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

[1voter]

Problem is Obama is non committed to much at all. But he talks a good talk. Does anyone think that a knight in shining armor has any clout anywhere?
I made a reply to a comment a couple of minutes ago, if anyone is interested scroll down a couple of comments

[rich3324]

I'll take Obama's judgement over Clinton's any day. A question that should be asked is if he does not get it, how many of his supporters will go with her. I think many may sit things out this year.

[mrman]

I have spoken to many friends who will sit this out if the nomination is proven unfair and the Clinton machine steals it. It won't be the first time Americans won't have a seat at the table.
Clinton nomination = lies, treachery, deceit and disastrous results in the Primary. It will be the end of the Democrat Party as we know it. Time for a "Citizen's Party" . All Obama supporters will be ready for 2012

[pacem]

I agree. All this talk about Clinton's EXPERIENCE--doing what, being first lady or for her Rove-style campaign tactics--slinging the dirtiest mud? I'm looking forward to a refreshing way to confront our problems--­diplomacy-­-and Obama is the candidate for that.

[kipmartin]

oh, i see you are still at the Hillary Clinton party. can you hit the lightswitch when you leave?

[semidi]

Sure, we'll hit the lights when we leave for the White House, when it's time for President Clinton to do the job that Obama isn't qualified for.

[jbeach]

Not after the current primaries are counted. Booya!

And Hillary has only herself to blame. She blew the Iraq vote, didn't even read the NIE, and ran a poorly run campaign to a presidency she felt entitled to.

Whereas Obama has exercised superior judgement and superior campaigning the whole way, to (I am certain) defeat Clinton whereas she was at first considered a shoe-in.

[cobraxus]

Isn't it wonderful how anyone who questions Obama and his supporters is accused of doing the Republican Party's dirtywork,while anyone who attacks Hillary Clinton is seen as simply doing what's best for the Democratic Party.

[LBKN]

... that is indeed wonderful.

[cobraxus]

like RFK and Ronald Reagan Obama is imbued by his supporters(one might almost say followers)with qualities he may or may not possess while attributing to his election all manner of many wonderous things.whe­n RFK was murdered his supporters dropped out and allowed Nixon to steal the white house(much as Obama has threatened if he doesn't get the nomination­).Reagan meanwhile benefitted by being a politian who hated government and distanced himself from his own administration and its policies.w­ill Obama do the same?

[wu]

.

All of these comments are interesting. It is also interesting, how all of the people posting here including Mr. Wilson are able to back up their statements/opinions with "apparent" facts. We are so quick to judge others. Fundamentally it seems that we don't really know that when we think we are seeing the truth, we are actually taking some aspect of our experience for granted, projecting ideas onto it based on various hidden preconceptions we take for truth. When we act or speak out of an unreasonable position of hope and fear rather than some kind of precision, logic or even clarity about the situation, the chaos continues. My comments here, notwithstanding room only.

.wu

[WindRiver1]

Do people believe that Obama should be able to walk into the White House without us being able to see him take a firm stance on positions? He will not be able to avoid it in the next round. You may not like Joe's tone, but the items he brings up will be the same one's Obama will be drilled on should he win the nomination.

[NASCARLiberal]

Joe, you've got it 100% right. I've met Sen. Obama, and he is a nice guy but definately deserving of the nickname: Pander Bear. Ready for the Presidency? Not be a LOOOOOONG shot. I blame him for not toning it down some and taking the Vice Presidential spot and assuring, with Hillary in the top position, that we'd have 16 years of Democratic presidents. THIS alone shows he is not wise enough to be President.


Other errors Obama made? Voting to keep Terri Shiavo ... long brain dead ... alive! Eeeeek! That puts him in the same class as ol Jeb Bush & Bill Frist, dumber than dirt on that issue ... or just playing his usual Pander-Bear role, saying whatever pleases at that moment in time. He has admitted to making "bone-headed" decisions ... but the mainstream media just glosses them over ... so in love they are with this one-trick pony.


He isn't tough enough to be REAL on ANY issue. Not the stuff of true Presidential greatness. Eight years as VP, MIGHT have given him that wisdom. As is, he'll just be a slightly more liberal Dubya! The lightweight d'jour.

[maria21]

I think you are right on about 16 years versus 4. Strategically, Hillary taking the WH now is an extremely smart move. It will pretty much guarantee 16 years of a Dem WH. I have watched and been involved with politics for decades. The simple fact is, when voters go emotional instead of rational, that hurts us. Remember the Dean Scream? Voters jumped ship so fast. And that was over a scream. Imagine what is going to happen when Obama has to make decisions that may not be popular to the Dem base. As I said in an earlier post, I worry more about the voters than either candidate.

