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

[valleygent]

I am an independant voter who finds the latest remarks and actions coming from Hillary Clinton and her militant surrogates utterly disgusting. What part of denounce and reject represents affiliation?
Hillary Clinton is a divisive and destructive element in modern politcs, she is a dinosaur from the past.
She has reintroduced Arkansas political tactics and race baiting to her national campaign.
She lies every single day to the American public, and she changes her positions from one side to the other on national television, she is a complete hoax. She claims "35" years of experience, but her resume is largely corporate as she spent most of her professional career with the Rose Law Firm in Arkanas. Obama has more years experience in PUBLICLY Elected office as he spent 8 years in the Ilinois Senate and his years as US Senator. Her only true experience with anything of great political consequence was her husband's Health care program. She FAILED miserably to bring about any changes in this important matter, and alienated herself from the American public, ushering in 12 years of Republican dominance in congress and subsequent impeachment. Wake up Democrats, the Repubs have her ticket, they want to run against her, they know they can beat her easily. I will vote for Obama in November, unless the Dems nominate Clinton, then I will vote for McCain, gladly. Mr. Wilson is leading the charge at Little Bighorn, frankly, he will come to regret this harsh stance and ultimately kiss someone in the behind for another cushy government job.

[maria21]

SHOCKING that an indie is opposed to Hillary! Just SHOCKING! Is anyone else at least a little concerned that the republicans and indies are the deciding factor for the dem candidate? Sorry, but I do not want indies and republicans in that position.

[thatvisionthing]

Then get the Democrats to impeach. Big reason why I'm an independent: Disgust.

[maria21]

It saddens me to see the democrat party split like this. We have two great candidates that are running for office, which should be a blessing, but instead, we have this nonsensical banter between the two camps. I do think that Wilson brings up some valid points. During a heated season, it is rather easy to dismiss those points and accuse him of being a traitor to the party, a paid shill or some other hideous plague. But, in truth, he is speaking his mind. Since when have we lost our way to the point that we no longer tolerate that? Where did all of this self-righteousness come from?

Truth be told, I am not nearly as concerned with Obama or Clinton as I am about the supporters. I welcome inspiration and dedication to change- which, contrary to what most believe here, BOTH offer that. I worry for our party when a person gets attacked for having an opinion. That should not be the path supporters of either camp should be engaging in. And to threaten to NOT VOTE?? Are you kidding me?? What is happening here? Pull yourself together!

If any democrat stays home and refuses to vote, that is absolutely unexcusable. It is one thing to be inspired by your candidate, quite another to punish the rest of us because your candidate does not get the nod. Truth be told, there is very very very minute differences between Hillary and Obama's plan. There is nothing wrong with discussing the war votes OR pointing out the safety Obama has enjoyed by not being in office at the time. We simply do not know how Obama would have voted. He has avoided controversial votes while in office. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out either. He has also voted to fund the war, again, nothing wrong with pointing that out either. We are supposed to be a party that welcomes this, not dissolve into chaos and threaten to stay home! I have never been so utterly heartbroken over the actions of some democrat supporters.

It truly makes me concerned about what will happen if Obama simply cannot enact the change he champions. It will be nearly impossible for him to achieve all that he wishes. Our system is not set up for radical change. Then what? Abandon him? Start bashing him like those that bash Hillary? Be so angry that some stay home and hand the election over to the republicans in four years?

BOTH candidates have issues. That includes Obama. If you cannot stand Obama being criticized now, I truly fear for our party in four years, if Obama gets the nomination. I worry about those so dedicated to waving the flag of change while ignoring the change that has been enacted by both Hillary and Obama. This is a time to stand behind our candidates and allow discussions to take place without slinging from the gutter. We will not win this if we destroy each other and lose objectivity. This is our election to lose and we'd do well to have some class instead of accusing people, such as Wilson, as being a traitor of sorts. That is the republican's game. We are better than that.

[realrick]

Relax.

It's easy to get confused by the passion on these commentary threads, but the truth is, that most polls show that the Democratic voters plan on supporting the Democratic nominee regardless of who that is. The record crowds and voter turnout during this primary season would bear that out.

As for the reaction to Wilson, I have checked this board and I find it to the reactions to his harangue to be rather mild considering that he cherry-picks and spins ideas and facts to paint Obama supporters as gullible saps supporting an opportunistic fraud.

Regardless of his attempt to foul the waters on Clinton's behalf, it won't change the delegate vote totals after tomorrow's elections, which will still heavily favor Obama, nor will it diminish Democratic turnout this November.

