Clinton gave a big foreign policy speech yesterday and actually called into question her own qualifications for the job.
“We have seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security,” Clinton said, making an implicit comparison, once again, between Obama and President Bush. “America has already taken that chance – one time too many.”
So if she thinks Bush had neither the experience or wisdom to manage foreign policy – why did she vote to authorize Bush’s war? If you follow the inexperienced and unwise into a trillion dollar fiasco, where 4,000 Americans have lost their lives – what does that say about your own judgment and wisdom? Hmmmmmmmmm.
and believed his lies. I find this the most confounding thing about Hillary Clinton. I didn’t have to look into Bush’s eyes to know the guy was lying about WMD. Yes, my boomer friends (all women) and I, on the eve of the authorization, knew without question that Bush was pulling a Gulf of Tonkin. A friend’s Gen X son explained why we should support the war because of Colin Powell’s “evidence.” Without hesitation, we all replied “It’s a lie” because that’s what our Vietnam experience had taught us…whither Hillary Clinton? 23 of her Senate colleagues knew that Bush couldn’t be trusted, why didn’t she?
<
p>The decision to go to War is arguably the most important responsibility of Congress. Her votes on Afghanistan and Iraq were the most important votes of her legislative career. And she simply failed in her judgment about Iraq. She continues to claim Bush “duped” her. I cannot yet be convinced that I want someone who can’t tell when she’s being snowed, in matters of war, to be my Commander in Chief.
She voted to give the President of the United States to have the option of invading if Iraq did not allow the UN inspectors in to do their job. The fact that Obama does not seem understand the distinction makes me really wonder about his ability to lead this country in the world. BTW Hillary Clinton’s judgement was correct; the inspectors were allowed back in to do their job. George Bush went ahead with the invasion anyway. Also btw, if Oabma is so against the war now, why has he voted everytime for funding for the war? Hmmmmm could it be political calculation at work?
and it went down with a thud. That is parsing and it didn’t work the last time and won’t work this time. McCain is clear about where he stands. Clinton straddles the fence. Obama is on the other side of the fence because he was against getting us stuck in a quagmire in Iraq.
<
p>In this election we need someone who can draw clear contrasts on this fundamental issue – who can put them on the defensive around their unpopular war. Clinton will not be able to do that because she authorised force against Iraq. Obama can and will.
<
p>Clinton can claim all the experience she wants out there but she is far less experienced than McCain on security and foreign affairs so it can’t do anything for her. Obama can run effectively in the general as the candidate of good judgement and real change, of a fresh start. That is what we need in the general, not someone who proclaims experience but blew the biggest vote she took in the Senate and has far less experience than the opposition.
She understands that in negotiating with dictators you need to have the threat of force. Does Obama even understand that? I am concerned that he does not. It is not parsing… it is called understanding the real world. I give Hillary Clinton a lot of credit for not doing what it seems would be the political thing to do, i.e, to apologize for a vote that was correct at the time. That shows real courage and integrity, something I want in my president.
Little Johnny, please stop beating up your little brother. If you do not stop, I may have to denounce you and tell you to stop again.
And here we are, back to square one with the argument to vote to authorize the use of force. Your loose analogy in favor of force was basically the common sense rational for the vote. Unfortunately, you only end up at that point by letting Bush and Rumsfeld lead you there to begin with.
<
p>Look, in retrospect, voting in favor of that resolution was the single most important policy decision made in this new century. For the United States to operate in the post-Soviet Union, cold-war era, we need to figure out how we’re going to use our influence to keep ourselves, and the world, relatively safe. And there were a great many people in the military and intelligence communities who, even in 2002, would have responded to your analogy by saying, “Yes, tell little Johnny to stop hitting his brother for as long as you can because, believe it or not, if you go over there and hit little Johnny, you’re going to be over there for the next 20 years.” Analogies are only so helpful.
<
p>Obama did understand that. But does Clinton? And that’s where the experience thing falls apart for me. If she’s so experienced, how can she have lived through the past 8 years and come to such a dramatically different conclusion about that vote than I have?
