The early jockeying for the Democratic presidential nomination and two unflattering books about Hillary Clinton have focused attention again on a disturbing fact first revealed in 2005 by the Washington Post. Only six of ninety-four U.S. Senators took the time to read the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before the October 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to use force against that country, opting instead to read a five page executive summary.

Whether one approves or does not approve of the Iraq war, this was a gross breach of duty.

The Scoreboard finds it astounding that this fact, which caused barely a ripple when it was first revealed, has yet to provoke furious outrage from the public and the news media. It is true that we are used to complaints from lawmakers that they often have to vote for absurdly long and complex legislation without getting an opportunity to read it thoroughly. This itself is a serious problem, as it enhances the influence of lobbyists, allows expensive earmarks to sneak past review, and in many ways undermines the democratic process. It also raises the possibility that far too many of our elected officials are intellectually lazy, incompetent, or both. But this was a vote to authorize armed combat, putting American soldiers at risk, committing the nation to huge expense, and triggering massive and unpredictable international consequences.

To cast such a critical vote without personally reading relevant reports ---as opposed to being "briefed" by some unelected aide---is an appalling failure of diligence, competence and care, as well as a betrayal of trust. In the practice of law, such lapses are punished by every state bar association in the country with suspension or disbarment, and usually in those circumstances only one client has been harmed. The ninety-four senators had an entire nation and its military forces as their clients, and were making a decision that necessarily involved thousands of lives, billions of dollars, the future of the United States and the fate of a foreign nation and a troubled region…and they couldn't be bothered to read 92 pages? What does this tell us about their priorities, their work ethics, their dedication and their seriousness?

Isn't the answer obvious?

Several of these ninety-four arrogant slackers have the unmitigated gall to be running for president. Republican, Democrat, for the war, against the war, for the war and now opposing it or for the war still, it matters not: every one of them should be disqualified, voted out of Washington, and covered in shame. They cannot be trusted with the responsibility of voting on matters of national importance. They do not respect their duties to the American public. They do not value American life and treasure as much as the time they spend raising campaign funds or chatting with Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer. And for ethical breaches this serious, apologies will not do. Senators who cannot be trusted to act responsibly must become ex-senators, not President of the United States.

Yet the media has not even made an effort to let us know for certain who the disgraceful ninety-four are. We know that Senator Biden and former senator John Edwards were among the diligent and responsible six. We know that former Florida senator and habitual wonk Bob Graham did his due diligence, and as did Senator Jay Rockefeller.

And we know that Hillary Clinton did not read the report.

Professionalism in the U. S. Senate has fallen to an abysmal level, exemplified most recently by the collapse of its compromise immigration bill. It is too much, apparently, to expect courage, or statesmanship, or candor, or principle in the Senate as currently constituted. Fine: we elected these pedestrian hacks and placed them in the halls where heroes and visionaries once roamed, and we get what we vote for. But while it may be too much to expect pedestrian hacks to display virtues that are beyond them, it is not too much to insist that even they make sufficient effort to do their jobs, work hard, and be serious about their awesome responsibilities. Ninety-four U.S. Senators in 2002 didn't reach even this minimal standard of conduct when lives, dollars, and nations were at stake.

Diligence and responsibility are core ethical duties. These senators do not value them, and therefore should not and cannot be trusted. Those of the ninety-four who remain in the Senate ought to be jeered from the national stage as quickly as possible.

And yes, that means you, Senator Clinton. But look on the bright side: you should have lots of company.