[maria21]

Hmm. Well see, the fact that you took that away from Wilson's article is exactly the problem. I am leaning towards Obama (primary not until May), and I can still objectively see problems on both sides. To be fair, Obama has been spinning and cherry picking as well. It is campaign time. Obama is doing it. It is easy to claim you would have voted one way when you were not in office. It is also a simple fact that Obama has been missing on votes on controversial issues. Do you think that was by accident? This is why I am not solidly in his camp. I simply do not know how he will respond to the same pressures being in the WH. Was I happy about Hillary's vote on Iraq? Absolutely not, which is why I am not in her camp, but honestly, Obama trying to use that against her when he did not face the same situations is a bit ridiculous. After all, he has voted to fund this war, which I am not happy about either. I am certain that people will have reasons as to why he did so, etc etc, to excuse those votes.

I know that Obama is not going to be untarnished in the WH if he gets elected. He HAS to work with congress. Then what? He is going to have to make decisions there and his record has been solidly "present" keeping him on the fine line of being able to support either direction. I simply do not know how he will respond because he has not VOTED on controversial bills. There is nothing wrong with pointing these things out. We should be voting with open eyes. I mean, come on, talk about unfair, it is unfair that dem supporters are claiming that "blood is on Hillary's hands." That is simply not true. That rests with Bush and Bush alone as he did not follow through with his end of the deal on that resolution. If Hillary has blood on her hands, then so does Obama because he has voted in favor of continuing the killing.

If you find calling Wilson a traitor, paid shill, etc "rather mild" because he dare speak up about some inconsistencies, I am a bit baffled. I didn't know that we supported that kind of idiocy. He did not criticize the supporters, he is pointing out there there is a lack of substantial votes and actions. For Obama supporters to not recognize this fact and instead find insult in discovery, concerns me. Those are issues to be aware of, no matter how strongly you support a candidate.

[mrman]

I understand what you're saying...a­nd earlier in the campaign I might have agreed with you. But that was before Hillary Clinton reverted to the usual Clinton Sleeze politics. I'm sorry ...if she won because she was the better candidate, ran a better campaign, had more citizens cast their vote for her...I would be right there sayin "fair & square". But she has been disengenuous the whole time. Just another smiling face plotting to stab, cheat and sleeze their way thru the whole process. She has NO INTEGRITY! I cannot support that..even for the sake of the Party. I'll sit it out with my friends after we bathe the Clinton slime from our brains.

[seattleblogger]

Hmmmm..ver­y interesting turn for good ole' Joe. First he uses the intelligence and its' manipulation by the Bush Administration to justify bashing said Administration on its' decision to go to war. Then he uses that same intelligence to justify why Hillary's vote for war was possibly justified. Which is it Joe? Was the intel good, or was it bad? Your blind allegience to Clinton is pathetic.

[SouthCentralDel]

Hollow article. I used to really admire Joe. But obviously he is not on his game-- specifics and facts don't seem to matter to his blind allegiance to Hillary. The Republicans are happy to see Joe's article. Hillary as the nominee would galvanize the divided Republicans to unite against the Dems.

It's ok, maybe in 2010 after President Obama has been in office for a while, you may regret this article.

[nisha]

As I recall, pretty much the whole rest of the world, apart from Tony Blair and John Howard, had the same "intuition" as Obama. I hope this silly man, who made his career lording it in Africa, with his wife playing Jane Bond, gets his comeuppance and is forced to drop his white man's burden and run away into the jungle.

[Tellmethetruth]

Thanks Mr. Wilson. Your "gut" instincts on the the WMDs and GW Bush and the rush to war served America well, and we are grateful to both you and your wife. Thank you once again for sharing your gut instincts on another fraud about to deceive America once again in Obama.

[strifeknot]

How did Hillary's gut instinct work out when deciding to go to war? Forget instinct, how did her assessment of the known facts about the threats of Iraq work out?

She has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on her hands, and is complicit in the misery of millions more.

[Troubledgoodangel]

Sen. Biden is right: Sen. Obama is not presidential enough! He is a never grown up boy, pampered and teleguided by the ultra feminists and the anti-Catholics, like his Pastor! he is not a seasoned leader in the proper sense of this word. His boyish face would amuse the tyrants of this world. He would not have the strength to say no, when challenged!

