Joseph Wilson Hits Obama on Iraq

by Taylor Marsh

I had a very interesting conversation with Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson over the weekend on foreign policy issues. Wilson was blunt when it came to Obama on Iraq, as well as Pakistan, which you'll see below. I also got a chance to get Valerie's views on the C.I.A. going forward. Important to note that this is Ms. Plame Wilson's first foray into politics, because as an employee of the Agency she couldn't dabble in politics, because of the Hatch Act, which she mentioned in our interview. Of course, I had to ask Valerie about her sense of Clinton and how women are reacting to her.

"... .. But I was struck by a piece in the New York Times the other day, an op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem, who noted that if a woman presumed to enter the presidential race with two years of high level experience she would be laughed out of the room. ... .. It's a very interesting dynamic and I think we, at least on the Democratic side, how fortunate we are to have at least two extremely viable candidates, I think she's the better one, but I think we have an embarrassment of riches, versus the Republican side which is just an embarrassment. ... .." - Valerie Plame Wilson

Great line. In the end, no matter what candidate you support, Valerie nails it. Democrats have it hands down over the Republicans, especially on foreign policy. But like her husband, she's backing Clinton. By the way, so is her former C.I.A. colleague Larry Johnson.

The podcast of the interview is also available.

Hitting the last part of the interview, I ended by asking Joseph Wilson about Iraq and given that Clinton and Obama have the identical voting records in the Senate, what does he make of the political volleying, with Obama trying to make an issue out of his speech versus Clinton's vote on the Iraq war resolution. After all, Joseph Wilson was in the eye of the storm.

"Well, I think the fact that's dominated the narrative is an indication of how little people really understand the dynamics of the debate as it was going on at the time. And the people making a lot of hay over this weren't there. I was there. I was fighting the fight. I looked to the left of me. I looked to the right of me. I didn't see Barack Obama anywhere. I was out there and there is nobody who can deny that. ... I didn't talk to Edwards about it because he was a co-sponsor of that particular resolution, whereas a lot of us were trying to fight for more restrictive language. Being in the minority, you couldn't get that restrictive language at that time. So what happened the day after the bill was passed? Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd went down and submitted another bill which further restricted, attempted to restrict the ability for the president to act. But in actual fact, those who were there are the debate will remember that the American people and the U.S. Congress were sold on this resolution not because the president wanted to go to war, because he said publicly, I do not want this resolution to go to war. I want this resolution so I can get to the United Nations and get intrusive inspections. That's what Colin Powell said. That's what the president of the United States said and that's what they got. They got a resolution that permitted the president of the United States to go to the U.N. and get intrusive inspections. The great betrayal of the America people is not in that Resolution. It was in the president not allowing the inspections to reach their natural conclusions. Her short circuited the process. That is the betrayal of the country. That is the betrayal of the Congress. That's the betrayal of the American people. That's the betrayal of the world. People who don't remember that are trying to spin this for their own particular short-term partisan interest and they should not be allowed to get away with it. The most important thing of course now, that aside, ... is what is it going to take to get out of there in a way that, one, protects our national security interests, which has been terribly compromised in the region. ... .."

As for the McCain-Lieberman the surge is working, not to mention the violence, he offered the following, in part:

"The level of violence has been brought down to 2006 levels. This is not an end to this brooding civil war. This is a reduction from the spike in 2007. ... .. The fact remains, as General Petraeus himself has said, absent a political process you're not going to have a solution. ... .. There has been no political process. There has just been American troops inserted into the military space. So whatever success the surge has had it has been on the backs of the American troops and it is not being, it is not underpinning a long-term political strategy or political solution."

On the intersection of politics and foreign policy, Joe talked about Clinton's experience and her focus on George W. Bush. The whole section to this also talks about the trip Wilson and the Clintons took to Africa, but here's just part of it.

"Let me say something, I've noticed, and I've watched all the debates. Everybody is running against Hillary, except for Hillary. She's running against the legacy of George Bush. She understands who the adversary is. The adversary is this eight years of misrule that has been the Bush administration, and it's important for people to keep focused on that and she has stayed focused on that and she understands what the real objectives are. Frankly, she's far and away the most experienced ... of a good field. .. ... I saw her in action when I was working on the National Security Council. ... .. "

Given the back and forth between Clinton and Obama on Pakistan in the last debate, I wanted to get Joe's take on Obama saying he'd sanction military actions if he had actionable intelligence, while Clinton seemed to caution against trusting actionable intelligence as a means for preemptive action, because sometimes it doesn't prove out. Of course, the question came amidst the latest comments from Musharraf obviously taking note of Obama's statements, as well as Bush's rhetorical maneuvering, to warn the U.S.