Please give me a demonstrable action by Obama to back that up. That’s my problem. A speech somewhere in 2002 means jack. He was an IL State Senator giving a speech in Chicago. What did he do as a US Senator to back up what you are saying. What kind of leadership did he display as a US Senator. Give me anything. In my opinion Hillary and Obama disappointed me on Iraq. Based on his actions in the Senate there is nothing that shows me that he wouldn’t have voted for the resolution. His actions were of politics, not the war. Obama understood what? He understood why Kerry and Edwards would vote for the Iraq resolution in 2004, he understood that he should just hide and keep quiet while his country needed him to be a leader after the elections in 2005. He understood that with the changing mood of the country about Iraq and the 2006 elections that is was okay to talk about Iraq. Again, what did he understand and what was his actions in the Senate? Explain it to me.
That was his position in that campaign. And it was not helpeful at the time. Point blank.
Because apparently neither you nor Barack Obama understand how the world and vicious dictators work. It is complicated. BTW, if President Bush had not abused the authority he was given, we would be having a different discussion about Hillary’s vote to give him the authority to use force if necessary. After all, the vote did succeed in getting the inspectors back into Iraq and getting them back to doing their job.
I sometimes wonder if you actually believe the stuff that you write or you just are that passionate about your candidate that you feel you can’t show any signs of weakness.
<
p>Anyone who didn’t realize that was a vote for war either wasn’t paying attention or didn’t want to be.
<
p>Because apparently neither you nor
BarackObamaHillary Clinton understand how the world andviciousdictatorsright wing warmongers combined with 2000 years of Middle Eastern history work.troops and support equipment were being shipped to the Gulf.
<
p>If you are experienced you know that once a force of that size is put in the field – especially in the desert, where you have to launch an operation before it gets too hot – that they are almost certainly going to be used – like the Guns of August. You can’t keep them there for long immobile, you can’t bring them back accept at great cost. There was no way Bush was not going to war. She trusted him and shouldn’t have. That is bad judgement.
<
p>Hillary took a political vote at a difficult time given the rawness around Sept 11th. But she fell down on the wrong side of it. I’m not asking for her to apologize – that wouldn’t change anything.
<
p>What should be admitted though by her supporters, who I take it did not support the war, is that she made a mistake. Unless of course you are so blinded by your support for her that you can’t do that.
I was against the invasion of Iraq, but I agreed that the president needed the authority to use force if the Iraqis did not let the inspectors back in to do their job. I even told a Republican friend of mine that it was a brilliant negotiating strategy to have the vote in order to convince Saddam Hussein that we were serious. Unfortunately, Bush lied to Congress about what he was going to do and abused the authority he was given. As for sending the troops over there, when dealing with a dictator of the likes of Saddam Hussein, that is sometimes necessary too; ie, to show that the threat you are making is real.
<
p>So would you say Hillary is being political now by not saying she was wrong when she voted to authorize the president to use force? After all, it would be more political of her to say she was wrong, even though she was not. I think she is showing her integrity by not trying to make ezcuses for her vote even though some people, and apparently Obama, seem to be incapable of understanding why it was necessary.
<
p>You need to read the Guns of August again, maybe a little more carefully.
She has said if she knew that Bush was going to go to war she would have voted differently. She said if the intelligence were different she would have voted differently. She has said if she knew then what she knows now she would have voted differently. If those are not excuses I don’t know what the word means.
<
p>The fact that she did not know Bush was going to war was a massive misjudgement given all the troops he was putting in the field. The fact that she trusted the bull shit intelligence was a misjudgement. The fact that she did not know as much as Kennedy or Feingold or many other Senators means she made a misjudgement. And yet you argue that despite her own excuses for the vote and the reality of Iraq that she is bold for not offering an apology. That is one way of looking at it.
<
p>The force authorization would have been a brilliant negotiating strategy had it actually been the strategy. But Bush was not going to negotiate – Hillary got suckered. But Bush was not going to negotiate.
