Joe Wilson is Wrong About Obama

No one has been a stronger supporter of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson than I have, having been one of the original writers of the CIA Identities Protection Act, and someone who believes not only that Valerie was wronged, but that those who committed the wrong committed grave acts that harmed our country.

The nation owes a debt to Joe Wilson for warning us about the falsehoods and sounding the alarm in favor of truth prior to the catastrophic decision, which Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive supporters of, to go to war in Iraq.

Regarding his defense of Hillary, his attack on Obama, and the personal tone of his attack on Obama (a demeaning tone that is symbolic of so much that has gone wrong with Hillary's presidential campaign, I just flat out disagree.

Regarding Hillary Clinton's experience, by far her most important national security experience in her entire life was her five years of all-out support for the Iraq war. Her aggressive and uncompromising support for the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Her stubborn, relentless support for the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Her most recent major experience with national security was her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution, which she falsely portrayed as a vote for diplomacy with Iran, when in truth it was a neocon-inspired push by those who favored war with Iran, as they favored war with Iraq.

Obama has done more than enough foreign travel, but in truth, who cares? I wish I had a dollar for every supporter of the Iraq war in Congress, who spent year after year of this nightmare war regaling us about their latest trip to Iraq and how everything was going just great as they learned on their latest trip.

I was for Al Gore in 2008, and am not behind any candidate just yet, though it is clear that the tone of Hillary's campaign has created huge ill will alienating indepenent voters which is why she usually runs well behind the other Democrats against leading Republicans.

Joe's personal attack against Obama, so common among the Hillary surrogates and supporters, is exactly the disrespectful tone that moves beyond appropriate criticism and creates enormous ill will against Hillary from large numbers of independents, and a growing number of Democrats.

Who was not saddened by the pathetic spectacle of Bob Kerrey, a good man I once supported for President, engaging in four days of "Barack Hussein Muslin Madrassa Obama" discussion?

What America wants, Obama gets, and in some ways, Edwards gets as well. What America does not want, is four years of neo-Bush style personal attacks in their living rooms and their lives of the kind that the Hillar surrogates make a daily art form.

What Obama gets, is that America wants to turn the page, to a new era of civility and decency in our politics and an era when Democrats no longer engage in the daily maneuvering, positioning, triangulations, careerism and nastiness of politics.

There is a valid argument that Obama lacks sufficient conventional experience, and a valid argument that he has the kind of broader, more humane and wider experience than those with long resumes, tied to the old establishment, guilty as charged in supporting for years the most unwise war in American history.

The Iraq war is a story of the corruption and extremism of the neoconservative radicals.

It is also a story of the weakness and moral and professional failure of the conventional national security establishment.

It is above all a failure of what passed for the national security establishment of the Democratic Party, whose leaders too often supported this war, whose foreign policy experts too often were blowing with the wind, and whose "experience" did and does grave damage to our country.

Anyone who supported the Iraq war for five bloody, deadly years and then supported the Lieberman-Kyl amendment should show more taste and better judgment and more modestly in boasting of their own "experience' and launching personal attacks on those who were far more right than she.

Don't believe me, believe the army of political independents who overwhelmingly dislike the kind of attack that the Clinton campaign has launched that endangers her campaign and could lose the election to Republicans in November.

Comments

[ButterflyWeed]

As I hear the Clinton attacks mouthed regularly (insert latest pawn), I only hear the desperation behind them. If the only means of lifting my candidate UP is to pull others DOWN, It shows few skills, little to work with and even less integrity.
We'll soon see how voters react.

[WhitemoonG]

Fiatpax: the answer to your question, even with it's partially flawed premise,

is that Joe Wilson DIDN'T warn us about anything prior to the March 2003 invasion, or at least
not what he is widely credited for, by adoring liberals who are too star struck to get, or want to get the facts straight.

Just a few short days before the March 2003 invasion, Joe Wilson argued on ABC Nightline, as well as other national venues, that he was certain that Saddam HAD wmd, chem and bio (only uncertainty being how close on nuclear) and we shouldn't invade BECAUSE SADDAM HAD WMD!

He also restates all of that and more IN HIS OWN BOOK!

Should we "impeach" Wilson for validating that Saddam HAD wmd days before the war, contributing to "lying us into war?"

About yellowcake: the 16 words cited British intelligence's conclusion that Saddam SOUGHT uranium, not that a SALE had occurred.

