The Real Hillary I Know -- and the Unreal Obama

Yesterday the London Times reported central questions about Senator Obama's shocking dearth of international experience: "Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London - and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America." It also reported: "Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."

These basic facts, coming from a major foreign newspaper, are a sobering counterpoint to a gushing Boston Globe editorial that endorsed Obama for having "an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities." Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American diplomat like myself, who have spent a career toiling in the vineyards of national security, it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama's supposed "intuitive sense" is no different from George W. Bush's "instincts" and "gut feeling" describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.

During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton's historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities and a key adviser--and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa, leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most precious of presidential assets--time--in his own trip. People who are now senior advisers to Senator Obama were involved in both of those trips. So it is mystifying to me that they have allowed themselves to "forget" the key role Hillary played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world and have participated in a negative campaign tactic on the part of the Obama campaign to demean her significant contributions to foreign policy of which they are well aware.

Barack Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia before the age of 10, his chief period of time abroad. I, too, spent years overseas in my formative school years. While the experience certainly whetted my appetite for international relations, it did not provide me either with "intuition" or expertise in the conduct of my nation's foreign policy. My understanding of international affairs came from twenty-three years of professional diplomacy, much of it spent overseas dealing at senior levels on crises such as serving as the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq stationed in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.

In the Spring, 2003, I happened to debate William Kristol, one of the architects of the neoconservative agenda and an enthusiastic supporter for Bush's invasion of Iraq and subsequent policy. He blurted out his judgment that "on the ground experience was highly overrated." That arrogant assertion of ideology and preconceived ideas over practical experience has precisely led to the quagmire we find ourselves in today in Iraq and the Middle East.

Now, Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for "on the ground experience." Acting on his superior "intuition" he has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions.

A number of us, like then Illinois state senator Obama, opposed the second Gulf War. My own opposition from the beginning has been well documented. I fought the fight in the arena itself, Washington DC, against a ruthless administration and its supporters while the senator's opposition came from a far distance and carried no risk, given that he represented in Springfield, Illinois the district encompassing the University of Chicago. As an obscure but safe provincial political figure, he never was granted access to the distorted intelligence that was used to drive the Congress and the media. When I looked to the left or to the right for support, I never saw the state senator. In fact, I never heard of Barack Obama until he announced his intention to run for the Senate in the 2006 election.

After he came to Washington, Obama's views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama's record identically matches Senator Clinton's--with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama's vote was typically passive.

In the run up to the war and thereafter, I was in frequent discussions with senior Democrats in Washington, including Senator Clinton, and I was keenly aware of her demand for the full exercise of international diplomacy and allowing the weapons inspectors to complete their mission. Many of the most prominent early opponents of the war, including former General Wes Clark and former ambassador to the United National Richard Holbrooke support Senator Clinton for President, as do I. We do so because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life--and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests.

We know that she has won and lost but always fought for her beliefs, which are widely shared within the Democratic Party. The battles she had been in have been fierce--and the battles in the future will be no less intense--and she has proven her steadfastness and is still standing. She does not have a cowardly record of voting "present" when confronted with difficult issues. She does not claim "intuition" as the basis of the most dangerous and serious decision-making. What she has is deep and vital experience, more important than ever in restoring our country's place in the world.

Comments

[MinerSam]

Bravo Joe.

In addition, as someone who judges a candidate's character by the honesty of their campaign, I cannot help but be deeply disappointed by Mr. Obama, whose campaing is 180 degrees from what he claims.

While he repeats the same speech over and over and over again: that we should have a different political discourse, he uses dishonest Republican Talking Points against Senator Clinton after having been egged on to do so by Republican operatives.

His allowing himself to be pulled by the nose and manipulated by the likes of Chris Mathews and Tim Russert (to attack Senator Clinton with dishones assertions), and his campaign's use of the book by Psychologically abusive Republican operative Frank Lunz, is not only pathetic but a brainwash of an electorate that is too busy working to know the fact, and desparate for accurate information.

What it boils down to is that through his dishonest campaign talk and operatives (along with Edaward and his) the Republicans are effectively in control of the a portion of the Democratic base.

The idea that after -- years of fighting the Radical right wing totallitarian Junta that divided us to garner our vote, so they could loot our treasury, and turn the government we pay to protect our interests into central headquarters for the Republican Party -- to equate Senator Clinton with this is a blatent outrage, by Obama and Edwards.

And Edwards is even worse. His dozens of ads a day on the television stations of corporate giant GE, against the Democrats is an act of a selfish, immoral desparate man.

As for those who repeat the Orwell/Goebbles typy that soil the name of Clinton name by putting it next to Bush, you are no different than the brainwashed Right wing base.

There is no simillarity between Hillary Clinton and Mr. Bush, their policies, intelligence, experience and HEARTS are 180 could not be further than 180 degrees apart.

[joebo5845]

I find it hard to read about hillary's experience because when ur husband was governor he had no foreign policy experience. hillary was the first lady and was not involved in anything except talking to other first aladies.

Obama will have advisors like every other president. I find the writer about hillary has a bias for hillary. If she thinks she is so talented she should run for dog catcher. She would run the country like a tryant that she is from what i have heard about, the way she treats her people during this compaign

Please people we have had enough of the Bushs and the Clintons. We need a fresh new person in the white house not the same ole crappy people thats helped hide Clintons other girl friends

[imsosure]

So Joe how does this fit in?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[kidrio]

I am surprised that Joe Wilson came out and attacked Barack Obama. I would understand it better if I he endorsed Joe Biden who know s the most, however he didn't just endorse Hilary, he attacked Barack.