<
p>Hey look, I supported Kerry throughout in 2004 and remember when he made the same excuses for his vote as Hillary is now. I remember reconciling that vote the same way you are now. But its a losing argument and it was not something you could explain easily to the public. It took the Iraq issue off the table for Kerry and was a reason he lost.
<
p>
What if instead she said:
<
p>”In 2003, the President told me we would use the authority given by the Congress to force Saddam to open up to inspections. The President looked me in the eyes and told me that war would be the absolute last resort. The President looked me in the eyes, made me a promise, and then he broke it. I had higher hopes for the President of the United States but GW Bush broke his promise to me and to the American people, and we need to place the blame right where it belongs…directly at his feet.”
why not so in Sudan?
What part of the title of the resolution did Senator Clinton not read?
<
p>Sounds a bit too much like “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the US”. Condi missed that one, too.
One thing I have found fascinating about Obama’s inner circle is that it includes Susan Rice, Tony Lake and Samantha Power. Samantha Power is arguably the world’s foremost expert on genocide. Samantha Power wrote an unrelenting and comprehensive article in the Sept 2001 Atlantic on Rwanda, entitled “Bystanders to Genocide” which criticized the Clinton administration, and in particular Tony Lake and Susan Rice for their failure to act. Understanding, in retrospect, her part in allowing the genocide in Rwanda to go on unabated, Susan Rice has become a fierce advocate of ending genocide and violence in Darfur. But what is fascinating is how Obama has brought these folks together to advise him. This is an unconventional foreign policy group (also includes Daniel Shapiro and Scott Gration), and I think bodes well for a really new kind of foreign policy.
<
p>Here’s the link to the Power article on Rwanda, a long article but well worth reading and bookmarking:
<
p>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc…
<
p>Also a link to Democracy Now! which features Amy Goodman’s recent interview with Samantha Power.
<
p>http://i2.democracynow.org/200…
<
p>See for yourself, who do you think represents real progressive thinking on foreign affairs, and a new direction?
N/T
Hillary Clinton’s position on the Darfur crisis. Still waiting for what Obama’s plan is…..
She received an A+ We should all thank her for her work.
<
p>BTW, Obama only received an A, and partly that was due to him signing onto a letter by Sen. Clinton. I guess she gave him a little help.
I love your position on Darfur and I hope that as you fill out your current term in the Senate, you will help President Obama put new pressure on China and the regime in Khartoum to stop the genocide.
I appreciate the link, and read through Obama’s record and Clinton’s, thanks for that.
<
p>The critical difference between Clinton and Obama, I believe, is Rwanda. Here, I believe, the dead still speak. It appears to me that Clinton has learned no lessons from a weak US response to genocide in Rwanda (though I believe the reports that she urged Bill Clinton to act but he refused), and continues to place a misplaced hope in the government of Sudan to do the right thing absent the threat of a specific embargo and sanctions on oil or oil revenues, or UN or NATO intervention. I read her Senate site, and the long list of very nice proposals that all have to do with “urging” “asking” “recommending” Bush, the Security Council, China, or the government of Sudan to do the right thing.
<
p>I give due credit to Senator Clinton for making a speech in 2004 calling Darfur a genocide. But my question remains, since then, what has talk done? I understand that Bush & the Republicans have controlled the government, and so options for all Democrats are limited. But what does she say she will do once she is President? She continues rejects any kind of military intervention (which, again to her credit, she supported in Bosnia with NATO) to end genocide. Obama, on the other hand, supports UN or NATO military options.
<
p>Rwanda was an avoidable tragedy, and we all have blood on our hands, because we, through our government, failed to act. Paul Kagame, and the brave Rwandan people, are the few heroes of Rwanda; it was Kagame who saved his country and ended the genocide. Gen Romeo Dallaire (Canadian in charge of what UN peacekeepers were left) begged for 5000 well-trained troops, to add to his 500, to end the genocide. His requests (and the requests of Amb Pru Bushnell) were repeatedly dimissed by the US and the UN.
