Legitimate Questions of Judgment, Experience

In recent weeks Americans have been subjected to a litany of outrageous statements from Sen. Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While Obama was finally compelled to distance himself from his radical preacher, the relationship raises legitimate questions about Obama's judgment and naivete.

Obama, after all, wants to be president of the United States, and in that quest has proposed unconditional summit meetings with some of our country's most determined enemies, including Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama's campaign has been built upon his supposed transcendent qualities and intuitive judgment. His foreign policy experience is limited to having lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, and having traveled overseas briefly as a college student. He further claims that a speech he gave against the war in Iraq six years ago to extremely liberal supporters in a campaign for state senator in Illinois is sufficient proof of his superior judgment in national security matters and qualifies him to be president and commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces at a time when we are fighting two extraordinarily difficult wars. As with his relationship with Wright, a closer examination is warranted.

In the U.S. Senate, to which he was elected in 2004, a year after the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has done little to act on his asserted anti-war position, and has said repeatedly that had he been in the Senate at the time of the vote on the authorization for the use of military force he doesn't know how he would have voted. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe, with jurisdiction over NATO, he has held not a single oversight meeting because, as he admitted, he was too busy running for president, even though NATO's presence in the Afghanistan war is critical to success in that venture.

Obama repeats the incorrect and politically irresponsible mantra that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that therefore he is more qualified to be president. Unlike Obama, as the last acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the first Gulf War, I was deeply involved in that debate from the beginning.

President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear publicly and in their representations to Congress that the authorization was not to go to war but rather to give the president the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations to reinvigorate international will to contain and disarm Saddam Hussein, consistent with the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War.

With passage of the resolution, the president did in fact achieve a U.N. consensus, and inspectors returned to Iraq. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, has said repeatedly that without American leadership there would have been no new inspection regime.

Saddam was a serial violator of human rights, had started two wars in the region in the previous decade, continued to threaten his neighbors, including Israel, which he once said he would destroy with weapons of mass destruction. We may not have fully understood how little remained of his WMD arsenal, but were we really willing in the aftermath of 9/11 to give him a free pass, as Obama's rewriting of history suggests he might have done?

The approach of tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action was the correct one and it yielded exactly the desired results, a unanimously passed U.N. resolution and the capitulation of Saddam when he readmitted the inspectors.

The betrayal occurred not when the president was given the tools he needed to secure international support for inspections, but rather when Bush refused to allow the inspectors to complete their work and decided preemptively to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

That decision and power was his alone -- not the Congress' and certainly not Hillary Clinton's. Obama is wrong to turn Bush's war into Clinton's responsibility. And Obama is dangerously na•ve in failing to understand the need in international crises to blend tough diplomacy with the other foreign policy tools at our disposal to achieve a strong national security posture.

Judgment and leadership in foreign policy are not intuitive. They are learned through experience. Obama's long and close relationship with the anti-American hate-monger Wright, his inattention to his responsibilities in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his careless approach to Iraq all suggest that he would benefit from more experience. We should ask whether we want those lessons to be learned in the White House.

Originally published in the Raleigh News and Observer.

Comments

[Denni]

Comparing Joe Wilson to Colin Powell? Geez, that's harsh. I still RESPECT Colin Powell. He realized he was backing a liar and walked away. He didn't continue selling his soul off in little pieces and continue the party line.

[jp5472]

Mr. Wilson, Your continued series of rantings with every new post you write has made it so that not only am I now embarrassed to have a copy of The Politics of Truth sitting on my shelf, but I now do not want to even show the world I ever believed in or supported you by trying to now peddle it at a $2 flea stand and be rid of anything associated with you. To the trash, the recycling can it goes!!! Your series of posts has done nothing but expose you for the pandering shill who is pushing an agenda so far from the truth, it's embarrassing for you. Please just enjoy your days in retirement and stop trying to sway voters with absolute nonsense, rubbish.

[TomP]

Uh oh... Joe has really upset the Obamites. He's left the Obamanian compound, and the DEVOUT Obama faithful are now pummeling him with rocks and bottles as he beats a hasty retreat to the real world.

[Denni]

How very fitting that a Clintonista would choose violent and war-like teminology!

[jp5472]

Sorry there TomP....I was a supporter of HRC until about the end of November when by that time I had caught her in so many lies already, stretches of experience and accomplishments, and saw through the daily triangulated pandering to know she'd be the biggest mistake we could ever make - a continuation of GWB twist and lie machine in Democratic sheep clothes. Good luck with trying to now salvage what's left of her Senate career. I believe there will be a lot of fallout from what people have now seen as far as her integrity and conduct - 100% negative. Maybe you could hold a coffee clatch fundraiser for her...she needs double digit millions to pay off her disastrously run campaign debts.