Wilson's hotel lobby "investigation" stated reasons why he felt it doubtful that a SALE had occurred, but in his book he confirms that an Iraqi delegation APPROACHED Niger in l999. (remember that yellowcake is Niger's ONLY export/product).

Namely, Wilson validated what Bush said, yet is widely credited with supposedly "debunking" it.

Meanwhile, a FACT rarely mentioned (or even known) in these parts is that over 150 TONS of yellowcake was found by our soldiers in early April 2003 at the top secret Tuwaitha, Iraq facility.

This was confirmed by Tina Sussman early June 2003 in Newsday, as well as June 2004 in the NY TIMES. (even Sulzberger wasn't aware of the coverage when asked weeks later).

So, Wilson actually confirmed the 16 words, told the Nation in March 2003 that Saddam HAS wmd, and he was found to HAVE over 150 tons of yellowcake.

Am I supposed to be surprised that you all are finally getting a taste of the opportunistic, history stretching, narcissistic Joe Wilson?
Who did the real lying?

[SCharb]

Excellent refutation of Wilson's ridiculous excuse for an article. Although you didn't address the horrendous, ad hominem attacks insulting Obama's intelligence and calling Obama a "dummy!"

Joe Wilson should take a look in the mirror if he's going to let Hillary be his ventriloquist.

[cloudy]

Both the tone and the message of this comment seem right on (to this Obama supporter). I would add that Wilson and other HRC surrogates seem to be ready to come down as hard, and perhaps harder, on Obama as they are in dealing with the GOP. It is noteworthy how both Obama, and at least for the most part, his spokespersons (other than the person -- Marc Ambinder should tell us the name -- who supposedly sat next to Mr. Ambinder with what would seem an unseemly comment) maintain a much more civil tone in their discourse. And yes, I do think that is a plus with voters, and I do think one can be firm and strong in responding to SwiftBoating by the GOP and its attack forces without being downright nasty and unfair.

The notion of "experience" like it was some quantifiable entity similar to money is very mechanistic. As Oprah Winfrey rightly pointed out, Obama brings DIFFERENT experiences than being in the senate for decades to the table, experiences with much value. Dick Morris (not my favorite person, but likely knowledgeable on this point) has already noted that skating with the counterpart with the first lady in one country, or riding an elephant with some other bigshot in another were more typical of the travels of the first lady HRC than the hardcore policy-addressing expeditions we are led to believe to have been typical. That doesn't discount EVERY trip or everything HRC did in that context, but it at least suggests that the issue be viewed in a realistic light.

That kind of objectivity, even (to borrow a distinction from C Wright Mills) though not necessarily detachment, from Brent Budowsky is refreshing.

[trevor01]

This might make sense if Hillary was looking over Wilson's shoulder and approving every word he wrote.
But she isn't and she doesn't. To be fair, if you want to know what Hillary thinks, listen to what SHE has to say.

[Obama2008]

Thank you Brent Budowsky. Like all of America, I was outraged by the treatment of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson by our current administration. And so, when I saw that Mr. Wilson began to write about Barack Obama in such an inflammatory way, I was shocked.

If anyone knows about character assassination, it is the Wilson-Plame family. Therefore, I can't imagine what could possibly motivate him to be so cruel and to twist the facts so terribly.

The Clinton's perpetuate the theory that you must destroy your opponent in order to win. We have seen character assassinations committed against many who have spoken out against the Clinton's, to include the many women who have accused Bill of improprieties. This practice is destructive to our nation as a whole, and I believe that we are coming to a place now where it will no longer be tolerated.

There is too much at stake to play political games with this election.

[GreggHeacock]

Joe Wilson's assessment of Hillary"s experience measured against Barack Obama"s does not ring true, especially in the light of his memoirs The Politics of Truth.

Wilson makes clear that the foreign service provides information to the residents of the White House. As he prepared President Clinton for his first trip to Africa (Hillary, who joined him, had gone earlier in 1997), he knew that "Africa has to be seen, touched, tasted, heard, and smelled to be believed" (p 255). And, while the visit was successful in beaming back to America "positive visual images" of Africa and its people, the meetings with leaders and people were arranged and carefully managed; "Unquestionably, there was some show" (p 266).