<
p>
<
p>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc…
<
p>I guess I am left to believe Senator Clinton was right on Rwanda when she had no power, wrong on Iraq when she did, and, I fear, will be wrong again on Darfur if she gets the Presidential power to stop the genocide. Since I cannnot predict the future, I hope that if she does become President, my fears are misplaced.
Both Clinton and Obama have supported asking the UN to send in peacekeepers (you can search both of their records on this). Obama, however, supports NATO and bi-lateral (US and European) military options, if the UN will not stop the genocidal Sudanese government and their murderous janjaweed paramilitaries.
<
p>ps. Kudos to Joe Biden for his absolutely outspoken, unflinching, and courageous leadership on Darfur. He deserves our national thanks.
The Sudan isn’t going to let NATO troops in! That’s hilarious.
<
p>Joe Biden and Bill Richardson have been the leaders of American foreign policy relative to Darfur. And boy did that get them far…
Actually I went back and triple checked, and Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson also agreed that they would consider NATO in the mix. But both remained leery of going into Sudan militarily due to current low US troop levels because of Iraq. (See last summer’s SC debate.) Hilarious? Perhaps. NATO is in Afghanistan; my geography is not the best, is that in Europe?
<
p>But I am perplexed by your statement. I am sure that Pol Pot or Hitler would probably not have “agreed” to an international force to end their genocide. If we agree that there is a genocide in Darfur, and we agree that genocide is a crime against all of humanity, why would we hold as a threshold waiting patiently for an “invitation” in by the Sudanese government? I believe that the 2005 UN R2P (Responsibilty to Protect) addresses a decision to go in.
<
p>Perhaps we disagree about what constitutes appropriate use of US military force. I am not a pacifist, I supported military intervention to end genocide in Cambodia, Kurdistan, East Timor, Rwanda, and Bosnia to end genocide.
<
p>But I appreciate and I look forward to your thoughts. I know I might actually learn something new.
<
p>
Afghanistan didn’t “accept” NATO forces in a meaningful way…it was conquered territory, and our proxies in the Northern Alliance understood that NATO would station their forces there in return for bringing them to power.
<
p>The government of the Sudan doesn’t want a non-African, Western group to station troops inside it. You could get African Union troops…maybe. Of course there is genocide in Darfur, and it is an appropriate debate to question whether the US military should involve itself. But to station NATO troops inside, we’d better be prepared to declare war on the government of the Sudan to accomplish it.
If so, I apologize, since I value your thoughts, though we may disagree. I thought you were suggesting that we should wait for genocidal governments to “invite in” outside interveners. I believe 2005 UN R2P (Responsibility to Protect) places the burden of responsibility on all of us, as “Bystander nations” to act to protect the victims of genocide.
<
p>My point is perhaps the same as yours – if the world is to stop the genocide now (clearly there has been little success by current & conventional means) we must be willing to directly and militarily address the Sudanese government; perhaps we disagree on how direct a role the US should play. I don’t believe the world should “wait” for the perpetrators of genocide to welcome in forces whose object is to end that genocide. The US failed to act when Pol Pot (with the support of lo! China) engaged in the mass murder of millions of Cambodians. Genocide ended when Vietnam invaded. The US failed to act when Hutus massacred Tutsis, it ended when Paul Kagame and his forces militarily routed the Hutus. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands and millions of innocent women, men, and children were massacred while the world ignored or dithered.
<
p>I strongly encourage you to read the Atlantic article by Samantha Power, Bystanders to Genocide, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc…
<
p>I believe it’s one of the best encapsulations of how good people and good governements, through omission or comission, enable genocide.
…but on the other hand if we’re looking at declaring war on the Sudan, then that’s what we should be open about.