Dems saying that Hillary has less experience than Obama is an example of emotionalism. It is just not a fact. Hillary and Obama have pretty much the same policy goals. This primary season at the end of the day is how voters FEEL. I caution voting in that manner. Those that adore one candidate due to feelings are fickle people and rarely stand their ground when the general hits and especially after 4 years when those voters feel "duped." When the facts are- this is a game of politics. Obama will have to make decisions that some/many/most will not always agree with and then the voters pout, feel abandoned and refuse to vote when it is built on emotions. And in this election, it is. There are really no differences between the two when it comes to policy- INCLUDING THE WAR.

Strategic thinking has never been a Dem strong suit. We like our idealism and good fluffy feelings (I know, I have them too!!). I think it is a mistake in this election. I have read so many posts and articles from Obama supporters and their claims. I have read how those that support Hillary are war mongers, lack integrity, don't care about America, or are interested in "stealing the election" due to supers. Some even going so far as to suggest that it is somehow like the 2000 election. Emotionalism at its best. I have never seen such a showing of the superiority complex. And they wonder why people point to major problems with consistency in Obama's messages versus actions? Please. Obama SHOULD be held up to the standards he parades. Problem is, he hasn't VOTED FOR them. An example is his vote to continue the war. I know, I know, there are reason for that. Right. Well, there are reason from all sides, and to attack one candidate over inconsistencies, claim the high road, and ignore the inconsistencies (NAFTA, anyone?) of the other is pure blown emotional reasoning. I think we need to get out of that head space or we will be electing a one term president that had the country in his hands in one moment and lost them to fickleness when he had to make some unpopular decisions. I simply do not trust the emotional voters. They have proven to be the first to abandon and leave the rest of us to struggle to keep things together.

[thegools]

Obama would have been well served to sit as VP for an Edwards Presidency. Together, Edwards and Obama would have pulled together diverse portions of the American electorate in a way that has not been seen. And at the end of 8 years, Obama would still be in his 50's, and no-one could rightly paint him as inexperienced.

Today we are not so fortunate.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

You are holding a grudge against Obama because he wouldn't give you an autograph! I remember your complaint about it on this site. Get over it, he's going to be your next POTUS. He's ranked the number one liberal in the Senate on his votes.

[Justtellthetruth]

However you want to torture the facts, it still remains true that Obama was right about Iraq, right about Iran, and right about PAKISTAN, while senator Clinton was DEAD WRONG on Iraq, iran, Lebanon, and Pakistan. Oh, did I mention that her hubris and political ham handedness singlehandedly sunk health care reform for almost 2 decades?

So what your saying is, Hillary is Continually wrong about the most important subjects facing our nation, over the course of a very long time, but for the RIGHT reasons, and Obama has been continually RIGHT (iraq, iran, pakistan) but, (at least according Hillarys minion in waiting), for all the wrong reasons.

That's strange and tortured logic. I will vote for the guy that has a clear and consistent track record for being right about national security issues, because those issues are paramount to our success as nation. Furthermore, it would also be great to have a leader like Obama that can reach across political, racial, and class lines to give the nation a sense of purpose and unity once again. Hillary is a divisive, polarizing politican that has ALWAYS been widely disliked and she would LOSE DECISIVELY against McCain.

[Democrab]

Yes Ambassador Wilson, I'm buying it.

No I don't think Obama is a bad guy at all.

He's an excellent politician and a good democrat.

But he's finally realizing the scrutiny cursing the front runner, and he needs to be presented on the chopping block before we hand him the keys to the white house.

What he says should parallel what he's done. Thanks for your service to this country, your heroic stand against the Bush administration's lies and for your words here today.

[mkruger214]

Sorry Joe, you've got it all wrong!

Bottom line: Sen. Clinton voted for the war. End of story! For that alone she should not be the nominee. That's not the 'experience' I want in the White House.

It's interesting how Sen. Clinton supporters are clutching at anything to discredit Sen. Obama. Like the sub-committee issue is a 'dereliction of duty'? It's a SUB committee - I don't hear anyone calling Chairman Biden on 'dereliction of duty' on the main committee. Give me a break!! It's 'funny' that Maliki hosted Ahmadinejad yesterday in his visit to Iraq. Sen. Obama will talk with Iran as we should and Sen. Clinton won't. Who has the better outlook on foreign relations?

Go attack the issues of who has a better health care plan, or who has a better foreign policy plan etc....and then vote for who you think is better but stop attacking the character of the candidates!

Go Obama!!!!! Let's wrap this thing up!

[gloriousgg5]

The above comment is one I would have agreed to some time ago. I've come to realize that all those Senators present were listening to the big sell on the war that the "experts" gave them. They obviously were convinced, Republicans and Democrats alike, that we had proof of the weapons and the danger to our country were real. It's easy, in hindsight, to fault a person for not reading 970 pages that might have revealed the absence of solid evidence. I think the American people were more convinced of the error than our politicians in Washington. We were not subjected to the hard sell. I do not fault our Democratic senators for voting for the war with the lies they were told by the big brass. I fault the American people now, if we vote for an unknown, charming orator over a seasoned, brilliant veteran of the tough war of politics. Obama should be making the speeches on Clinton's behalf.