I have an idea, I am going to donated $25 to Barack's campaign because of Joe Wilson.

[saami]

It would be interesting to look at each of our past presidents over say the last one hundred years and see how much international experience they had and how it affected their presidency. What we really need is some one honest; who believes in government of the people, by the people and for the people; who has the courage and perseverance to make America live up to the dream. We need a Lincoln (he certainly wouldn’t stand up to the “standards” being set in these responses) who knows the difference between right and wrong and does right no matter how difficult it is or the cost to him/her. We have many wounds to heal at home and abroad. We are no longer the beacon of freedom but the flashlight of sanctimonious lies. He/she will never please everyone or for that matter even many of them but I believe charity begins at home so I look for someone who will end the war, bring our soldiers home, end poverty, give the working people a fighting chance, provide health care for all and education for our children. John Edwards sounds very much like that kind of person; I hope he is. We are at a crossroads that will affect our children to the seventh generation. We need a leader to help us see the “better angels of our nature” and respond with hope, dignity and kindness to all citizens of our troubled country and by mending our own wounds reach out as a friend to the world. That’s leadership and that is power.

[bach]

To Joe Wilson I say "right on". To the Obama sheep I say "sit down and shut up".

[JenIA]

Puh-leeze. Joe needs Billary to win so he can have a job again.

There will be a new title for the first hubby if they win: meddler-in-chief!

No more baggage, no more scandals, no more Billary in the White House!

[ProfessorVP]

Just Hillary's flag-burning (actually, flag-draping around herself) vote puts her on my shit list of unqualified candidates. Her hawkish Iraq and Iran votes also certainly prevent me from voting for her, nomatter who runs against her. In fact, I'll go a step further. She was never even qualified to run for the Senate from NY. No, being a cuckholded wife does not qualify one for running for the Senate. Not that she was cuckholded, mind you- she knew, even encouraged, Bill to play around. For one thing, Hillary is not into... well, you-know-what.

And before you call me a Republican- I would drink my own piss before being a Republican.

[lentinelia]

Obama has also "raved" about Iran - that he states he considers a continuing "threat".
Obama has spoken about bombing Pakistan.

Obama admits he doesn't know how he would have voted on the resolution had he been in the Senate at the time.

Obama campaigned for Lieberman - said he thought Lieberman was working in "our behalf". YIKES! And this was in 2006!

Listen - if you think this is a "fresh face" or a "new direction" - go for it. As for me, I've seen this crap before.

[alijean]

Seems to me the battles fought have been of a personal nature. Unfortunately, that is the landscape we live in. You mention Africa, 16 years later what exactly is the US doing to stop the genocide there? Exactly what did the Clintons, particularly, Mrs. do to stop the violence there? As with all politicians, time, money, energy are only spent in areas that involve OIL.

[Justtellthetruth]

Her ravings about Iran have turned out to be utter bunk, and now she's trying to characterize Paksitan as the biggest threat, something that Obama has seen all along, in that they Harbor OBL, al qeada, the Taliban, have nukes, have given Nuke tech to other countries, have whole areas of the country under the control of Al qeada sympathizers who HATE Americans.

She was also TOTALLY wrong about Lebanon, which turned out to be as big a fiasco as Iraq in many ways, which she also happened to be UTTERLY wrong about.

Boy, her amazing foreign policy experience seems to worth LESS than nothing, while Obamas supposed lack of experience seems to have steered him in the right direction in the cases where lives, treasure and real consequence were at stake.

It could be that if an incompetent sellout hack gathered all the experience in the world, it would still lead to disaster time and time again, while a less experienced, competent and (maybe more importantly) principled person, given the same opportunities, would invariably do much better in all areas of decision making.
Seems to describe the situation pretty well.

[readerK]

Kiko, Kiko, Kiko! Why do you blame all of our foreign policy failures on the Clintons? These failures have been around since the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was enunciated.

A lot of the vitriol, animosity and harassment that were heaped on the Clintons during their White House days were because they were "foreign" -- from "backwater" Arkansas.
Any honest, inside-the-Beltway reporter will tell you that the Clintons were never really accepted "in the fold" for even a brief moment.

You obviously have an intense dislike for Hillary. But ours is a violent and dangerous world. And no matter how blinded one may be by a deep dislike of Hillary, one cannot seriously believe that "a bit of naivete is actually refreshing" in a potential leader of this country. Look around the world: you'll see a lot of very tough and dangerous characters. Neither cowboy diplomacy nor naivete is desirable for a manageably peaceful world.

[LoRiseAntlers]

Let's see,you're saying that I should vote for a woman who was an integral part of an administration that that started the whole "Iraqi WMD" propaganda meme,an administration that turned down the chance to take Bin Laden into custody.I should vote for a woman who not only voted for the war in Iraq,but who would do nothing to end that war if elected?

Try again sport.

[TheKiddy]

I agree, Obama is weak on foreign policy. But, Hillary voted to make flag burning a crime. So, I plan to vote "other".

John Edwards 2008!

[Independent voter]

Sorry Joe. Nobody buys this advertisement.