Here's the context, via CNN, in case you hadn't heard about Musharraf's latest response.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has made it clear that a U.S. military mission to capture Osama bin Laden or other top al Qaeda leaders on Pakistani soil would be unwelcome and "against the sovereignty of Pakistan."

President Musharraf says the United States would regret attempting to hunt for Osama bin Laden in western Pakistan.

President Musharraf told the Singapore Straits Times that his military has the experience to operate in the mountainous terrain near the Afghan border and if the United States went in they would "regret that day." .. ...

Wilson's reaction to Obama's actionable intelligence answer on Pakistan was blunt.

"It was reinforced today by Musharraf's comment that any U.S. bombing of Pakistan would be considered a hostile act. That is precisely how reckless it is to be sitting there saying, yeah, if we have actionable intelligence we'll just go ahead and bomb a sovereign country. The last thing we need to do is to further exacerbate anti-American opinion in a country that has a significant fundamentalist population and has nuclear weapons. So I think that is really born out by what Musharraf said yesterday or today. How delicate international diplomacy is today and how important it is to measure your statements and not to act in a way that can be construed as reckless."

Valerie weighed in on the politicization of our intelligence as well. Her comments on this are tremendously important. Please take the time to listen to them. I can't possibly transcribe the import of all she said, which was quite complex. Shorter version from Valerie on politics and intelligence:

"Get the hell out of the intelligence business." - Valerie Plame Wilson

I'll second that.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[AZModerate]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/25812/2147/708/438638

Just sayin'

[skwan91607]

Needless to say what bush has done to American future. Americans can not afford to have another inexperienced junkie in the white house as a decider any more.
Obama is not, until today, to be prepare to take the job as a president of United States. His experiences are not quite matured. Politic is more than right or wrong decision as outsider looks at it. Running a country is more than a beautiful speech. Oprah's choice of supporting Obama is only a personal interest. It can not be considered a choice from a national figure even she is a talk show host, anyway only a talk show host. American political process will regretfully produce a mistaking outcome if the effects of jinglism excited among the voters.
Remember GOP's are a bunch of invaders or war hawks. Only Clinton is a better choice for America today.

[OhPlease2007]

Taylor, thanks for another great blog post. It's a shame that 'The Obamington Post' doesn't give you GREATER exposure for your thoughtful comments on these kind of important issues that deeply concern us all!

You quote Joe Wilson expressing the following:

"The most important thing of course now, that aside, ... is what is it going to take to get out of there in a way that, one, protects our national security interests, which has been terribly compromised in the region. ... .."

The thing that puzzles me about Joe's comments as of late, is that, he never spells out exactly what he thinks our national security interests are. I mean, why are we in the region to begin with? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots; it's about the oil. Right? The sooner we get off the oil bandwagon, the sooner we will stop the wrongful occupation of other foreign nations. This whole wording of, 'we must protect our national security interests in the middle east regions' is total smoke and mirrors campaign. It serves to delude the masses into thinking that we truly are fighting abroad to preserve 'U.S. Democracy -and- freedom', when nothing could be further from the truth. It's all about the oil; nothing more.

When we finally get off of the big oil bandwagon, we will be able to take away this nonsensical governmental jargon about 'national security interests in the middle east regions', thereby, decreasing the threat of violence that serves to potentially harm all American citizens. THAT, will be a vital step in the right direction for implementing honest, 'national security interests' for our nation that everyone can understand.

[WhitemoonG]

Joe Wilson Credible?? Everybody on Capitol Hill

KNEW there would be no WMD?

Whoever made the comment about more revisionist "History" from Joe Wilson hit the nail on the head.

How about this for a little FACTUAL memory of the events as they unfolded:

Joe Wilson appeared on ABC "Nightline" in March 2003, days before the Iraq invasion, stating

that based on his indepth knowledge and experience, he KNEW that Saddam HAS Wmd, chem and bio, only uncertainty being how close on nuclear.

And, he argued with John McCain over his contention that Saddam HAVING wmd was a major reason NOT to invade.

How does that FACT relate to Wilson's subsequent obvious revisionist "history"
and narcissistic grandstanding?

How do Wilson and "integrity" have any application with each other?

