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

[MidSection]

GUYS GUYS GUYS..........OBAMA IS NOW BEING EXPOSED FOR BEING INCONSISTENT, UNTRUTHFUL, AND POSSIBLY OPEN TO CRIMINAL LIABILLITY OVER HIS BUSINESS DEALINGS. HE CAN'T WIN BIG STATES, HISPANICS,POOR PEOPLE, BLUE COLLAR, OVER 37,.....HE'S BEEN EXPOSED AS BEING SLICK AND THE PRESS IS GOING TO POUNCE. OBAMA'S TRACKING NUMBERS ARE STARTING TO GO DOWN. WHEN YOU SHOOT UP TO THE TOP, YOU HAVE THE HARDEST TO FALL, AND THE MEDIA LOVES A GOOD STORY.

[tomdb2]

For a Clinton supporter to talk about ethics to Obama supporters is really pretty laughable. Hillary Clinton has been "vetted?" Folks, the Clintons are *never* vetted--you have to vett them literally every day to make sure they haven't done something else questionable the day before. You want to put the Rezko trial up against the incredibly long--and ever-growing--list of scandals the Clintons have put us through? Be my guest. Hillary is going to live to regret opening that can of worms. And anyone who thinks that Chicago trial is going to be more revealing than the Clintons' tax returns (which by the way, they don't need to wait until April to release--2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000 have all presumably been filed and could be trotted out--have the Clintons made them available?) hasn't been following politics at all for the last 20 years.

[jbd]

Remember, Hillary's records from her time as first lady are also not being released. I believe Bill is involved in this. She will take down the anyone to get her way. The real key for Democrats is to get veto proof majorities in the House and Senate. This is what has prevented any real change to Bush policies. Hillary will make this short lived the way her husband did. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton and then Jeb Bush?? A democracy doesn't have royal families.

[mpflinn]

Mr. Wilson, would you be willing to attach to your blog the video of Senator Obama explaining his analysis of the intervention in Iraq from 2003? He got it absolutely right. I was in Pakistan and Afghanistan in February 2003 on a humanitarian mission. There was hope. And often I was told that a war in Iraq would leave Afghanistan without the resources needed to secure and pacify the country. He got it right.

[jcharliemiller]

Also, in the 2002 speech he didn't say the war was bad, but he laid out exactly what would happen in the world regarding the war, and the effects it would have in the United States. So, he was against the war, and then - in the same speech he said that the war would mobilize our enemies against us (it happened), make us less safe (true), hurt America around the world (yep), along with many other points that now ring true.
Anyone who has the time needs to read the body of the speech, in which he outlines these things. In terms of policy, he was right, and Hillary didn't want to miss the popular war train, or appear soft on "Terrorism".
It reminds me of the Obama Campaign's leaked memo, his campaign has predicts the last 15 states in a row, and they've happened that way. Obama obviously has clear rational mind that is able to grasp what is happening around the country and internationally.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

The gift of foresight, the ability to see the logical conclusion of actions that are taken today. Obama has it, Clinton and McCain do not. The lack of judgement and foresight is what got us into Iraq. The lack of judgement and foresight is why we have gas prices that are skyrocketing. The lack of judgement and foresight is why most americans are suffering in this financial crunch that was created by the Bush administration.

[sjl106]

Intervention in Iraq? ROFLMAO!!!­!!!!!!!!!! What the hell are you drinking? He gave a SAFE SPEECH AT AN ANTI-WAR RALLY, OBAMA DID NOTHING!

[alleng2002]

Yes, Barack got the call right when (off the record, and not as a US Senator standing in judgment of the President's call for war) he said the war was a bad idea. I said exactly the same thing around the same time. Does that mean my good judgment qualifies me as President too? I think not. It just means some of us saw through the tissue of lies better than others.

