Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.
Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."
I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.
There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.
What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.
But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.
As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.
On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.
Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.
During President Bill Clinton's second term in office he sent out Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to see if the American people would support war against Iraq. When the American people Ms Albright spoke to resoundly said "NO!" President Bill Clinton wisely decided not to proceed.
When Senator Hillary Clinton decided to vote for the war she clearly stated that she was not relying on the intelligence provided by the U.S. government or President Bush. Instead, she stated that she had not read the National Intelligence Estimate, but instead spoke to advisers of her husband's who all said President Bush was right on this one.
As for Senator Obama's prescient speech in the Fall of 2002, I seem to recall Senator Max Cleland losing his Senate seat for taking a similar position. For anyone in hindsight to claim that Senator Obama's speech took no political courage is to completely change what it was actually like at the time. By making that speech, Senator Obama could have permanently destroyed any chance he had at national office. Again, I ask you to remember Max Cleland (R-Ga).
If you have any idea of what you are talking about, your claim that Senator Obama is guilty of dereliction of duty is specious and you know is false. Senator Biden's committee holds oversight hearings on NATO's involvement in Afghanistan and Afghanistan itself. Unless you want to find fault with Senator Biden, this is a ridiculous argument. Instead of this kind of specious ad hominem, why don't you tell us what Senator Hillary Clinton has done to fix that situation -- or even what significant legislation she has passed. Please don't just list the same old easy ones involving veterans. What has she done that in any way compares with ethics reform (Senator Obama), government transparency (Coburn-Obama) or nuclear non-proliferation (Lugar-Obama)? I would also ask what anonymous holds she has gotten set aside like Senator Obama did to get nuclear non-proliferation -- the anonymous hold was originally put on by Senator Coburn (R-Ok). While you are at it, why don't you explain to me how 15+ years working as a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm some how qualifies Senator Clinton to answer any phone at the White House, or gives her experience to be President -- unless she is actually running as a Republican, because I admit they like this sort of thing.
Should Florida and Michigan Democrats have their delegates counted? 62%
Have new primaries or caucuses 16%
Not be counted at all 21%
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. COUNT THE VOTES DEAN.
or has it become a habit to declare votes as votes only after the fact?
Thanks.
Wasn't it the Bush administration who claimed your wife was nothing but an insignificant desk jockey? Seems to mimic your claim that Obama was a minor local official. Senator Obama had 8 years in the Illinois State Senate where he worked extremely hard to pass controversial legislation, bringing opposing factions together. His achievements in the State Senate cannot be overlooked:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
Senator Obama has more elected and legislative experience than Senator Clinton. Senator Obama has more foreign relations experience than Senator Clinton and more than Bill Clinton had before he took office:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hF21X4euXTnoLZk5sNoBd9NVtcRQD8V1SV980
Senator Obama also fought for ethics reform and transparency in the Senate, and passed groundbreaking legislation:
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12761
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored more than 570 bills in the two years he has been in the Senate.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422
If you take the time to compare Senator Obama's congressional record to Senator Clinton's, you might be surprised what you find out:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
Wasn't it the Bush administration that lied and tried to discredit you and ruin your career? Seems you are doing the same thing here claiming Obama in his position as chair of the subcommittee for European Affairs, is responsible for NATO and Afghanistan. You must know that is an outright lie. All matters of importance regarding NATO are handled by the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Joseph Biden is the chair.
You also omitted that since we are at war in Afghanistan, the other Committee that is responsible for NATO involvement in Afghanistan is the Committee on Armed Services, of which Clinton is a full member. Clinton didn't bother to show last month Services to receive testimony on the strategy in Afghanistan and recent reports by the Afghanistan Study Group and The Atlantic Council of the United States. http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=3132
Under your logic, it appears Senator Clinton has been derelict in her duties.