<
p>I cannot conceive that NATO would be welcome in the Sudan, but I can believe that the African Union and/or Arab League would. If — and this is a big if — those organizations can maintain the peace with the acceptance of the government, I find that an improvement over NATO entering, guns blazing. I do believe that some of this will depend on who the next president is…the Sudanese government has made clear that it does not want to work with Barack Obama, whereas they’re comfortable working with Bill Richardson and Joe Biden.
You’re right, I should have been clearer about my view on military action in Sudan. Point taken.
<
p>The AU has been a failure in Darfur. al-Bashir, notoriously makes promises, then reneges. I have little confidence in the AU based on its record in Darfur.
<
p>President al-Bashir hates Susan Rice (a severe critic of his), so I am not surprised he says he won’t work with Barack Obama. One thing to say so when Barack Obama is a junior Senator from Illinois, another when he is President of the United States of America. I don’t place much faith in the words of al-Bashir (a genocidal bully and a coward), he has a history of never keeping his word.
<
p>First, since you admit that Hillary Clinton thought President Bill Clinton should have acted and told him so back when the genocide was happening, it is a little disingenuous to say “it appears to me that Clinton has learned no lessons…” in regards to Rawanda. Or were you referring to Pres. Bill Clinton? (Also, I am just perplexed by your statement, “The critical difference between Clinton and Obama, I believe, is Rwanda.” Does that mean Sen. Obama would not have urged President Bill Clinton to intercede?)
<
p>Second, if you had looked just a little at what Hillary Clinton has done, you would realize that your statement,
is just plain wrong. For example, she was a co-sponsor of Senate Resolution 276 which called for,
I do not see Sen. Obama’s name on the list of sponsors.
<
p>What I meant, and I apologize if I was not clear, my fault, is this:
<
p>Bill Clinton (despite Hillary Clinton’s correct entreaties) failed to act in Rwanda. He later apologized to the survivors of that genocide, after his term ended, on a trip to Rwanda, saying he “didn’t know” (this, of course conflicts with Hillary Clinton’s statements about her conversation with Bill on Rwanda). What I meant was that her instincts were right on Rwanda, but she was unable to convince her husband (and if we accept Mickey Kantor’s statements on her NAFTA clout, or Bill Clinton’s on his campaign statements about how Hillary Clinton was as influential as a co-President) to act militarily as he did in Bosnia – Hillary Clinton regrets this failure to act. So my question about “lessons” is this, if she was privy to the impact of a Presidential failure to intereven to stop the genocide in Rwanda, why would she not be more forceful in supporting uni- or bi-lateral military action in Sudan (like Bosnia)to end the genocide. I understand the political implications are onerous. Bill Clinton, to his credit, took the heat for ordering military action to intervene in Bosnia to stop the genocide there. The lessons of Rwanda have clearly not been lost on Barack Obama who counts in his inner circle of advisors: Tony Lake, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, arguably the world’s leading authority on genocide and a severe critic of the Clinton administration (specifically targeting Tony Lake and Susan Rice) for their acts of omission in enabling the Rwandan genocide. Based on her Rwanda experience, I would wish Hillary Clinton were more forceful on what it will truly take to end the genocide.
<
p>Your suggestion that co-sponsorship of a good Senate resolution which “called for” an “urgent deployment” of a “peacekeeping mission” is “doing something” about Darfur is technically true but not the same as acting to stop the genocide in Darfur. (My criticism on this is not limited to Hillary Clinton, Americans reassure ourselves that we are doing something to stop genocide when we pass meaningless legislation. It’s a balm of sorts for guilt, I think.) The resolution had no teeth (as time has so proven). I don’t know if you did, but I have actually read S. Res 276 which was Joe Biden’s resolution to which Clinton, and others co-sponsored; one shouldn’t mistake authorship or joint-authorship with co-sponsorship, but co-sponsorship is always welcome, I applaud her for her willingness to help Joe Biden.
<
p>
<
p>The resolution was submitted July 19, 2007. It calls and asks the UN and al-Bashir and George Bush to do many things. Among many, it asks George Bush to hold President al-Bashir “accountable” for his repeated refusal to keep his agreements on AU peacekeepers, on any of his other UN or international “agreements.” Let me know how effective this resolution or any of the other resolutions offered by American legislators so far have really been to end genocide in Sudan.
