Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record

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.

Comments

[KimberlyKay]

I have different recollections than you do, but they are supported by what actually happened.
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.

[kennedy]

YESTERDAY MORNING ON CNN QUICK VOTE:


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.

[ashen]

It's a poll, not an actual vote kennedy.
or has it become a habit to declare votes as votes only after the fact?

[kennedy]

I couldn't have said it better myself Joe.

Thanks.

[Amomma]

Thanks for the insight. Finally someone hits the nail on the head. People you are believing spin churned out by political play books. I know she is not hot, but she does know what she is talking about even if it's not as charismatic as we in TV land would like to see. The debates were a slam dunk for her. Just imagine she looks like Susan Sarandon.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

How ironic that the abused has become the abuser.

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.

[JavaCityGal]

BeyondGoodAndEvil --Excellent, excellent, excellent reply! I was deeply shocked that Joe Wilson, who I formerly had so much respect for would take this tact. You have articulated my own thoughts here better than I could have myself, thank you!

[wilhelmR]

Still dending the destruction of millions of the lives of millions of people by "bringing them freedom?" Freedom from sure death or mutilation? Are you all still in a cloud of inmorality? You can go in, Kill Saddam and get out. "Love it or leave it." No American loves Iraq, so leave it!

[Culper721]

That was the first cogent argument for picking Clinton over Obama that I've read so far.

[ashen]

Cogent but flawed... See beyondgoodandevil, above.

[kravitz]

Hey Joe...how does it feel now to be supporting a liar?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/EmailBNStory/National/home

[LBKN]

... once again... because it is prescient...
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---


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.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

FWIW, it is possible to be stridently against the war from the start (as I have been on record here), and still think Hillary's the better choice to now navigate the US through the exit process -- in light of the totality of complexity and nuance in diplomatic and military affairs in the region.

And yes, I wish she'd voted differently, way back when... even if she doesn't.

[LBKN]

'wouldn't suggest that one should or shouldn't support whomever you choose...


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.

[Insightful]

JOSEPH WILSON SPEAKS WORDS OF WISDOM. OBAMA HAS SOME NERVE SEEKING TO BECOME PRESIDENT BASED ON HIS EMPTY RECORD. HE IS SCREAMING ABOUT HILLARY'S TAX RETURN WHILE MILLIONS OF OUTRAGEOUS MONEY IS BEING THROWN AT HIM BY THE KENNEDYS, OPRAH ET AL. IT IS LOOKING MORE AND MORE LIKE A SET UP ELECTION EVERYDAY.

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.

[Tellmethetruth]

Obama thinks he can circumvent the process of gaining experience before running for President. Instead Obama thinks he can make and speach and then become President. It is wanting something for nothing. "You reap what you sow, and if you don't sow, you don't reap!" Wisdom.

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.

[ErinG]

Wilson speaks words of wisdom, my derriere! "Words of folly" is more like it. Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq, pure and simple.

[HaroldBeu]

Now, it is true we don't know what Obama would have done during the vote on the Iraq War Resolution. But we do know that Hillary voted for it and from my view, has been disingenuous about her reasons for that vote. If we take her at her word, that if she knew then what she knows now, then we are forced to believe that she was naïve.

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.

[ginamc]

Let's get real about this 2002 Iraq vote. It is so waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy beyond time to move on with the past of 2002. Yes, people made mistakes. Start with the Media -- they totally believed, trusted, and promoted the Bush concept of the validity of WMDs and the White House's justification for the invasion of Iraq. Over 80% of the country wanted some sort of retaliation for 9/11 -- almost the entire U.S. wanted and approved of the invasion of Iraq. Hillary, unlike BO, was not only an elected member of the U.S. Senate, but a Senator from New York. As a Senate Rep. from New York, she had to be particularly mindful of her constituency of New Yorkers -- wherein the majority of New York also wanted some sort of retaliation for 9/11.
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.

[LBKN]

I have no problem with moving-on past the 2002 vote... with one provision.