One other thing you didn't bother to research (or deliberately omitted), is that the Subcommitte on European Affairs rarely held meetings or hearings before Senator Obama became the chair. It was not uncommon for this subcommittee to go years without hearings. For instance, the last hearing that was held by this subcommittee was held 04/05/2006. The hearing preceding that was held 04/08/2004. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/c13157.htm
I find it more than ironic, that you would smear and misrepresent Senator Obama in such a vicious and desperate fashion, after you and your wife have been smeared by Libby/Cheney/Rove.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/EmailBNStory/National/home
-----------------------------------------------------
Sorry Joe... I'm not buying it.
15% of us... without the aid of being involved in the discussion... or without the liability of being directly lied to by GWB... have had the correct posture toward this whole fiasco from the get-go.
85% wanted GW to lash-out at the world in any fashion he saw fit... we who have been consistently sane deserve credit for having been labeled heinously delusional, traitorous, and many other lovely epithets... all the while we held our ground.
If you think that there is no debit in bucking the status quo... then I submit that you don't know yet what a 'Liberal' is... and therefore can't speak with any credibility to Obama's posture.
BTW... just because you came to Jesus recently... in being opposed to a Conservative Administration.... that doesn't give you any authority to wax informatively to those of us who have been 'correct' for our entire lives.... (AKA-Liberal)
That "15/85" equation is a big deal. Nothing has changed. The majority would still enthusiastically be wrong in a time of crisis...
Contemplate your history. It is likely that 15% of the population lead the Colonies to the Revolution. All revolutionary human momentum for the good has come as a surprise... with built-in momentum. If it happened glacially, then it could be stopped. That is the mechanism that keeps the stodgy detail oriented status-quotientiers such as yourself from recognizing or interfering until it is too late.
If you would point a finger at someone to lay blame for the inequity and wrongheaded momentum in the world... look close to home, Joe. The British East India Company, the CIA, Adam Smith, and Thomas Malthus are the big players... with Republican bit players in supporting roles.
Wanna gain the soapbox from which to inform a liberal? Better listen to the elders... those of us who have been towing the liberal line for decades longer than you. Lest you misunderstand, I am not talking about the faux branch of the group... the "Progressives". I mean Liberal... with a capital "L". You are a toddler in our ranks... and I'm skeptical that the exorcism is complete.
We "traitors" were screaming loudly... even as GW was occupying the rubble... while the majority held rage toward us... We, and Obama... deserve at minimum... acknowledgment that we bucked the system when it wasn't popular... and no revisionist interpretation by toddlers will change that.
And yes, I wish she'd voted differently, way back when... even if she doesn't.
My commentary hinged entirely on whether Joe had the bonifides to soapbox... when so recently extricating himself from the Republican womb.
I am skeptical that he has deciphered with any depth what it means to be a Liberal...
This "progressive" movement... borne of fright... frightened of the "Liberal" label... has diluted the meaning.
A "Liberal" has a job to do... and that is to buck the status-quo... regardless of cost to self.
Joe got a taste of it... but I doubt he understands what it is to be fully-on-board. I'd speculate he is wandering in the wilderness with the "Progressives"...
I believe that it takes more than a career loss, and a moment in time feeling the wrath of the rightie"disreputation machine" to make it into the ranks of commenting on "Liberality".
Many liberals forgoe even the possibility of aquiring a lucrative career, a house in the Hamptons, ambasadorships... health care... education... healthy diet... because they are dedicated to principle of bucking status-quo before any other agenda.
Joe is a newbie... and I reject Joe's commentary on the position someone else takes... when it is a position that conforms to the "Liberal" code of ethics. I don't believe he gets it... yet. He has stripes on his back... but IMO... not enough to aquire bonifides.
WE NEED TO SCRUTINIZE THIS GUY VERY CAREFULLY. HE HAS COME OUT OF NO WHERE. HE CAN THROW ALL THE BIG TALK AROUND WELL BUT WHERE IS THE SUBSTANCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT HE LIKES TO TWIST FACTS WHICH MEANS HE IS ALSO QUITE A CAPABLE LIAR.
The process cannot be circumvented, Obama needs to be judged by his 3 year voting record in the US Senate and not by any speech he made in which he got the voters of Illinois to trust him that once elected, he would take leadership in the Senate about stopping the war in Iraq. He has failed to act in any manner to end the war in Iraq - missing the vote on the Biden Resolution to End the War in Iraq in October of 2007.