On the other hand, Barack Obama"s pilgrimage to Africa to meet the family that still lives there involved surprises. As his African sister explained when they had difficulty entering government buildings, she could have gone in more easily had she been with someone who was white. The habits developed during colonialism remain even as countries come under black rule. Barack discovered racism's presence in Africa as well as in America.

Joe refers to Barack"s experience as a 10-year-old in Indonesia, which he dismisses because his own experience abroad at that age had so little affect on him. But, he was not working on the kind of identity issues that a black child of a white mother might experience when coming under the rule of an Indonesian father who was working for a corrupt government that he supported in action but not in belief. Nor did he have the perspective of a child born in Hawaii 1971 to a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, whose each day provided an opportunity to learn the world anew.

Joe Wilson would do well not to use his life to take the measure of another's. He compounds this error by engaging in other people's battles rather than his own.

[Poboy]

Q. If Joe Wilson would trade his integrity for a job, then what would he trade in exchange for information contrary to the public assertions by the Bush administration that Saddam allegedly purchased yellowcake from Niger?

To follow through, whatever it was he may have asked for he didn't get it, which would put HIS public assertions into a different light, such as away from altruism but toward selfishness.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Who called who "Bush-Cheney lite"? That may have been the single most gratutious and egregious political insult I've ever heard. Thankfully the level of political discourse has gone back up well above that new low.

[sarge]

Thanks, Brent.

I, too, have been a supporter of Joe, and adoring fan of Valerie - even an occasional critic of Brent Budowsky.

The comparison to George Bush was below the belt, disingenuous, malicious, and, of course, dead wrong.

Bush's problem isn't his experience or "intuition", it's his commitment to the execution of a neocon ideology that Obama, and America, do not share.

[hopeless277]

Excellent, valid points all around. Her support of the war and occupation is a deal-breaker. Couple that with corporate contributions and you get Bush-Lite. This country need a cleanup pitcher. Someone who can come in a fix our government. Obama can't do it. Hillary doesn't want to. Edwards? Maybe. Dodd, Dodd, Dodd, Dodd. He is the ONLY ONE TO STAND UP TO THE FISA BILL!!!!! But not being a media 'darling' will finish his run. Why do we let Chris Matthews and the citizens of Iowa choose our president?

[lgillooly]

All I want is a Democrat in the WH. We cannot survive another Neocon. Hilary,Obama,Edwards or Biden would be great,
I understand your concern about her and have disappointments also,but in 2003 the BS from the WH was overwhelming and the Country was afraid.

[usna73]

"Now the trumpet summons us again-not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need, though embattled we are-but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"-- a struggle against the common enemies of man:tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself. JFK's Inaguaral address, 1961.

Obama will carry the torch of the new generation,.... and all generations will benefit.

[JBRUHNS]

Mr. Budowsky,

Thank you very much for this. I very much appreciated these 2 paragraphs:

"It is above all a failure of what passed for the national security establishment of the Democratic Party, whose leaders too often supported this war, whose foreign policy experts too often were blowing with the wind, and whose "experience" did and does grave damage to our country."

"Anyone who supported the Iraq war for five bloody, deadly years and then supported the Lieberman-Kyl amendment should show more taste and better judgment and more modestly in boasting of their own "experience' and launching personal attacks on those who were far more right than she."

I am an Iraq war veteran who will not be supporting her for the very reasons you just described. She has been entirely too hawkish regarding the war in Iraq. Even worse, her hawkishness has been very consistent, right up until she began her quest for the presidency. At this point in time, I just can't trust her. The dishonesty is just so blatant that it is difficult for me to comprehend -- I can see right through it.

I do like Obama, however, I am going with Edwards. I honestly trust Edwards to end the war, and that is the biggest issue for me. Plus, his populist views on poverty, jobs, and universal health care, and global warming are far better than Senator Clinton's views in my opinion.

V/R
John Bruhns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvTp0PYVLZA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7WbBuukrzo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fio260r0Cf8

[Jonni Rae]

Thank you for this post. I was so offended by the Wilson article. And really, we are electing President, not an ambassador, which is, after all, what he was. Frankly, I am sick of Wilson and his beautiful wife appearing everywhere, on covers of magazines, even when she was first "outed." Darlings of the MSM, they never actually seemed that upset about it all. As a victim of Bush's attacks, he should be sensitive before attacking others. He makes himself look like a fool, really, a tool of the Hilary campaign, promised something, no doubt, for this. Some position higher than ambassador, no doubt.