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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There were senators who voted against the war. Not everyone was duped by George Bush. Some senators even bothered reading the national intelligence estimate. Not Hillary, but hey, the thing was 90 pages long. Who can be bothered to read 90 pages when you're only getting paid $170,000 to do just that?
Mr. Wilson, how does your long article on why Obama is empty help explain why Hillary, Ms. Experience with eight year in the White House, years in which she fails to name a single legislative or policy in which she was directly involved, and years she claims gives her vastly superior experience over Obama but for which she refuses to release her records to support her claim, justify her not having read an NIE before voting to give Bush authorization to go to war? Oh, I am sorry, her superior experience was duped by a near idiot. The same eight years for which she says that because of her position in the administration, incidentally I did not know that First Lady was and administration position, she could not voice her concerns about NAFTA.
Mr. Wilson you are correct in stating that Obama was not privileged to the information Ms. Clinton had to weigh before signing up for war, but no amount of rationalizing of her actions will explain away her vote and her unwillingness to admit her mistake. You can continue to argue that Obama was not in the Senate and never had to cast a vote, but neither was I an I opposed the war on the public information at the time. But what you can not, however, argue is that Ms. Experience did not do what is minimally expected of a U.S. Senator before voting to send the country to war, that is to read the most important document at the time before voting.
Mr. Wilson your analysis which argues that we should give Ms. Clinton a pass on her vote to authorize war, while describing Obama's position as political opportunism reminds us of the Bush tenet of politics, I don not read so do not hold me responsible for my actions. It seems to me that when this was applied to the situation with your wife, you rejected it. One can only conclude that the possible appointment to an ambassadorial position has now clouded your judgment. Talk about opportunism, please go have another slice of yellow cake.
I wonder if Bama knows that JFK voted for a war in Iraq. He sponsored a coup with participation by the CIA, the Kurds, and the Baath party he put into power. It was very bloody and they killed anyone on their lists of suspected leftists or communists. The coup was executed to protect our oil interests in Iraq.
We send more weapons and the Baath party used them for a mass killing of the Kurdish insurgents who helped us in the coup., Saddam was apparently there that night as well.
Interesting how JFK can execute on three coups, one of which triggered the Cuban MIssile Crisis, got us into Vietnam with no justification and kept increasing troop levels...a
Must be the smooth style versus GW.
Forget Obama, how many Americans know anything about this!
As I posted elsewhere on Huffpo, JFK is a sacred cow, and whenever anyone talks about the realities of his record, they incur the wrath of the protectors of the myth. Look at what happened to Hillary Clinton: she mentions the fact that LBJ actually implemented much of the social reform that RFK talked about, and she gets skewered by Ted, who endorses Obama. It just goes on and on and on. (Please don't write to me about being Clintonista--I am not.)
Actually you are just ignorant; Clinton made the comment that it took LBJ to pass legislation to make Martin Luther King Jr's words mean anything. That offended a lot of Black people; the most vociferous was her supporter, Jim Clyburn.
And to be sure, her comment was dismissive of MLK. Who would think that LBJ would have acted with out all King's work and words, whereas King would have eventually achieved the legislation he sought.
JFK had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, she was skewered for pushing her strategy of 'throw the Blacks under the bus to get white votes' - because 'where else will they go in the general.'
Most sensible people recognize JFK's flaws.
Now they are having Wilson's shoved in their faces. Remember, his brave editorial was not offered BEFORE the war on Iraq started when it might have done some good. Why he was ever thought a hero I don't know.