The public has the right to judge Obama by his 3 years of voting records in the US Senate and not by one campaign speech.
In a way, I admired John McCain because he does not waver for his support for the Iraq War as much as I find that foolish. Hillary, on the other hand, turned against the war when the American people did. She knew that if she supported it like she did in the past, she couldn’t win the nomination.
Hillary talks a lot about her experience as does Joe Wilson, but there is one quality that is needed for our president in these perilous times is courage, not physical courage, but political courage, the courage, for example, to speak out and vote against an immoral and illegal war before the shooting begins. I am not sure if Obama has that courage. He seems to me that he could. But Hillary has shown that she is more concern about her political viability than doing the right thing at the right time.
Along with Hillary, the MAJORITY of Congress voted the same way, and that includes many of Obama's endorsers, such as: Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Dodd, Kennedy, and the list goes on and on. So, please enough with the HYPOCRISY! I do NOT see either BO or his supporters condemning those endorsers. But, then again, they are endorsing BO, so they're forgiven for their past sins of voting for Iraq. If you are going to be using the flimsy argument of judgment or lack thereof, to justify your intolerance for Hillary, then I would strongly suggest that BO and his avid supporters are likewise exercising BAD judgment for accepting the majority of his endorsers, because THEY TOO voted like Hillary.
BO was safe and sound as a state rep. from Illinois. No one will ever know how he would've voted as a U.S. Senator, and to suggest, imply or affirm otherwise is hubris. So, stop the endless hypothesizing, and moral superiority based on nothing but a hunch. But, if one looks at BO's thin U.S. Senate record, then it is more than obvious that he his voting record is remarkably similar to Hillary's.
The only Democratic candidate that can claim TOTAL IMMUNITY from this 2002 vote is Dennis Kucinich. So, unless you are an anti-Iraq purist, you should also stop your support for BO and get off that self-righteous bandwagon and climb on the defunct Kucinich campaign. The ONLY THING that matters today is who has the best plan, the best judgment, the best experience and expertise to lead this country into the future... it's a NO-BRAINER, that person is: HILLARY.
She must openly speak the words... verbatim... "I made a mistake."
Since that will never happen... "Hillary" will never move past it.
Posted February 13, 2008 |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html?view=screen
Did you get the chance to read Mr. Wilson's article :Battle-Tested"?
I do not think Sen.Clinton made her choice for the sake of her political viability. I oppose the preemptive Iraq invasion. I asked myself, how would I decide if I were in Sen Clinton's shoes (or the shoes of the other members of congress) and I had my president begging me to support the Authorization bill because CIA & others had irrefutable proof that we were in grave danger. And they forged documents and gave them to congress to review which supported threat of harm to Americans? And then Colin Powell coming up begging me to go along with Authorization bill because it was in best interest because of proof we had that US was in danger.I evaluated Sen Clinton's thinking process up to the point she made her decision. It was a solid approach. The president and his admin lied to all of them-can you fault Congress so severly under those circumstance?
According to a detailed investigation conducted by The Center For Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
there are 935 major lies told by Pres Bush and his Administration. When you read how extensive this lying was-it should be clear that Pres Bush and his administration carry the full karmic retributions stemming from this decision-not Congress. COngress never stood a chance of knowing thetruth at the time they made their decision. And as far as Sen.Obama's oppostion to the Iraq war? Read Mr. Wilson's article referenced above...its (opposition) a joke. BTW, once Sen Obama got into Congress, he supported funding for the war-on two occaisions. Where was Sen. Obama's POLITICAL COURAGE after he won election and became Senator? Where did his Political Courage go?
“President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses”
The question is, how can we judge her qualifications for the presidency? She emphasizes her greater experience. Experience has its place, but there are other qualities that I look for in a president. Character, trustworthiness, equanimity in times of crisis, flexibility, responsibility, toughness but not meanness, and courage.
