, and shame on her.

If she didn't, then it's gossip, and lots of DUers are spreading RW lies.

Just because you want to hear nothing but derogatory information about HRC doesn't alter what did or did not happen. Neither does ridicule, shouts of "DLC! Corporate! Lies!", or believing that she and Bill are a two-headed monster with super powers.

I am sure that when a RW hit-book comes out on Obama, you will vigorously criticize it on the same grounds. Fact is, there has already been a major hit piece about Obama already, the "madrassa" letter that flooded e-mail systems lately.

Yes, "Her Way" is a gossipy, poorly-documented, red-meat-conservative book. The same authors are pimping an article in the NYTimes about some deal where Bill got a $130+ M donation for his charity from a dictator by simply saying something nice about him. To read the article, you would think that Bill is still the president and that he engineered the entire deal.

Sometimes, right-wingers really DO lie.

Sorry if all that spoils the fun, but honesty is a little more important than partisan satisfaction. There ought to be plenty of stuff for you to criticize Hillary about without having to use the Right's house organs.

--p!

[Stephanie]

16. She was asked a direct question and she did not deny itl.

That is your answer.

[hayu_lol]

17. Here is Hillary's statement made on the floor of the Senate at the time of passage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4329338

Read it carefully.

[ErnestoG]

18. If Fox reports that the sun rose, does that mean it didn't?

You're going to extraordinary lengths to deflect the avalanche of new bad news about Hillary. Ohh, it was in a RW book. Oohhhh it was in the NY Post. Oohhh it was on Fox News. At what point do you look at the story and not the messenger?

The answer to that, we all know. You cannot be made to look at the seamier side of your candidate because you refuse to consider it. You are the Democratic version of what they do on Fox News every day.

[Dogmudgeon]

20. The sun rose. Fox is often wrong, anyway.

First, why do you insist on defending a discredited book written by authors with a well-documented agenda? The discrediting is based on the common standards of honesty in journalism. If there is such an avalanche of bad news about Hillary, why not cite something that can be supported, from journalists with a reputation for honesty? Why rely on malicious gossip from wingnuts?

And your amateur psychoanalysis is a fairly robotic imitation of my own criticism of the Hillary-haters. Have YOU considered the seamier side of YOUR candidate? I certainly have considered the seamier side of Hillary -- for years. And there isn't a whole lot there that is any seamier than, for instance, Barack Obama.

I've been reading about HRC since the early 1990s. The less evidence given in an article or book, the more derogatory it is. For instance, one of the early books about her ("Big Sister Is Watching You" by Texe Marrs) "proves" that she was running a satanic witches' coven from the White House. Marrs offered hundreds of footnotes ... referencing other books that he wrote.

I'll repeat what I said: if you have some substantive derogatory information, support it with evidence. I've been hearing "Hillary is evil" for 15 years, and not a shred of evidence has been offered. Yet she has cast several votes, all of which are a matter of public record, that I strongly disagree with. I do not have to believe wild-ass stories to find items to criticize her over; I'm sure not going to rely on spiteful gossip.

If these are "extraordinary lengths," etc., I can only conclude that you are simply demanding my acquiescence. In which case, demand to your heart's content.

--p!

[ErnestoG]

21. Doesn't follow. You're attacking the source when, even though its often wrong, isnt always wrong.

But I suspect you know that, and just want to be argumenative. That's OK, it's Primary Season.

I'm about as far from a rightist as you can get (my IWW buddies will attest to that), but its just plain foolhardy to dismiss something out of hand merely because you don't like the source - which is exactly what you did.

Now I'm not saying it's true, but I'm not saying it's false either. I'm taking you to task for insisting its bunk when you haven't even read or investigated it yourself. I didn't start this thread, nor post the story, so it's not up to me to prove a thing. But don't be so exhuberant in your denunciation that you dismiss it out of hand.

[Stephanie]

22. She was asked directly if she had read it. She replied, "I was briefed."

That's her answer. She did not read it.