The good thing about being an Army brat living overseas during the JFK timeframe, is the wealth of information you gleaned from foreign press, intl. teachers at school, most importantly, boots on ground Sr. NCO's in the formulative stages of 'Nam, (our Fathers who were to "consult and observe"). But things were indeed hoppin' both in the Middle East(Saddam was "Cheney" to the result - but directly beniffited by our "support"). But I also remember our involvement in Central America. You stop looking after awhile and start waiting for the "chickens to come home to roost". This is the whole point - if we as a country, don't rid ourselves of the warlike mindset - flip the script totally, both in the way we view the world and more importantly how we view ourselves, we won't need to worry about attack from outside, you need only read your local news to know the parasites of Hate/Fear are already consuming the country from within...a
Thank You, Joe Wilson, for pointing out what has been OVERLOOKED by many potential voters and TV, Media watchers, the FACT that Barack Obama is GREAT on STYLE but LACKING in SUBSTANTIVE DEPTH, since his shortcomings have been GLOSSED OVER by the adoring MSM and Obama's PERSONAL CHARISMA. Obama may SOUND GREAT but he definitely COMES OUT SHORT in the VALUES DEPARTMENT, currently RIDING on the CREST of his many wins. Make NO MISTAKE, though, this is not KNOCKING HIS POTENTIAL as the STRONGEST DEMOCRATIC candidate to EASILY BEAT John McPAIN, BUT I DO WANT A KNOWLEDGEABLE and CAPABLE person as President of the United States, NOT A BUMBLING, SOCIOPATHIC AND PSYCHOPATHIC IMBECILE like George W. Bush or a CALCULATING, FLIP-FLOPPING, UNPRINCIPLED, CRAVEN, HYPOCRITICAL OAF like John McPAIN, or ANY republican for that matter!!!!!
Joe,
While I greatly admired your courage and that of your spouse, while you endured shameful attacks from the White House and much of the media, you're way off base here.
There are so many things wrong with what you've written about Hillary and Obama. I don't have time to deal with them all here and now.
But I will pose one question: What specific foreign policy experience did Hillary Clinton have before she ran for president? And what "crises" did she have to deal with in the international realm? Specifics, please.
I appreciate Joe's service to our country and support his wife and him in their efforts to get justice for their poor (and illegal) treatment at the hands of this administration. But given that Mr. Wilson actually gave money to the Bush campaign in the 2000 run against Al Gore, I'll take his presidential advise with a grain of salt. To my mind, Ms. Clinton has been all over the map in her positions over the last decade, and it seems to me that many of these positions were taken for political reasons - there is no other way to explain some of the weak decisions on Iraq, the Patriot Act and Kyl-Lieberman, among others. I'll take my chances with Obama
THANK YOOOOUUUUUUUUUU:) Ditto for the "100 yr. warrior.
Right on Ambassador!!!
Oh the politics of Hope and Change!!! The lahdeedah, the media hype, the comparisons to MLK, RFK, JFK, BS-K!!! The second coming of Christ! "Oh Barack you made me cry", wrote one in Hussein's campaign shill: "off-the-bus"! Another had a Meg Ryan moment from Harry met Sally! Oprah, Shriver, Kerry, Kennedy and the mucus on MSNBC, all hyping Obama!!!
And then!?! Hillary wipes the floor with him in OH and TX and all the rest of the big States!!! C YA, hope, what Change?! "I have a dream" is now a Nightmare!!!
It's 3:00 A.M., and Americans are waking up to a farce called Barack Hussein Obama ...
My poor grasp of policy, and my lack of attributable talents pertaining to gleaning fact from fiction(must be my pigment), makes my dim mind struggle with truth, must be his use of ebonics. Could've sworn he, and every other politician who could get attention, were asked questions of all skews, pertaining to the lead up to hostilities in Iraq, whether they were in office-or running for. Almost to a man - without reading the analysis, jumped to the war drum, He said he was one that READ it, and gave reasons to NOT go, I don't remember him saying he had a vote to cast - he correctly called 9/11 a crime, an FBI-CIA issue. And Generals were resigning left and right, Rumsfeld, Cheney and their imp Rove calling those men of honor "cowards" for essentually having the same opinion, as that inexperienced young negro mutant ninja islamo/facist Senator from Illinois - Damn Him! Why he even holds his emotions in check when he's called everything but an American, and he chooses to blow off dumb shit, cause it takes away from the truth. Obama and MLK are similar in that aspect alone - 'cause I like to see Men of God behind the pulpit - not on a political podium(ala Revs. Jackson and Sharpton). The hollowness Mr. Wilson may be experiencing is his train of thought.
Excellent article.
It's a sad day when realizing that most of the voting public does not realize that Obama was an insignificant state official when Washington [and Hillary] were busy making decisions on Bush's disguised requests to go to war.
And even more pathetic is that Obama has supported and approved of most legislation dealing with funding the war.