[Denni]

Mr. Wilson is doing to Sen. Obama what the Bush administration tried to do to him. He's been trying to personally destroy Sen. Obama to maintain the power of his little group by relying on distortions and smear. Mr. Wilson, Messrs Bush and Cheney have trained you well. Sen. Clinton has made good use of your new (?) talents. The May 6th primary results are a direct reflection of your smear tactics as well as Sen. Clinton's behavior.

[altohone]

Hillary's Colin Powell again?

Jeez.

[shpilk]

There's a reason Hillary Clinton has such high negatives in every poll I've ever seen; it's directly related to the arrogance shown by her, an arrogance of power. She never had these high negatives until she started to run for President.

What Joe Wilson is doing with these repeated ad hom attacks on Barack Obama is helping reinforce Hillary Clinton's negatives. He's not convincing anyone, and potentially is damaging her campaign with each subsequent post.

It's as if the Obama campaign had planted Joe Wilson inside the Clinton machine to destroy it.
Are you a secret double agent, Joe .. is that it? You are intelligent enough to realize what you are doing isn't convincing anyone.

Keep on ranting Joe, you're helping to end this debacle. I hope you realize that In the process you are cementing a legacy for the Clintons, marking them pariahs.

[fstory]

Joe - You can seek to excuse Senator Clinton's vote all you want, and perhaps for most people, the mistaken support for this disastrous war was excusable... but not for someone who wants to be President of the United States. Sure, the Bush administration was deceptive and dishonest; but I for one saw through it, as did so many other people. You can find a reason to excuse any act or omission, but at the end of the day there was a right decision and a wrong decision, and she made the wrong decision. Sorry, Joe, if the fact that she made the wrong decision (but has an excuse!) doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in the person who wants to be President of the United States.

What are the "legitimate questions" that Reverend Wright raises about Senator Obama? Quit playing the same games as the mainstream media, discussing in vague terms the "questions" that Wright raises, but then fail to mention even one of those questions. It really doesn't get more disingenuous than that.

[SamiNJ]

What on Earth do they have on you Wilson? It has to be some doozy! You think,.. along with great minds like Elizabeth on The View, that his relationship with his pastor is a matter of judgment but you do not look harshly on Hillary's war vote? One of them has a helluva lot more to do with Americans and Iraqi's dying than the other. And it's not the one that forced you to take pen to paper with your blog post. What have they got on you man? Every article you have written is such a stretch, that it's almost laughable. If it weren't so sad that is.

[lawchic]

Your comments would have more sway with me, if you at least tried to acknowledge the growing list of HRC's negatives. Her switcheroo on NAFTA, the blatant conflict of interest on CAFTA, the spectacle she has made of herself with the MI,FL delegates, and "if this was a Republican primary I would be the nominee," her gas tax pandering, calling Obama naive in foreign policy then threatening to "obliterate" a country based on a hypothetical, her "I was first lady so I technically have executive experience through osmosis and observation" ploy. I mean, I could go on.

If you want to support HRC that's your business, but the fact that she has made several blunders, that if President, can affect me personally makes me uncomfortable. So while you try to twist and distort Obama's record, maybe you should come to grip with HRC's. Neither candidate is perfect, both have policy positions I don't agree with and both have political and personal associates that raise eyebrows. But, let's cut the BS.

[Enlightened22]

Probably one of the first low-quality article I read here, badly documented and biaised. Where to start? Obama is right to attack Hillary who did not even read the intelligence before throwing her vote for the war. She is also the only dem candidate who did not apologize for her mistake. She waited until public opinion changed before speaking against the war.

I am sick and tired to hear about Rev. Wright. First, unless you served your country like he did in the Army and afterward, with the sick, poor, and incarcerated, please just keep your thoughts for yourself. Those self-serving patriotics, who never did annything for the country except wearing a pin (i.e. Lou Dobbs) should abstain from voicing their opinion. Wright loses it once in a while, but let's not forget it has been documented that U.S. government was involved (through the CIA) in experiments with people suffering mental disorders, they did experiment with LSD, infected africans with syphilis, are reponsible for such regime like Pinochet in Chili, etc. That Rev. Wright extends it to include the fabrication of aids is certainly delusional but builds upon years of questionable actions from US government.