She must openly speak the words... verbatim... "I made a mistake."

Since that will never happen... "Hillary" will never move past it.

[Heen19]

what the country needs is a Washington outsider capable of bringing us together for the institutional changes we need.

[athy]

Battle-Tested
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”

[PoliToneDef]

Except she admittedly did not read the intelligence reports.

[HaroldBeu]

I understand that it would have taken courage to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, which by the way Bush is using as justification for staying in Iraq forever. But there were people who did vote against it and did read the NIE. Even Republican Chafee voted against it. And I agree that we cannot know if Obama would have voted against it at the time, but he did speak out against it. And besides, every Democratic candidate who voted for it except Hillary acknowledged it was a mistake.

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.

[swkidder]

Joe: Neither candidate is perfect on any issue. And I give you the point that the Bush administration lied through its teeth about the reasons we should invade Iraq, and that sitting members of Congress have every right to say they were deceived. So I'm willing to refrain from accusing Hillary of starting the war.

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.

[seejake]

I never thought I'd find myself questioning Joe Wilson's credibility at this point and time. I thought I had vetted him beyond the pale, but it seems that a certain unease about him that I had suppressed over his famous op-ed may have actually been right. I had always hoped that he wasn't actually a grand-standing media whore as his detractors had portrayed him as, but it seems I may have been wrong about him. This article is so disturbingly as weak as it is irrelevant, I am hard pressed to see any real justification for it having been written for any other reason than to either cash in on a favor, jockey for another ambassador gig, or just to grasp at the limelight one more time.

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.

[tiedtothewhippingpost]

Well now, apologize...lol.

[jacmull]

"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."

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.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

I would agree with your logic but for Obama himself suggesting he would have voted "against."

As opposed to "present" perhaps?

Feh.

Wilson's comment is fair, given Obama's.

[ForwardtoYesterday]

You know, it's funny, one of the factor's that bolstered my own opposition to the war was Mr. Wilson's famous op-ed.

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.

[emncaity]

So you, too, can stand outside the fray, as Obama did, and say what you would have done, how absolutely sure you were that the resolution--not the decision to go to war, but the resolution to authorize force--was the right thing to do. Perfect.

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.

[treadway123]

When Bysh was put in office--------I said to my family----­---------y­ou watch he'll have us in a war in no time at all. And emncaity, listen to me young man! I'm 54 years old, and I will tell you know the youth of today has more smarts than apparently you did at the time this war was decided okn. Hillary and Bush are a lot alike. They are both arrigant and my way is the best way type of people. I do believe Mccain can be compromised with, but he is Bush's yes man, and his resent flip floping shows he does poorly under presure of his party who's telling what he has to change to win this election. This in itself is disheartening. Obama was as clear as I was from "DAY ONE", we knew we were going to have a war. Bush gave clear indication of it. 9/11 was simply his excuse to execute his plans. So be more respectful of those you claim are to youg and experience to know. Because in this time and age-------­----------­-the youth see's reality and trueth and honesty -----------and certain good faimily values a lot better than these old people like Bill Clinton does. They are the ones looking past race------­--------No­t so with Bill Clinton---­----------­--------th­ey are the oknes who see America can have a new face,with a new outcome, with family value, and respect! Hillary clinton thinks hope and dreams are smoke,mirrors and sitting in the clouds do nothing sort of thing. You and the Clintons,Bush's, and Mccains of this world could learn a lot from the youth of today. They have vision----­----------­----few old people believe in anything today-----­------that­'s why were in this mess-----------our leaders have lost thier way!

[ForwardtoYesterday]

Why do you assume I'm a true believer? For a long time I was wavering between Edwards and Obama, not committed to either. I was impressed by Obama's oratory, but the main thing I wanted all along is an end to the DLC/split the difference­/Liebercra­t mindset. The only thing I "truly believe" in this campaig is that Hillary Clinton was part of a mediocre administration that reguarly kneecapped fellow Democrats and nothing she's done since has indicated she would be any different.

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.