Before the brainless responses about "made up neocon BS" or whatever,

try reading Wilson's own stupid book, as I did, wherein he himself validates his beliefs and warnings over Saddam HAVING wmd right up to the invasion.

Maybe (actually, no doubt) there were lots of exaggerations and lies from the attentionholic Wilson as opposed to the "fearless whistleblowing" attributed by those who don't recall these certain "inconvenient truths!"

[belikejeanvaljean]

Joe, get your facts straight. Obama was on record speaking out against the notion of attacking Iraq as early as September 26, 2002 (Chicago Defender) and again October 3, 2002 (AP).

But take a look at Hillary's record. After voting for the famous resolution in 2002, here is what she had to say over a year later on Meet the Press, long after we had invaded and occupied Iraq:

"I think Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat" who "was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them." and "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being guilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power." Also: "We need more troops and a different mixture of troops." "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option." From William Safire column dated 12/08/03.

Joe, when you looked to the right and left of you, was Hillary there? Obviously not.

I knew the resolution and resulting war were mistakes as did many of my friends, both Dems and GOPers and we are not in the intelligence community. Obama obviously did as well.

Why didn't Hillary? Why are you an apologist for her actions?

[Liberal2]

Dammit, I don't care who the Wilsons support for presidential candidate...I want one of them to run for (they live in New Mexic, don't they?) the open Senate seat, Domenici's.

[fourex]

Joe, the story that no one suspected GW Bush would attack Iraq with as little or as much as he could get from Congress is false.

[liberalrebuttal]

Oh. I see it's "Surrogates Spin Day"

Yay!

[BlogAngel]

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are two of the most credible people in intelligence. Possibly more than anyone, they know the ruthlessness of the Bush government. His description of how Bush lied Congress into the Iraq bill points out exactly how strong a leader Hillary is compared to Obama, who did nothing, and Edwards, who sponsored the lousy bill. Obama DID say "attack" Pakistan - check it out - and people who understand world politics far better than he - like Madeline Albright - criticized him for being naive and potentially dangerous. Sen. Clinton's the most qualified presidential candidate this country has ever had. Let's vote for the most qualified person this time, not someone you can have a beer. It's not a personality contest.

[leftLibertarian]

Which Democrat, if elected President, will immediately withdraw ALL US troops from the illegal war in Iraq?

No phased withdrawal BS, or whatever else they are trying to sell.

[Ides]

By the way, Hillary Clinton has already been caught in a lie about which amendment she supported. The only possibilities I can imagine is that Joe Wilson is lying also on her behalf in order to push his candidate or he's giving her (incorrectly) the benefit of the doubt.

[Ides]

Bull. Obama never said he would bomb Pakistan. He said he would go into the mountains of Pakistan with soldiers if he had actionable intelligence. The word "BOMB" never left his mouth. The word "BOMB" never left the interviewer's mouth.

Someone put this dog back to sleep.

[altohone]

Sorry if I'm jumping the gun... my earlier comment hit a snag I fear.

Wilson can try to sell his revisionist rationalizing, but everyone knows that vote was for WAR.

Wilson's seemingly intentional ignorance of Obama's whole statement on Pakistan suggests a lack of objectivity too. I'd add that when given a chance in a debate, all of the Dems agreed with Obama. Odd that that wasn't mentioned.

Strange that the Wilson's have endorsed the establishment candidate after being treated so poorly by them.

[Tellmethetruth]

Thanks for this article. Last debate when Obama refused to apologize to the people of Pakistan for the beligerant words he spoke in the August debate on foreign policy which caused rioting in Pakistan. Bush had to publically condemn Obama's words that Obama would attack Pakistan if elected President. Same with Joe Biden who also had to publically try to smooth the situation with Pakistan.

Then in December, Obama was asked again about Pakistan and repeated his same remarks, but qualified them with what Joe Biden had cautioned, that before there is pre-emptive strikes (Bush doctrine) there must be actionable intelligence. Clinton was right to be cautious - as phoney "actionable intelligence" is how we were mislead into the war with Iraq.

I am so glad you brought this up, because Obama's remarks which he refused to repent could lead us into a dangerous nuclear war with Pakistan that no one wants. He is simply not mature enough and to tied to his ego to back down on a mistatement of words or on a belligerent policy - just like Bush. NO, NO, NO - we do not need ego and inexperience in the White House - not again...

[FogBelter]

Taylor, didn't Joe Wilson come out and talk about this a month ago already? I think he already stated his opinion in a blog here at HuffPo.

I like the Wilsons ... but why is this endorsement new?