[patmancando]

Only 23 Senators and about a hundred Representatives voted against the Iraq resolution........which hardly makes Hillary solely responsible for Bush's preemptive- war.
Joe Wilson, whom the Obaminations have slandered since he first criticized Obama's experience, has served as an ambassador in the Middle East, published an editorial in the NYT against the war trying to stop the Neocon steam roller toward a preemptive war and had his wife, an undercover agent, who was working on WMD, outed for his efforts. Does Iran come to mind, anyone, as one of the dangerous countries in the world? Mrs. Plame/Wilson efforts involved Iran
and tracking of WMD, and the Neocons were willing to jeopardize and eventually eliminate her whole opperation to punish Joe Wilson. He paid a big price trying to stop the Neocons from their preemptive attacks on Iraq, and the country lost a crucial undercover WMD tracking CIA team.

Obamanuts think they must criticize this man because he thinks HIllary would be the best person to be Commander-in-Chief: I must say this desire to destroy anyone who criticizes Obama irritates many people in the Democratic party. You can not raise Obama's positives by vilifying those who do not support him. Time to grow up.

[Rocky4356]

This guy has made a cottage industry about someone outing his spouse. But if he had any balls should he have not spoke up more forcefully if he knew the administration was lying. Maybe Hillary could lend this wimp some gonads

[Gatling]

Staying with Wright is no more of a judgement issue than is Staying with Bill. Personal relationships are into fodder for extrapolation into Presidential policy.

[sophistwatch]

It is outright laughable that you would attempt to use the guilt by association tactic of Reverend Wright"s words as a measure of Barack Obama"s Presidential lack of judgment when juxtaposed to that of the Clinton"s.
Hillary Clinton deliberately lied about taking sniper fire to bolster her image to gain a few points during an election. She has recently said that she would "obliterate" Iran under a ludicrous hypothetical scenario. Her husband was busy getting head IN the Whitehouse and was damn near impeached for lying about it under oath. Ken Star wasted a pile of taxpayer money on making sure every lurid detail of this mess was printed in every paper in the country. I recall all to well the judgment of the Clinton"s when they occupied the Whitehouse.
You are a very intelligent man, so you most likely know all about the Clinton"s previous associations; which makes your article all the more curious.
At any rate for the benefit of those of you who do not know, I am providing a link that readers can go to which will allow them to take a look at who the Clinton"s have been associated with over the same 20 years or so that Obama has known Wright. Take a look at this link and then let"s discuss which candidate has the judgment problem. http://cbn2.tripod.com/convicts.html

[5thGenDem]

"She has recently said that she would "obliterate" Iran under a ludicrous hypothetical scenario." The scenario was put to her in a question! How would Sen. Obama have responded to that question. Hopefully even with his limited experience he'd say much the same thing.

By the way, if you don't hit the shift key you'll get an apostrophe and not a quotation mark.

[SamiNJ]

Sorry but for some reason she chose this question to answer... until then for the most part it was "I don't want to play the hypotheticals game here...." she wanted to prove she had "cojones" as James 'The Mask" Carville called them. I don't know about you... well from your post maybe I do, but I don't want another cowboy who has to prove he's a man by talking tough and having no real credibility in actual negotiations and Foreign Relations. The last thing i think she would be good on in International Relations and Foreign Policy. With trying to be a real tough woman,.. she'd basically be Bush-Lite. And not that light, from what I can tell. And on another point, the severity of the word is the problem. One has to choose their words wisely... ala Bush calling his treck into the MiddleEast a "CRUSADE". Words have consequences. Iran is a very large country, supposedly with a modern forward-thinking population that rejects their leadership's ideals. Obliterate proooooooobably doesn't sit to well with any innocents on the ground there. Sounds like they would get fried too. Would there be no retaliation? Severe retaliation? of course there would be. Words chosen. Paths chosen. That's all.

[Elen]

Henry Cisneros is on your list of pardons. After being indicted on 18 counts he finally pled guilty to misdemeanor lying to the FBI and Bill pardoned him [check his bio on wikipedia]. Surprisingly, an ABC Channel 11 news clip from Raleigh, North Carolina shows him campaigning for Clinton this weekend at the Latino Bank in Raleigh, NC and among other things he talks about Sen. Clinton's amnesty/immigration plan.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6119030

[5thGenDem]

Clinton said she would "obliterate" Iran: IF THEY LAUNCHED AN NUCLEAR ATTACK ON ISRAEL! What other response to such an attack could there be? We have to make it clear to Iran that there will be terrible consequences for such an act. To my knowledge Obama has never answered this question, but do you really think that diplomacy is the appropriate response following a nuclear attack?