[quantum9leap]

Why do I feel vindicated somehow in the midst of all of this haranguing? Is it because in the year leading up to this war my friends kept telling me that these crazys were going to have a war. I said,poppycock. They said that it had to be "done" because our adversary had weapons of mass destruction. I said,poppycock. There was NO evidence of such weapons,the investigators told us that. Besides,I said,"What if he does have one,or four or five? We have thousands and we still do so he would be oh so foolish to use those "weapons".­". I politely reminded them that John Kennedy showed us most positive evidence of those weapons in Cuba. Where was that positive evidence at this time?
I next reminded them that he had an army that was in no way comparable to our magnificent army,nor did he have a competent air force. Foolish man he wouldn't start a war. He didn't but we did didn't we?
I told them that we would win very quickly but that the real war would start afterwards. Pshaw they replied. Well? Clairvoyant? But a good history student and veteran of a much bigger conflict.
Now I say to Democrats and have been saying for a year now that we must win the coming election for the good of our Constitution and that all of this petty bargaining will get us nowhere.We have to WIN and it should be apparent that neither of the two front runners can win. Our party has a most important task and that is to somehow select or draft the best possible candidate for the general election,a probable winner. The snikering,and bantering by the current candidates and the probable mysogeny' vitriol and racism that will result if either of them captures the nomination will lead to destruction and a loss. Then where will we be and for how long? Just the selection of Supreme Court justices,ie WMDs, scares me practically out of my skin. But there I go again!

[realrick]

Wow!

This post is REALLY condescending to Obama supporters.

It crawls up to, then backs away from making, the point of implicitly accusing them of being mindless dupes (a point Sen. Obama discussed during one of the presidential debates himself) by labeling Sen. Obama as a "political opportunist". Basically, the guy is being smeared for speaking out against the Iraq War while being (I love this) "a minor local official".

I guess, according to Mr. Wilson, a person's opinion is only important if they deliver it in Washington DC.

Perhaps he has forgotten (or he wants us to forget) the climate of fear and oppression that existed in the country in the run up to the war. Just a few items to jog his memory:

--Bill Maher was thrown off network television for a fairly innocuous comment noting the terrorists' dedication and fanaticism to fly planes into buildings like kamikazees.

--The Dixie Chicks were vilified just for saying they were ashamed that Bush was from Texas.

--The government of France was excoriated for its anti-war stance to the point where people were dumping French wine in the street. (In fact, I consider France to be one of America's dearest friends for this stance, analogous to a friend trying to hide the keys from a drunk driver. I'll be forever grateful to the French for that.)

Now, none of these people and parties were in D.C. when they expressed their opinions either. But, it doesn't mean that they didn't count and it doesn't mean that there wasn't a price (or a potential price) to be paid for having them at the time.

The fact is Hillary Clinton caved to this pressure for political reasons and she exercised poor judgment as a result.

Obama did neither.

Deal with it!

[homovivens]

We now know what happened to those missing aluminum tubes from Niger. Somebody sent there has been using them to snort that missing yellow cake.

Given the duress of Plamegate, one can feel some sympathy for Joseph Wilson's "I'm-mad-a­s-hell-and­-I'm-not-g­oing-to-ta­ke-it-anym­ore" temperament.

His diatribe against Obama is a hodge-podge of false dilemmas (the fallacy of black and white, either/or thinking), false and/or irrelevant conclusions, gross mischaract­erizations and non sequiturs. Just how hitched he is to Hillary may be intimated by the seeming indissolubility and confusion of his foreign policy experience with hers. How he makes that connection is most unclear, but one thing is certain: "formal logic was outraged."

I am no enemy of Joseph Wilson but I detest the trashing of reason. He decontextualizes comments, misrepresenting and/or omitting relevant details on policy matters, and he unsubstantiatingly and grossly charges Obama with "contempt for ...experie­nce," a "cowardly record on voting" and being an "intuitionalist" on decision making -- I guess a Columbia degree in "International Relations" and Harvard Law and a professorship at the University of Chicago make one opt for "intuition" over intellect!?!

I'm reminded of John Barth's "Looking Back in Anger" as Mr. Wilson targets Obama with the obvious projection of a very misplaced aggression.

What's most unambassadorial is Wilson's willful writing off of Obama's getting it very right on Iraq and Iran, which many have described as "one of the biggest foreign policy blunders" in recent history. He concedes no ground to Obama for this foreign policy triumph.

[nk007]

homovivens;

Thanks for your post. I have respect and sympathy for Ambassador Wilson and his wife. But he has gone to far in trashing Sen. Obama. By the way I am sure the Ambassador is a student of history who ought to know better. Proximity to office does not necessarily equal experience. No where does he tell us any specific crisis situation in which Clinton demonstrated superior wisdom. I was really disappointed at how he listed all the things Obama should have done but not what Clinton should have done. Me thinks Mr. Wilson has some pay back to the Clintons and his critique is so self-serving. By the way Amb. Wilson the same critique of lack of experience was leveled against the one term Congressman from Illinois who run for President. His name was Abraham Lincoln. Look how he turned out. He too had spoken out against the war with Mexico. He was villified and his patriotism was questioned. But Like Obama he knew the difference between legitimate wars and "dumb wars." So sorry Ambassador. I honor and respect you and your wife's sacrifices. But I vehemently reject your one sided trashing of Sen. Obama. At least he had the courage and the wisdom to reject this Iraq war that has devastated Iraq and is in the process of destroying our country.

