« (Updated) Dumb, Dumber & Dumbest?
Doing My Civic Duty & Getting Involved »



Joseph C. Wilson Defends Hillary on Foreign Policy Issues; Questions Obama’s Judgment

March 3rd, 2008
By DAMOZEL

Print Print

Yesterday, during a campaign speech, Barack Obama criticized Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Iraq war vote (The Swamp, via Memeorandum).  This is not the first time that Obama has brought up the issue, so it’s fair game.

Yesterday,  Joseph Wilson — retired Ambassador to African nations and Iraq who worked under Presidents Bush-I and Clinton (and the husband of Valerie Plame Wilson) — defended Hillary and questioned Obama’s reliability on foreign policy issues and affairs.  An excerpt follows. Of course, you can argue that this is just former Ambassador Wilson’s opinion. Nevertheless, it seems safe to call it an informed opinion.

"… I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless [Iraq] 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….

"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."

Wilson goes on to discuss Iran (you can read the rest here at The Huffington Post.)

Cross-posted to Buck Naked Politics



This entry was posted on Monday, March 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am and is filed under Foreign Policy, Valerie Plame, Plamegate, Bush Administration, Republican Party, Saddam Hussein, Texas, Ohio, Primaries, Newsweek Blogitics, Democratic Party, Foreign Politics, Afghanistan, War, Foreign Affairs, 2008 Elections, Iraq, Democrats, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Republicans, George W. Bush, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 14 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Joseph Wilson brings up a good point (that you emphasized). But how is that point playing to the Democratic electorate? Alot of average Joes and Janes just care about who voted for the war and who didn't. Results show that Senator Obama has been convincing enough to in that argument to pull out his primary wins.

    As far as Joseph Wilson's other points about Senator Obama "too busy running for President", how has Senators Clinton and McCain handled their senate duties? This is why I have disdain for our current election process. It's too long and causes an already elected official that's running for POTUS to lose focus on their other duties. Just think if all three Senators were in their elected offices full-time. Campaign speeches, town halls, and debates would be limited. And a candidate that wasn't tied to an office would have an unfair advantage.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm glad you posted this because I didn't know about the Iran bill that Obama co-sponsored, so I looked it up.

    Here is the one he sponsored

    Here is the Kyl-Lieberman amendment

    Specifically, the Counter-Proliferation Act states "States that nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran."

    By contrast, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment says:
    " (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
    (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies"

    The 4) worries me because it does not seem to have an appropriate scope (OK, I have to admit, really Obama should be all over getting the AUMF authorized after 9/11 to be revoked. That is a monstrosity.) Moreover, Wilson leaves out that the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was scheduled on very quick notice and that Obama tried but couldn't get back in time and immediately released a statement against it (Clinton has done the same thing at times and gotten unfair criticism too). Also, a letter to the President after the fact has absolutely no legal meaning. Why didn't she try to get a specific resolution passed that limited the scope? In fact Obama stated that the reason why he didn't sign the letter was because he was working with Sen. Feingold to introduce such a resolution.
    • ^
    • v
    Also, Biden voted against both the amendment and did not sign the letter. Considering he is the Foreign Relations chair I think that is a big deal.

    BTW I think Obama has no excuse about the NATO thing and Clinton should rightly hammer him on it. Also, Obama's speech against the war (just like Sen. Webb's and Al Gore's) was hardly populist anti-war rhetoric. It had specific reasons for being against it that I don't associate with knee jerk Liberal (he meant peacenik) arguments.
    • ^
    • v
    I think Joe Wilson is an odious piece of work...but, as T-Steel notes, he makes a good point.

    Almost everyone in Washington thought Saddam had a nuke program...because Saddam wanted everyone to think that. Whether or not you believe Bush Co. lied to Congress etc is beside the point on this question. Clinton was going with the best available knowledge.

    Obama has made a remarkable number of foreign policy missteps in a short span...NAFTA, NATO etc. Clinton is clearly stick-handling the NAFTA puck deftly, in contrast to Obama's heavy-handed lumbering.

    I am writing from Toronto at the moment, and in Canadian business press no one is worried about Clinton re. NAFTA. However, there is much anxiety about Obama - and surprising unity of both the Liberal and Conservative Party wanting him to cool the rhetoric.
    • ^
    • v
    If you go to the Senate website and look at voting, both Billary and Obama voted over a hundred times during this session. McCain is the one spending more time campaigning. Wilson is a partisan in the Hillary camp. Could he be hoping for a position in a Billary administration?
    • ^
    • v
    I've gotta take issue with this.

    "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.

    I'd need a cite to that claim because it contradicts all I've read. When did Obama claim he would have voted to give Bush authorization?

    And finally this.

    The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign


    So should we just assume that Obama misrepresents and panders while campaigning? Or that both he and Senator Clinton are currently misrepresenting and pandering during a campaign and therefore, nothing either says can be believed?
    • ^
    • v
    I suspect Mr. Plame was referring to this one..........

    2004 Chicago Tribune article, Sen. Barack Obama "said there wasn't much difference between his position and George Bush's position on the [Iraq] war."



    Nonetheless, even though the campaigns are spending time on this, the Dem primary polls don't suggest the general electorate is anywhere near as fired up about Iraq as TMV commenters might be.

    A Washington Post/ABC News poll, finished a couple of weeks ago, asked Ohio Democrats to name the most important issue in their choice of a presidential candidate. Thirty-four percent said the economy and jobs. Thirty percent said health care. Nine percent said the war in Iraq, by which they most certainly meant a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops. Three percent said ethics and honesty in government. Three percent said “change.” Two percent said education. And one percent said terrorism and national security. (The Post and ABC asked the same question in Texas, and the answers were similar; one percent named terrorism and national security as the top issue.)

    I could provide a link to NRO for you but I know you don't want it to appear in your browser history.
    • ^
    • v
    "Almost everyone in Washington thought Saddam had a nuke program...because Saddam wanted everyone to think that. "

    Actually, Saddam really wanted Iran to think that. That was the whole reason we propped him up there in Iraq in the first place: to act as a counterweight to the increasing regional power of Iran.
    • ^
    • v