Both Hillary and Barack are intelligent and capable politicians. I am saddened by the way she ran her campaign. One wonders how she would fared if she started with the same name recognition, money and connections as Barack. He has run an effective campaign, whereas hers has been not. That speaks volumes about her and his ability to be president.
But let's take on your 2nd point on how active Obama and Hillary have been in Congress, and how we should interpret their various records. I refer you to Cenk at the Young Turks from whom I'm now actively, and gratefully, plagarizing the following assertion. Hillary Clinton has been, since her initial election, the most visible "celebrity" member of Congress. She may be forgiven during the first year or so of her service for keeping a low profile - that would be humility in the face of others with more experience than she. But subsequently she has done absolutely nothing to oppose the Bush administration on virtually any issue ... from creating and/or backing substantive legislation to the simple act of calling press conferences and attacking Bush for his "too numerous to count" sins agains this nation and the rest of the world. In short, she's been absolutely useless ... well maybe she got some pork for New York. So if she's such a "fighter," and someone we should want to elect because she's going to fight for us ... why didn't she do so back when it really mattered.
My answer to your piece ... and with the deepest respect for you are, what you know, and what you've done ... the person I want answering that phone at 3 AM is Barack Obama.
Whatever respect I had for Mr. Wilson is lost now, thanks to Mr. Wilson.
Tip for Joe: Next time you want to feel relevant, write something worthy of your experience and service, and step away from these ham-handed hatchet jobs.
Applying similar reasoning, I conclude, "There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting..." against "...the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time."
Nobody knows what Obama would have done, and there is no way to know unequivocally.
Weak article.
As opposed to "present" perhaps?
Feh.
Wilson's comment is fair, given Obama's.
Mr. Wilson is holding Obama to an absurd standard. (Funny how we hold opposing candidates to such higher standards than the ones we support. I guess it's only human.) Basically he is saying that he had no right or ability to properly criticize the war or Senator Clinton because he wasn't yet a U.S. Senator. This is absurd -- and it's funny how those of us sitting at home we're able to make an apparently more informed judgment than Sen. Clinton, who put her trust not only in the stupidest president in American history, but a cabal of inherently untrustworthy figures such as VP Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.
This is the worst kind of flackery, and goes on to invoke the charges re: the Afghanistan committee that have already been debunked. Wilson is hoping his standing as a hero will influence liberals, but all he's managed to reduce my admiration by behaving like a political hack. This reads as if it was written by Howard Wolfson.
I wish we had listened to him before, but I'm somewhat glad no one is listening now.
You are completely wrong in saying that Wilson's argument is that Obama "had no right or ability to properly criticize the war or Senator Clinton because he wasn't yet a U.S. Senator." That is certainly not what Wilson's piece says, unless you read it with the biased eye you obviously had. He's saying, quite clearly and accurately, that Obama leans heavily on this notion that he had such clear and absolutely perfect vision regarding Iraq that a huge distinction between him and Hillary should be made on that basis--but at other times and places, he's said things that are clearly contradictory to that picture. Obamans want to ignore all those mitigating statements and qualifiers; if he says he was absolutely clear and unequivocal, and gives us the Jedi mind-trick thing by telling us not to look at those other statements, why, we just won't look. And _that_, friends, is where Obama's youth and inexperience show. This is absolutely typical of somebody who hasn't been around all that long--yapping on about how his judgment would have been so perfect in that situation, when he wasn't actually _in_ the situation in the same way Hillary was in it, as even he himself admits.
Whatever. No point talking to a true believer, I guess.
As for Senator Obama's use of qualifiers -- that's a sign of honesty, not inexperience. Perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut rather than undercut his own argument. Perhaps Hillary should have kept her mouth shut, rather than say, very clearly, that she prefers a Republican in office to Senator Obama.
And I am sick and tired of seeing Obama supporters characterized as "true believers" and therefore incapable of thought by people who are so wedded to the recent past that they are afraid of a genuine leader rather than a prevaricating bureaucrat. I think it's just that we Democrats believe the only way we can win is by giving away our souls. When someone says otherwise, we assume something is wrong.