No, Barack was not fooled by the party line back then. But he was not subject to the Senate Intelligence and Presidential Intelligence which was massaged and twisted to favor the neo-con view. Mrs. Clinton's vote for the war WAS based on that faulty intel. He was not on the record, and was not a federal offical at the time sworn to make or break, approve or reject the US President's war policy. One wonders exactly what response Obama's would have been had he been a Senator in 2002-03. We will never know. But he was not there then and can make no claims as to what he *might* have done. Since he became a US Senator, the offical record shows he and Mrs Clinton vote almost identically on the war issue. Where has that superior judgement been these last 4 years?

So far his superior judgment appears to be all theory with no tangible proof, other than he opposed the war from the outside looking in. Not good enough.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

What about the fact that Clinton did not even bother to read the intel? That sounds almost George Bush-esque. We don't need another President who does not want to read reports that might contain pertinent information to make a sound judgement. So in other words Ms. Clinton did not base her vote on faulty intel. How can you make that excuse when she didn't even bother reading the damn thing?

[init]

Job posting: You must be republican.

[WindRiver1]

Is there any question s to Hillary's stance based on any recent statements. She voted for the war based on the data and we know that the pivotal justification was falsified. I seem to remember her being demanding in questioning the report, so she wasn't just a pushover. She can now say that she and everyone else were duped, but she isn't saying she didn't vote for it. She is just saying that she wouldn't have had the information been correct. Obama is actually the one who doesn't have the clear stance if the media would bother to point it out. He said no back then and he said that had he been in the Senate with the original intelligence report then he could have voted yes along with the rest. He can't attack her unless he comes out and clearly says that he said no back then without the info and would have done the same had he been in the Senate with the same briefings. He actually could have the advantage because he can just maintain a no stance on any war period, but only if he refutes the other statement once and for all. No problem with him calling her out on this then. But he won't because he is hedging in preparation for broadening his base for the general election.

That behavior and lack of integrity should be called out just like anything is for the other candidates. Fact it they all do it, but somehow he gets a free pass and gets to Rip on Hillary and take the high road at the same time.

[liveandlearn]

as i recall, she was mad at bush for misusing his powers and not properly using the authorization to conduct a full weapons inspection and THEN IF NECESSARY organizing a REAL COALITION.

[royniles]

If Obama can't decide which story is right about what Hillary actually did, then which of his stories are wrong about what he would have done in her place?

It's the old "she was wrong therefor I would have been right" logical fallacy. If part is a lie, surely all is a lie. And if part is true, the other part could still doesn't follow.

[royniles]

Sorry, typo. Should have read, "the other part still doesn't follow."

[WindRiver1]

RLethal77 - I think it is safe to assume Mr. Wilson understands that this is just his opinion and that he doesn't get the last word when he submitted this piece in a "BLOG". He also didn't say that Obama said he was in the senate.Joe is not defending HIllary's position on the war, but instead challenging Obama's justification in attacking her given the paradox of his own factual statements.Obama has his impassioned 2002 speech as a base for attacking Hillary for voting for the war, but then he has another statement to back him if someone challenges him for not being fort the war. Obama has been clear in saying he wasn't in the Senate when he made his speech in 2002, so he could create clear separation when he said that he might have voted with the others if he had been in the Senate at the time and had the benefit of the same intelligence briefings that formed the basis for Hillary's vote. He can't have it both ways and then conveniently shout down Hillary. However it is perfectly reasonable to make both those statements and then not use either as a basis for challenging her. He has a good get out of jail free card if someone challenges him on either front because he wasn't in the Senate then. Problem is he knows that the if he does engage on the Senate Foreign Relations issues with Afganistan then he opens himself up to be pressured to pick a side. He needs to have the get out of jail card in the next round so he can play both sides when trying to grab a broad base. He has been brilliant in playing all sides, but he should be accountable for calling out HIllary. HIllary shouldn't have to defend herself under these circumstances, but the media lets Obama do this stuff all the time. He knows that in the next round he will be labeled as a waffler, but that would be after Hillary is gone.