Worst of all, Obama gets a free pass on all this. His platform and speeches say he opposed the decision to go to war, letting people think he was a senator at the time decisions were being made [he was not, he was a minor local official at the time] and he gets an additional pass because no one calls him to task on his later [inconsistent] support of the war once he got into the Senate.
I suspect all this will come out over time.
Oh please! Obama's subcommittee has absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan. To suggest that his committee could have have ANY effect on the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Afghanistan strains credulity and is just downright foolish!
Are you kidding? NATO has nothing to do Afghanistan? Oversight of the prosecution of a war has nothing to do with a Senator's obligations?
Obviously not! You need only look to the last 7yrs. for your proof. NATO didn't want to support a dumb agenda, and our foreign policy dictated that NOONE, had more smarts than our Intel service, who was asleep on duty. And it seems to me that all who could've fought policy, got punked - and continue to be. If, there are questions of his comments on a particular resolution - then they are on record, unless his "insignificance", only warranted op-ed pieces, also would be on record. Good speeches, but can't read? Subcommitties of ANYTHING having to do with Military Force, wouldn't have access to pertinent material? Seems, I say again, B.O. was one of the very few that was paying attention(what's that say about our "Senior Pols?).
NATO MATTERS ARE HANDLED BY THE US FULL COMMITTEE ON SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS WHICH IS CHAIRED BY JOSEPH BIDEN.
AND ALSO, BY THE US SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES OF WHICH SENATOR CLINTON IS A MEMBER!!!!!!!!
Thank you Mr. Wilson. Coming from you - a man who has served his country in the most difficult of circumstances - your perspective is deeply textured and without bias. The sacrafices both you and your lovely wife have made for America will never be in vain. Mrs. Clinton is fortunate to have your wisdom and guidance at her disposal.
Meanwhile Hillary is deftly making a comeback after having been written off by most media.
It's a tough movement she's working at overcoming. Is she finally connecting with those feeling "disconnected?"
http://pac
Wilson is RIGHT ON! It's about time someone said the truth.
She was never Elected President. She had better NEVER answered that phone at 3 am. she better never had to make a slpit second decision effecting this nation. Neither has Mac, thus Neither has Obama. Not an issue, most never had until they were put in office.
Let's discuss the decisions she's made even with ample time to reflect and gather further information. Let's talk about her lack of foresight or Insight. Let's talk about her rather "repug' tactics, her insulting theDem base and th eAmericna People. let's talk about what has transpired over the last 35 yrs- exactly.
Woman still making about $0.77 to a Man's $1.00, lets talk about global Warming Lets's talk about the rapid loss of our Constitiutional Rights an dFreedoms. Let's talk about Wars for Profits, Lets talk about our kids who were sent over to ME with barely the shirts on their backs and come home with no legs beneath them and no health care or plan for their care and rehabilitiation.
Let's talk about what the leading Dems have done for this country during this admin- and those preceeding it. Let's talk about the failings of th eArmed Services Committee to provide Oversight in the Use of our Military.
Honestly Joe- she's not only proven her self an accomplice- but a major ring leader. She shouldn't be running a Presidential campaign but her legal Defense for High Crimes agaisnt th eState and the Citizens she was hired to protect & Defend.She is not Fit to sit in the WH ,but Culpable to sit in Gitmo.
Nice job, with the various white male pundits, talking heads, political strategists, including the Governor of PA fighting hard to get the word out about Senator Obama's non skilled resume, Senator Clinton should have no problem getting exactly what she wants.
Mr. Wilson: Your protestations about "cooked intelligence" are insulting _our_ intelligence. From the aluminum tubes "used to enrich unranium" to the "mobile weapons labs" to, that's right, the purchase of fissile materials from Nigeria, I knew that the administration was cooking the books just from reading the NEWS. Don't you dare suggest that Hillary Clinton, who is trying to cast herself as a tough, experienced, insightful, reliable politician, did not know what she was doing when she authorized the war.
Hillary Clinton is not tough. If she were, she would have stood up against the war in Iraq. She has, not toughness, but overweening ambition. She is a political chameleon who has gotten everything by riding her husband's coattails and blowing with the political winds, like the wind that took my country into war.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