<
p>When you correctly quoted me and criticized as inaccurate:
<
p>
<
p>I would agree that I was not terribly clear, since that sentenced is based on my (unshared) premise that the only way to end genocide in Sudan is by direct US military action (per Bosnia) but, I correctly stated she refuses to commit. I, of course, respect your right to disagree with the rightness of my view that military action to end genocide is one of the few right reasons to use military action. I suspect I may hold a minority view in the US on this.
<
p>In my opinion, we declared war on Iraq for reasons less legitimate that the genocide in Darfur. Hillary Clinton (as she said in the debate, she would have taken that vote back) made the wrong decision about Iraq, I hope she will make the right one on Darfur to end the genocide there.
<
p>Again, I apologize for my lack of clarity in my earlier post. Thank you for closely reading enough to critique and disagree.
While I appreciate all the links and comments about Darfur, I guess my point was I find it fascinating that Obama brings together disparate people even in his inner circle, which I think bodes well for the best mix of experience, world view, and most importantly, advice.
who gave a speech to say how wrong the war was in 2002, and then did absolutely nothing while in the Senate other than to continue to fund the war where 4000 Americans lost their lives what does that say about his judgment and wisdom?
allowed Bush to get us stuck in Iraq it is not so simple to just cut off funds. You know that. And the Dems have tried to set timetables for withdrawal and they were blocked. The most fundamental decision a president can make is whether or not to use force. Clinton’s vote on Iraq showed she has poor judgement on this critical matter.
<
p>If a candidate runs on experience – than she should be judged by her past. She can’t walk away from this one.
George Bush had crappy judgment. I am concerned that Obama does not understand the distinction between having the force available if necessary during international negotiations (what the vote made possible) and deciding to use that force when it becomes unnecessary (what George Bush did). Does he understand negotiations at all? Or does he think he can persuade on the basis of his words alone?
Why did everyone vote for the Democratic party in 2006 again? You can’t just forget about the past. Obama as you well know, did nothing but say that he understands why someone who vote for the Iraq resolution in 2004, and sat on his hands until Iraq was going so badly it was politically expedient to attack Bush on Iraq. He didn’t talk about Iraq until 2006.
Ahhhh, leadership!
That is undeniable – he made speeches on it, he was Chicago local TV saying it was a bad idea. That is good judgement. Better than Hillary’s.
<
p>And we won in 2006 because people were sick of the war.
Bill he introduced
<
p>Floor Speech
<
p>Another speech
<
p>Another
<
p>Another
<
p>Another
<
p>Yet another
<
p>And, of course, Here is his well-known 2002 speech, which preceded the
rushtowarAuthorization vote.Check out the dates of those speeches. Thanks for re-enforcing my point. November 2005 is the earliest you can find. He’s going out on a limb there huh? Did you even read what I posted? For god sakes, try that first.
You’ve said that what Obama said prior to joining the Senate doesn’t count because he wasn’t in the Senate. Then you say we should discount speeches and bills prior to 2006, because at that point it was politically expedient. So that basically leaves less than a year’s window and, even then, I did show you a speech from Fall ’05.
<
p>How about the 2004 DNC Keynote Speech? Is that relevant?
<
p>How about these excerpts from various 2005 newspaper articles:
<
p>You can keep moving the goal-line all you want- only one of the remaining candidates has been against this war since before that ill-fated October 2002 vote.
I said his speech in 2002 is meaningless because of his Senate actions. I also said that he sat on his hands and did nothing in the Senate in 2004 and 2005 until is was politically expedient in 2006. You give noting to offset that. What in his speech in 2004 gives you anything to say what he’s saying now. I keep on asking the freakin question and get nothing. What did he do in the Senate? Moving goal posts, what. I’m asking one question and getting nothing!
