In September 2002, four Democratic senators-Richard Durbin (Ill.), Bob Graham (Fla.), Diane Feinstein (Calif.) and Carl Levin (Mich.)-asked the CIA to produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) detailing what was known about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and their threat to the United States.
"I deeply believe that such an estimate is vital to congressional decision-making, and most specifically, any resolution which may come before the Senate," Feinstein wrote President Bush.
The CIA published the report on Oct. 1, 2002. The Senate voted to authorize war on Oct. 11, 2002.
Last week, a Kerry campaign release challenged the Bush Administration: "Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?" A Reuters reporter challenged the campaign to reveal whether Kerry had read it. The answer: No.
Did other senators fail to study the definitive intelligence report on Iraq-created specifically for their benefit-before voting on war? HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso visited Capital Hill to find out.
Do you believe members of Congress had a moral obligation to read the NIE before taking the vote to authorize war in Iraq?
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D.-DEL.): Oh, I don't think there's any moral obligation. I think the problem is, sometimes, you have to accept the assertions Presidents make. I make the assumption, when the National Security Adviser tells me something, when the President tells me something, when the Secretary of Defense tells me something, when the Secretary of State tells me something, they're telling the truth...It shouldn't be a moral obligation that we have to double-check them. I did read it, and that's why I took issue from the very beginning, as you'll recall, from the very beginning, saying that what they were saying was not accurate. [I read it because] it's my job. My job is foreign policy full-time...
Do you think, then, that more senators might have voted otherwise had they [read the NIE]?
BIDEN: I think they would have voted otherwise, but they just flat trusted the administration and what they were saying. Which is a thing that hopefully is a good thing to do-trust the administration. I just wish they'd been more straightforward. . . .
Given that it's war, and all hundred senators have to vote on it, not just you with your specialization, shouldn't everybody be reading this thing?
BIDEN: I think it's good for everybody to read it, and it would have been good to read it. But again, you have to keep in mind: You assume that when you have the entire administration telling you something, there is no need to go and doubt that what they're telling you is the truth. I just read it as a matter of course.
Do you believe members of Congress had a moral obligation to read the NIE before voting to authorize war in Iraq?
SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D.-N.D): Well, I don't want to revisit what we could have or should have or would have done. Obviously, if the intelligence would have been accurate, things might have been different here. But whether some read the reports or didn't read the reports, we were given briefings in the room upstairs-Top Secret briefing after briefing after briefing. And it turns out that a fair amount of that wasn't accurate.
Did you read the report, Senator?
DORGAN: I did not. But we had a vast number of briefings, which were purported to represent what the report said.
Do you think more senators would have questioned what was in the report if they had read it?
DORGAN: I don't think so.
Do you believe that senators and members of Congress had a moral obligation to read the NIE before voting to authorize the Iraq War?
SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D.-FLA.): I don't think it's an obligation. I don't think it's necessary to do that to come to a conclusion. To me, the NIE just confirmed the judgment you could make without reading it-which was that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time against the wrong enemy, and that we should have been putting our military up against Afghanistan and al Qaeda, the real enemy.
Do you believe that senators and members of Congress had a moral obligation to read the NIE before voting to authorize the Iraq War?
SEN. BEN NELSON (D.-NEB.): I think the answer to that is that we have technical reviews and we have summaries, and we do have information coming to us throughout. And so we do follow. And so you do the best you can with the information that you have, and some of it's more timely than other information, and this is one of those examples.
Senator, if I can ask you, did you read the NIE before taking the vote?
NELSON: I think I read a summary of it, yes.
A shorter version?
NELSON: I typically read summaries, and our staff is constantly reading summaries and getting reports back to you. And you read as many of those reports as you can. Now keep in mind, there are others who have different views about the intelligence information or the status of intelligence, and this was an important report, but it wasn't the only report, and it wasn't the only information that was available. What usually happens is, when there's something after the fact, people go back and say, 'This wasn't looked at.' Well, there were all kinds of other things that were looked at and were reviewed as well.
??¢â???¬ ¦What the NIE is supposed to be, at least according to the Intelligence Committee report from last week, is the most comprehensive, unvarnished-here's everything, here's the whole case right here.
NELSON: But see, they're not always that, are they. That's why they're not 100% reliable, and that's why they're not relied on 100%. . . . They have probity value, but they're not the only proof you have to go on.
When it comes to something like going to war, don't you think that members of Congress have some kind of responsibility to read the whole thing?
NELSON: I don't know that you do. I mean, I think much of the report is technical in nature, and you can't read everything that's before you, but you have to read a lot of what's before you, and you have to prioritize. . . . That's not the same as saying you don't have the obligation to be aware of what's in every report. You do. That's why you have staff. That's why you read what you can, that's why you read executive summaries, that's why you go to hearings, that's why you have testimony in front of you. So the point I'm making is, this was only one part. Maybe it was important, but it wasn't the only important bit of information. . . . If your point is, 'If you didn't read that, you didn't have enough other information'-that's wrong, because it wasn't the only thing out there. And I can't let you and your premise make it that important. . . . It's not that simple. I'm not going to let it become that simple.
I'll make sure to include what you're saying.
Senator, regarding the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, do you believe that senators and members of Congress had a moral obligation to read the NIE before voting to authorize war with Iraq?
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D.-W.VA.), INTELLIGENCE VICE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. I mean, it's easier said than done. I did. I read the classified version and the unclassified version, and another-there were actually three versions. With that said, I think it took place what-eight or nine days-let's just say ten days [before the vote]. It's 100 pages. It's extremely difficult. There was a classified, there was an unclassified. We were also in discussion with our staffs about how we ought to vote-except for those who thought it was a very easy vote. You know, we're all meant to read everything, and I can say to you that I've read the entire [Senate Select Intelligence Committee] report [on pre-war intelligence] of 500-plus pages twice. But then I could also tell you that I need to read it twice more.
I understand that most senators don't read all these bills. . . . But when it comes to going to war, don't you think that's a little more important?
ROCKEFELLER: Yes, but so is the ten days. Remember, the Senate Intelligence Committee had to request the NIE. We were not going to get an NIE. It was put together, it was very sloppy. And it was very incomplete. And in its unclassified version it was disingenuous-it left out the caveats and the warnings. So I agree with your premise, but there was a lot going on during that time, and we were building up to a vote, and that was a very serious vote.