[Plowboy]

Joe, I suppose you noticed the effects of the Canadian government's leak. Such is illegal in thast country but they have a Neocon administration. So whatever helps their cause,right? The leak was of an interrnal memo with nothing to back it up. It was false but that shouldn't bother lawbreakers,should it? The situation wsas clear. They love NAFTA as is. Barack Obama has been saying that he wanted it changed. Ohio lioked that a lot. Texas liked it too. Obama was projected to win probably both states. That would have been disaster for good old Neocons so somethinng had to be done. Ah! A leak to the CTV, and a cooperative American librul (?) media picked up on it. Did they care about the facts?Nah, borting stuff. But the claim was sennsational! It could turn things around. And did. So Hillary is still alive and probably McCain will be president.
How do you like the Harper administration for its inappropriate, malicious, and false interference in our politics?
Love those leaks. How do you like those fake news report radio ads at the last minute? Sweet dirty pool, right? Good old Clintonist politics. (Some of us prefer ours clean but that is probably just the result of our hollow moral judgement,)
Does that please your sense of something?

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

I came across this advertisement which the Clinton campaign released;
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
which was directly and purposefully co-ordinated with Wilson's false claim, that somehow the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee for European Affairs has jurisdiction over Afghanistan or NATO, so therefore NATO and the Afghanistan situation are Senator Obama's political responsibility. This is of course, a scurrilous false accusation.

As Wilson should know (If he knew what he was talking about), all important NATO matters are handled by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/
which is chaired by Joseph Biden.

Other matters pertaining directly to Afghanistan and Pakistan fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs, which is chaired by John Kerry.

Wilson also failed to mention that other NATO hearings emanate from the Full Committee of Armed Services of which Senator Clinton is a member. In fact, if Joe Wilson had bothered to check, a hearing was just held on February 14th, by the Full Committee on Armed 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

It's a shame Senator Clinton didn't make it that day. According to Wilson's logic, Clinton has been derelict in her duties due to her candidacy.

One last thing that Wilson didn't bother to research or deliberately omitted, is that the subcommitte of 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 before that was held 04/08/2004.
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/c13157.htm

[lesnouveauxpauvre]

To the person who said his friend from Venezuala, is scared when he hears a politician call for "change", Hugo Chavez, use of the slogan, he has good reason to be. This mantra has been the modus operandi of all fascist leaders, of the 20 th Century. Hitler campaigned exclusively on a platform for change. He promised his people a "New Germany", and he delivered. I say this as a European educated person. I went to school for most of my secondary education in Greece& France, and they really teach you about fascism, and what it was/is. I really think this would be good information for most Americans, because when fascism comes to this country they are not going to have a clue. Obama is charasmatic, and his supporters are fascistic in their fanaticism for him. This combined with a country that is teetering on economic disaster(like Germany in the 20's) is quite eerie. The timing from an historical perspective is unique. Someone this charasmatic could easily persuade people to do things that they wouldnt normally do, given desparate circumstances, and limited choices. If you think this sounds alarmist, and out of hand, you never studied European 20th Century history. Germany was the most progressive liberal Democracy in the world in the 1920's. Period. Women had more rights. Gays had more rights, etc...this is fact. People living in Germany at the time, laughed at people like me who, talked like I am talking. I know this because what I am saying is what I read from I Testomonial accounts that i read in school in France, as a kid. I never thought I would be saying this now as an adult living in America, in the 21st Century. Good luck people, because i am going back to Europe! I'm scared of this place, and a lot of the people who live here.

[edtastic]

You just compared Barak Obama to HItler what is wrong with you? The man wont even run a negative campaign. He is nice guy that wants to have civil political discourse, whats wrong with that. I think Hillary supporters are so partison they even divide there own party. You dont see Obama supporters going around lying and distorting to make Obama look good. Hillary supporters need to stop acting like Republicans, and no we dont care for your Liberal Facism Argument go read another book.

[alchemymom]

"You dont see Obama supporters going around lying and distorting to make Obama look good"

Come again?

[BHWolf]

Hello! Wake up and read the blogs! The Obamanation supporters have run amuck! Obamanation is here and they are trying to divide and conquer the Democratic party. However, Democracy and sanity will prevail. God willing. . .