[clevelandchick]

Obama hasn't answered the question because it's a dumb question. Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Iran isn't going to nuke anyone. You don't think they know if they did they'd get hit? To answer that question in the way she did was monumentally immature and irresponsible and not the least bit the mark of a head of state. They're developing nukes just in case Bush decides to 'bring freedom' to them. Duh. After what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan it makes sense. Wilson knows better, he knows that diplomacy is what is needed, that's what the Iranians want, it's what the world wants...well the world minus the hardliners in Israel and the Neocons.

She and you and Wilson are playing the Neocon fear card to make her look like a hard ass. I'm so tired of phonies and b.s. posturing. We need an adult in the office of our head of state and Hillary has shown she's no adult.

[patmancando]

Actually Hillary's statement is a deterrent to Iran to even think about using a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, if they get one. She has also made it clear she would use diplomacy to deter them from developing a weapon in the first place. Actually this was one of the things used
in the Cold war to deter Russia from ever using nukes, which they had. It worked then. I would suggest she might use Joe Wilson, who has a history of successful diplomatic service in the Middle East to lead the diplomatic efforts.

[missjabez]

Please. You're parroting the Clinton line by saying all that Obama did to oppose the war was to give a sppech. What did you expect him to do? Mount a 1960s-style demonstration at the Pentagon with a bunch of wild-eyed supporters? Unfortunately, there's no getting around the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the war. You may say "judgment and experience are not intuitive" but Clinton has shown time and time again she has bad judgment and her experience consists of 7 years in the Senate and being married to a Governor and President. Your arguments about Obama's relationship with his preacher have been heard time and again. Contrary to what the neocons and Clinton fans want us to believe, Obama and Wright are not joined at the hip. I couldn't care less what church Obama goes to, and besides was Obama supposed to somehow muzzle his preacher? I can see it now:"Please, watch what you say, Rev. Wright, because I may run for President 10 years now." No, Mr.Wilson, your arguments don't work.

[knighthowl]

I am deeply saddened to see Joe Wilson become an apologist for Hillary Clinton. Worse still, he engages in the Rovian tactic of guilt by association by dredging up the ridiculous Wright "issue." He who Rove said was sent to Africa on a junket because of his marriage, not because of diplomatic expertise. Now I am beginning to think Rove had a point (not really), but to argue that Hillary is somehow superior because her pastor was not Rev. Wright borders on insanity. Perhaps the pressures of the attacks on his wife and himself have taken a larger tole than one would have hoped.

Hillary's vote on Iraq was inexcusable despite Joe's attempt to excuse it. But, if we were to somehow put that aside, what do we make of the sniper claims? Do we really want a delusional pathological liar as President? Haven't we just tried that?

[tanyainsacramento]

Name a president that came in with experience in being a president...

Just like Hillary is claiming experience thru a marriage to a president..then you can say BUSH HAS EXPERIENCE BECAUSE HE WAS SON TO A PRESIDENT...and look where he got us

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH JUDGEMENT

KNOWLEDGE

AND A STEADY TEMPERMENT

Something Hillary has never displayed. Her emotional outbursts make me think that she would make judgements on her emotions..not a plan..not something thought out...but emotions...and on top of that..shes a pathalogical liar

Ill take the smart guy who doesnt have a father or wife to claim for experience, anyday

People seem to forget too
The president relies on others to make sound decisions

SO ANOTHER QUALITY THE PRES WILL NEED IS HUMILITY AND THE ABILITY TO BE HUMBLE

Another quality Hillary CANT have..its not in her DNA to be humble or have humility

Shes a power monger who only thinks of herself

She would make a worse president, then Mr Bush himself

[Bill3rdterm]

How can anyone take you serious when you make such an ignorant moronic comment saying that she would be worse then Bush?

[tanyainsacramento]

That is how I feel

If you dont take me serious, its simple, then dont take the time to reply to me.

Hillary Clinton is a liar who voted for this war. You think the fact shes a democrat makes her belief system different then Bush's?

No, its just a party label.

Her actions in the last few days are proof that she is careless and emotional in her decisions.

Her track record on delivering her promises is weak.

The fact that she is still running in this campaign is PROOF that she is out for herself and not the people (a characterisitc that her and Bush seem to have in common)

So call it what you want, but I dont think Mrs Clinton is better for the people, then bush...just because she is a democrat.

Shes shifty and will use any angle that fits (race, gender, econmic class), to get votes. Thats not democratic.