[alexpope]

Why did you wait so long, Joe Wilson, to write this cogent piece laying out the real record versus the rhetoric. I know Hillary has been trying to do the same thing, but she hasn't been getting the case across--that's one of the problems with her campaign. She isn't that good a campaigner, or not as good as he is. He is cool and she is hot to use the old McLuhan distinction. Cool, he said, is better. But she's for real when it comes to substance. This is late in the contest to get the message across. I fear major buyers remorse setting after Obama gets the nomination. His economic policy is just as empty. "I hate NAFTA," then wink wink, "not really" to the Candian minister. The Obama Files Robert Smigel cartoon on SNL is one of the first real jabs at Obama as manipulative. This is only his first act.

[Oomingmak]

The fact that you point out that Hillary is a bad campaigner speaks volumes. What makes you think she is going to get any better in a general campaign? Or that the fact she ran a lousy campaign is quite telling as to how she would run a White House?

Not that she will -- she is toast. Sorry. Love it, hate it, learn to live with it.

[deminmo]

Since we have two capable Senators running for President,
let's say on March 20th, President Bush gives a statement
to the American people and Congress, that in order to protect
America from the threat Iran poses, he intends to begin limited
nuclear strikes on stratgic areas.
How do you think Obama and Hillary would respond? How
would it effect what happens in November?
Keep in mind the argument given for the "war" in Iraq, and
how that has evolved as we near the anniversary.

[PJay]

Here's a great find about who read the NIE and who voted against the Iraq invasion:
by James Boyce

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/the-iraq-war-vote-was-69_b_50742.html

James Boyce: "The two Senators who pushed hardest to have the US intelligence community compile an NIE, Senator Bob Graham and Senator Dick Durbin, both voted against authorizing military force against Iraq - largely because the full classified 96-page NIE contained many more caveats and dissents than any of the summaries.­"

This makes my stomach turn. Furthermore, from an UPDATE on the above MYDD post:

"Sen. Bob Graham's floor statement urging his fellow Senators to read the full classifed NIE. Here is Sen. Graham's statement:"

"Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." He warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands."

(Senator Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who read the NIE and who voted AGAINST the war. This is what Senator Obama was referring to.

[c0mm0ntater]

Wilson writes "I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done."

Well, Mr. Wilson wasn't here in Chicagoland when Obama opposed the war. I was. Contrary to Wilson's allegations, opposing the war in Chicago wasn't a popular stance back then. I remember anti-war protesters were labeled "traitors.­" There's no doubt in my mind that Obama took his stance against the war as a matter of principle and not political expediency.

[realrick]

Great minds must think alike. I have a comment pending approval that addresses exactly your point.

Bravo!

[Mandelay]

Bravo Joe! Thanks for adding context to an endless stream of slogos and sound bytes. And so glad to see it here in the very, very biased Huffington Post.

[nisha]

It's disgraceful for an ambassador's wife to be a spy. Such positioning is a form of misconduct in itself (did they need two incomes or what?) So now he's angling for a cabinet position from that other two-career­-but-not-e­xactly-wor­king couple whom he must think of, in his two dimensional mind, as the sole antidote to Bush et al., who, in the event, outed his wife and left him no alternative but to resign his post. How ridiculous that "Joe" doesn't remember how other people of character in the Senate, like Senator Byrd, objected long and strenuously to the war, for heaven's sake!

[vontrapp]

HIllary knew exactly what she was voting for when she supported the Iraq resolution. Pre-emptive, unilateral invasion of a country that had not attacked us directly nor indirectly.

She knew damn well that the Bush/Cheney/neocon admin would try to stretch Kyl-Liebermann into cover for attacking Iran.

Hillary voted for her election strategy, evidencing absolutly none of the political courage nor leadership that you argue Obama's anti-Iraq stance lacks. And if it wasn't a political move on her part, her foreign affairs judgement is atrocious. Right in lock-step with the delusional and disasterous agenda of the neocons.

[shockedNawed]

Did anyone ever ask you to shut your 'vontrapp'?

After you....No, really, ....after you!

[zagyzebra]

And do tell, exactly what are "grassroots mom's" credentials?

[Bettysdad]

Is there any more of a "political opportunist" anywhere on the face of the earth than Mrs. Bill Clinton?