Hillary was asked last night whether she read the NIE before her Iraq vote and she ducked a little. She said she was briefed. We know she didn't read it. Edwards didn't read it either. Obama, in an under-reported (even by me!), jab reminded viewers that Sen. Bob Graham did read it and found the caveats troubling. In other words: if she'd read it maybe she'd have come to a different conclusion.

So here's a question: We know that some of what animates the NIE question is the gotcha. People who don't like Hillary or her war vote want to pin her down on this and make her pay. Other people want to pin her down on this because they want her to defend her thinking as a way to get some clue about how she looks at information and acts based on it. They want to know if she has any judgment.

I'm not hung up on whether she did or didn't read the NIE. It would be great if she had but I don't think it's a great failing particularly because the job we're thinking about electing her to won't give her much time to //read// anything. So what I want to know is what questions did she ask of her briefer? Was she asking the right questions? Was she easily satisfied that there were no caveats about the intelligence or did she press and have her people check again. No president can know all the information on any given issue. There's always an element of the jump. So what made her jump here? (I recognize that there are plenty of people who think no matter what the NIE said she shouldn't have voted for the war, but that's not what I'm curious about at the moment).

These are my notional ideas: I'd like to know what people think a) we might learn about Hillary or Edwards from more inquiry about this NIE question and b) what kinds of talents and attributes we wish she had shown or she did show in this important episode.

I think its plausible that she just took her briefer at his/her word. After having been in the White House eight years prior and hearing her own husband make countless speeches on the same subject, she could have very well "glossed over" when she began to hear it again. I don't feel anyone coming to her and telling her that Iraq has WMD would have been news to her. Is it inplausible that she had even heard the caveats before as well?

What is a little disturbing is that accoring to a book by Bob Shrum that was recently published, he seems to give the impression that Edwards was simply told that he needed to vote for war, for striclty political reasons.

I heard Sen. Clinton (can't we stop calling her Hillary?) say that she was briefed, talked to a lot of people, asked a lot of questions. I donno. Made sense to me. Remember that Pres Clinton sorta kinda wanted to get rid of Sadaam, too. My impression is that as senator she has been extremely thorough, hardworking, conscientious. An ill considered vote is just not her style. (Full disclosure: I haven't been a big fan and remain convinced she can't win the presidency.) Huffington made an interesting point that she did not support the Levin alternative that I think separated the inspector issue from use of force. I'd like to see a follow-up on that: why did she not vote for that alternative? Somehow, I don't take Edwards very seriously; he seems like he is making political-debating points. I'd like to know why he voted yes; what was his reasoning. Clinton told us; Edwards did not. "I was wrong" sounds a little, well, Clintonian....

If I had been Hillary and faced with a vote about an authorization to use military force that could potentially bring the United States to war, I may not have read the NIE, but I would have at least read SOMETHING. If she had done as much as read ten pages on the social and political situation in the country in question, Iraq, which is available in the Area Handbook she would have at least had some VERY grave doubts about going in and using force. That would have prompted the questions you are talking about. She not only didn't say she had read the NIE, she didn't say she actually knew ANYTHING about Iraq through her own reading and her own analysis. That is damning.

Good questions. I'll look into the Levin amendment....

>>(can't we stop calling her Hillary?)

But this is what she calls herself. Click on her web page and it reads: "Hillary for President." Same wither her signs and bumper stickers. So if it's okay with her...unless your objection is that it's a tactic-- she calls herself Hillary to seem approachable the way Lamar Alexander called himself Lamar! (exclamation point his)

I wouldn't be surprised if advice about politics was what guided the votes of most of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Unfortunately, the public was eager to fight and the administration went out and gave them a target for their anger long before a vote or a bill had come up. The public would have voted out anyone who didn't authorize the use of military force in most cases. Those who voted against it were very few. They were chided for it for a long time.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you, but I'm disturbed by it too. I'm aware why this apocrapal meeting went on and the reasons that were given. But the Edwards campaign was so quick to pooh-pooh it. Something does'nt seem quite right.

The fact of the matter is that only six people in the Senate actually read the thing, so I think the point is pretty moot. People will use this to make whatever political hay they want to out of it, when Democrats who were in the minority at the time, examined the issue at all is admirable, as opposed to the "let's-go-get-'em" approach the other side took at the time.

not whether or not to go to a party thrown by a social undesireable.

You talk of it as though it were trivial. It wasn't. All of the people who voted in Congress at the time and didn't even bother to do any of their own research should be ashamed. They should also be voted out of office.

Your speaking of most of Congress. And you're talking about perhaps the most emotionally charged time since Pearl Harbor. The information that you and everybody else is so het-up about so far AFTER THE FACT was available in conensed from sources other than that document, Plus the document itself was hardly the Rubiyat. And as for being voted out of office, after this bloody eight weeks in "the surge", wishes, like chickens, usually come home to roost.

No sadly for all of us it makes him no different then a handful of politicians but if we are looking at:

"a) we might learn about Hillary or Edwards from more inquiry about this NIE question"

Assuming the account is accurate, I would have to give him failing marks on his decision. Sadly I think its all to common in the Dem party, "never question a poll". If the poll says its ok, then it must be ok. The polls said to go into Iraq, so we go. Now the polls say leave Iraq so we must get out.

Its looking for bleak for the Republicans in 2008 in more ways then one, but as long as the Dems give this impression they will always have a shot.

There were more Democrats than Republicans in the Senate before and at the time of the vote. Dems had a majority in the senate and Reupbs. had a majority in the House.

Yes, I am talking about most of Congress. Yes, chickens do sometimes come home to roost. I am no proponent of this administration or its actions. I don't excuse Hillary, either. At least Edwards has the good grace to admit he messed up.

If I had my wish at this point, we would see two impeachments and our first female president. Soon after, we would see Iraq under a Constitution that would actually work and an election there. Very soon after that, a pullout.

In my wildest dreams, we would see heavy, heavy recruiting for the CIA and FBI, closing of our borders and other REAL things being done about our security.

Needless to say, I wasn't impressed by Hillary's foolish idea that we are safer now than we were on Sept. 11. It isn't true.

I don't think the book states anything about a poll. That's rather a cheap shot. Polls are only unimportant to those who are LOW in them.

The book stated that as a junior senator at the time, Edwards was advised not to go against the grain. Now remember how emotionally charged things were then, and how new he was. What bothers me is, that he says he deeply regrets his decision, but on the other hand states that the meeting had zero effect on his decision and was'nt even about that issue.

administration had already spent ages turning the anger of the American people against Iraq?

I was one who was opposed to the war before the authorization even came up. I could tell that the administration was pushing in that direction LONG before they actually managed to get authorization. I knew it would be a disaster. It didn't take all that much to see it, other than eyes clear of unvented anger over Sept. 11.