You don’t hear Hillary supporters saying: “… if Obama is on the ticket I am staying home and I am not going to vote. . .” Or worse; you will never hear a Hillary supporter say: “. . . if Obama is on the ticket I am voting for McCain.” Every blog is full of this BS. Hillary supporters will vote what is best for America and it's citizens. What cave have you been hiding in? ? ?

[hoodrat]

I will withhold my most of my comments. But I lived in Germany in the 60's, so I got basically the same rift from our teachers(Intl. school). And if you draw the charisma parallel, can't figure out why you, as internationally literate as you are - don't see the link of facism, as applied for the last 8yrs. By the way Germany, who had just lost WWI, was doing what every country does, after war ravages your country/ci­tizenry/so­ldiers - they partied! They had a chance to loosen clenched sphincters, and everything was more tolerant. In Amerikka, we are alredy at war, and our foreign diplomacy is at an all-time low. What I hear Sen. Obama saying is it's OUR government - take it back, make it right again. Besides, the French can't tell you history from the bottom of the foxhole - they had to make excuses for their usual cowardess(we spent the next 45yrs. cleaning up for "our Brave allies"). Want to buy a french weapon? Good condition - never fired - only dropped once:) But neverfear! Unlike the more progressive European thought, the Americans will never put Sen. Obama in the White House(guess there IS a reason they call it the White House).

[zengreent]

Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience when he was elected. Someone should ask Hillary about that

[AxelDC]

We've seen Clinton's vaunted foreign policy judgment:

She voted for Bush to attack in Iraq in 2002.

She claimed she was "duped", so she votes for Bush to attack Iran in 2007.

If this is her idea of "experience", I'd rather she didn't have any.

[liveandlearn]

if you had read the blog, you would have seen the substance of those claims examined.

[jaycasey]

This mean-spirited opinion piece causes me to lose confidence in Mr. Wilson's wisdom. In my opinion Sen Obama is the one "imbued with superior intuitive judgment" when it comes to diplomacy.

[Alessan]

Stop drooling and listen to facts, Obama is not a leader, he's an alpha male voice, much like James Earl Jones (the actor, voice of Darth Varder), people listen to voice and not anything the
voice is saying, at the end you realize he really hasn't said anything at all, except hoping for change and it will come. Even building a baseball field in the fiction movie, is based on action
"if you build it they will come" not words.

[Neocon187]

You're the one who needs to stop drooling: Barack Obama has several strategies, readily accessable on his web site. Would you compare Ronald Reagan to Adolf Hitler -he was charismatic with no substance. What experience did he have -"Death Valley Days"? And what about the pant-load in the white house now? I guess Bush was practicing for what he would do to the American economy while he was running successive businesses into the ground.

I think understand your logic:
Hillary's campaign is funded by big pharma, so she has the better health care plan.
Barack Obama has been in elected office longer than Hillary so Hillary has more experience.
And of course, Hillary giving kudos to a republican while putting down a fellow democratic candidate is good for the democratic party.

Why don't we just make John McCain president now and save ourselves all the angst?

[stoprollingover]

>>"That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. "

[rrlethal777]

There are instances whereby an individual's ego (Mr. Wilson) might result in thinking his words are the last to be said - I beg to differ. I don't believe Senator Barack Obama has ever stated that he was a member of the Senate when he made his statement regarding the war. When all is said and done, Mr. Wilson's comments are just his own opinion. Mr. Wilson's thoughts about Senator Obama have no meaning - they end up being worthless - especially for me.

[Denni]

Obama's judgment isn't so 'hollow' that he would destroy his party by screaming the virtues of John McCain over Sen. Clinton. Let's face it, he could have. He could have cited polls that show that McCain and Obama as seen as having honesty and integrity. He didn't.

Clinton is showing just how bad her judgment has always been - covering her husband's dalliances, not included.

[thatsNotWhatIHeard]

whoa waitaminute, you're bringing about quite a paradox in your argument, mr. wilson.

- on the one hand you're protecting Hillary's role in voting to approve the disastrous war which took military attention away from afghanistan

- and on the other hand, you're bashing obama for not paying enough attention to right the wrongs that eventually happened in afghanistan, in part, because of her vote?

am i hearing that right, is that fair?