Go Hillary! Let's urge people to not vote for an emperor with no clothes, a second time.

[pokester]

I continue to support Senator Obama but I find these points worth considering.

However, I am among the 15% LBKN referred to. And I do hold Senator Clinton responsible. She succumbed to the misinformation and maneuvering; as US Senator she was to hold the line against it.

Perhaps it is a saving grace that Obama was not in the Senate at the time. Certainly, it saves me from the despair of not having a candidate I can vote for.

[LBKN]

... thanks!

It is nice to know that someone is reading my raving rants... LOLOL

[maria21]

I, too, am part of the 15% and have been a proud liberal my entire life. I also have a major problem with the vote on Iraq, and I am equally upset with Obama's support for continuing to fund it. Neither candidate was my pick of the litter, but then again, they rarely are. I just simply cannot give a pass to Obama's vote to continue the war while criticizing Clinton. They both have supported this war in one way or another. That being said, I WILL vote this season and I WILL vote for either Obama or Clinton in the general. Either are FAR FAR FAR better than the alternative.

[Barbarossa03]

The unfortunate vote to support funding for the war is partially for the troops. It includes their meals, weapons, and equipment. Unfortunately some of this funding goes to those contractors (Blackwater and Halliburton) and other Bush/Cheney cronies. They write the bill this way so that you cannot separate the two. Even if you did separate the two you will find that so much of the duties completed by the military in the past has been outsourced to contractors. A prime is example is food service, this has been contracted out to KBR. Tell me why the military cannot do this? Some of these contractors make more in a month than a Marine or army grunt in a year.
That's why it is important to push for the troop withdrawal, but at the same time I believe we would lose serious face if we were to leave Iraq in shambles. Regardless if we felt that the decision was right or wrong, the United States elected an idiot president that went to war under false pretenses.

[LBKN]

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


Sorry Joe... I'm not buying it.



15% of us... without the aid if 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.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

THANK YOU.

What a blessed post.

How wonderful.

How fantastic.

I am not being sarcastic and apologize if any of this comes off that way.

It's just that I want to express my opinion of your post in obvious superlatives.

I am, frankly, grateful for the fact that you exist.

And I agree.

I was a Liberal as a zygote.

Nice to know there are others.

[LBKN]

... along the way... we have been beaten so harshly... it has become rare... to loudly say, "I am a Liberal"..­. and make no-apologies. It is a posture lost... but I hope there is a resurgence at hand.

Thank-you for your post! I am glad you are here for the trip as well.

[STParker]

We have every right to tell Hillary "we told you so"

[LBKN]

I wholly agree.

[NotMyPrez]

"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, "

Way to blame one person on the Committee for the majority's mistake.
Is Hillary paying you for this? Do yourself and America a favor Mr. Wilson, stay our of the limelight, your 15 mins are up.

[kcc]

Thank you!! Finally someone takes on Obama's claim to "superior judgement". The audacity of his arrogance deserves clear-eyed scrutiny like this. Thank you!!!

[AnnaList]

Do your homework, Joe. Senator Biden, Chairman of the Foriegn Relations Committee, along with Senators Lugar, Kerry, and Dodd held hearings on Afghanistan. There is no need for Obama to replicate their efforts. Your rant about Obama is a day late and dollars short. This new found opposition to Obama seems staged and a signal of desperation. The Clinton's need their puppets to do what Hilliary Clinton, on her own, with ALL of her unconfirmed experience, is unable to do. . Because you say it, dosen't make it so. HIlliary's personality indicates that if she can't have the Office of the President, then no other Democrat will. In her sickness, knowing that she is not going to win, she is willing to do ANYTHING, to include destroying the party HIllary's weakness is her strength. She was strong enough to go through the Foster investigation, Whitewater, and the humilation imposed upon her by Bill. Her problem is that she doesn't know when to quit.

[cobraxus]

Her problem is that she doesn't know when to quit

and the fact that so many of us continue to support her counts for nothing?The Cult Of Obama decrees "Get Out Of Our Way Or We'll Knock You Down!"nice.
please remind us again how Republicans will vote for you candidate and this makes him(and you be extension)a better Democrat.

[Heen19]

We need to establish an overwhelming majority to accomplish the perminent changes we need as a country. We don't just need partisan idealogues we need to form coalition of the majority including people we may not be in perfect agreement with on 100% of the issues.

[dandjus]

If these candidates decide to enter this primary process they shopuld resign their current government jobs. The American people aren't getting their money's worth otherwise.

[dandjus]

The bottom line--these candidates should resign if they decide to enter this process. The work of the American people is not being done.