<
p>Want to get me a non-linked quote from a Nursing Home Luncheon? Hey, I got an idea, what about the Senate?
He wasn’t in the Senate in 2004. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You understand that, right? Nice come back though, very factual.
Your exact quote was “…did nothing in the Senate in 2004 and 2005.” Obama wasn’t in the Senate in 2004 and you’ve already ruled that anything pre-Senate was inadmissable.
<
p>I would suggest you start from the top and read all of your meandering posts. Then, please get back to us exactly what you are looking for and which forums/dates are acceptable, because apparently anything said from 2002-2004 and from 2006-Present or at a constituent Town Hall meeting in 2005 is not relevant.
I did put 2004 – 2005 at the beginning of my comment. I did refer to his 2004 speech though.
<
p>
<
p>He wasn’t sworn in until January 2005.
<
p>I am in no way saying that Hillary has any strength here, she is in an awful position with Iraq.
<
p>But with Obama I don’t think it’s a strength either. Obama campaigned early as an anti-war candidate he then backed off his stance to the point that he removed his 2002 speech from his web site. He softened his position and said that he understood why Kerry and Edwards would vote for the Iraq war. At the time he blamed Bush for misinformation rather than them having poor judgment. As a Senator what has he really done before 2006 when it was politically expedient. You point to a speech at some forum in Chicago, the some DTC meetings. This is the best his campaign can come up with? There is nothing on the Senate floor, being a leader, the anti-war candidate and what not, why because of some kind Senate etiquette? That’s a poor reason. Our solders are dying over there. I’m sorry, I’m not buying it. It’s not his finest hour. He does have an anti-Iraq war background, but he’s cherry picking it now to somehow show that he always held a hard line when in fact it’s just the opposite.
I don’t agree, but I see your point.
<
p>However, I will point out that one of the speeches I linked above is a Senate floor speech from Nov ’05. To expect a Freshman Senator in his first in office to have more than 1-2 floor speeches on any given issue is a bit unrealistic.
<
p>That said, I will concede that they both could have done much more.
They are both a hell of a lot better than John “100 Years” McCain.
So you are really gonna be critical that Obama waited 10 months before speaking on Iraq in his first year. I’d say for a freshman Senator in his first year in that place (a place traditionally where freshman are supposed to be seen and not heard and you wait your turn before having the right to speak up) Obama was pretty quick off the mark.
<
p>Ridiculous criticisms. I guess he should have been swron in and immediately taken to the floor. As Hillary would say – get real!
That’s why Obama bravely stood on the floor of the Senate, day after day, filibustering the spending bills until a peaceful withdrawal from Iraq was completed. He kept finding way after way to try to stop the war.
<
p>…oh wait, that didn’t happen? Hmmm.
Let’s see that quote again:
<
p>
<
p>GWB didn’t screw up due to inexperience. He relied on neocon ideology for his foreign policy decisions. It’s fair game for Clinton to question Obama’s experience, but to intimate that his foreign policy would be anything like GWB’s is really disingenuous.
And to intimate that Clinton’s would be anything like Bush’s is equally disingenuous.
Bush did a lot of things without considering contrary arguments or evidence because he “knew” he was right. I see the same tendency in the Obama camp: they know what is right. It just so happens that they know the right thing is exactly the opposite of what Bush knows is right.
<
p>I am exceedingly skeptical of ideological True Believer foreign policy, regardless of the ideology. Bush knew that if we invaded here and there, everything would be better. Obama beleives that if he visits every single bad guy in the world and does some hoping, everything will be better. While Obama’s beliefs will be an improvement, it is not clear that it will be adequate for the repair job that awaits the next POTUS.
What has led you to think that other than that you are trying desperately to find any reason to not like Obama. No proof. No facts. Just bull. You put words in his mouth – like when did he say he will visit every bad guy and it will all be better. He just said that he won’t refuse to meet our enemies without a presumptious list of preconditions. That is it. Don’t make up stuff about it.
<
p>And you mean to tell mean that a President Obama will not capture the attention of the world in a way no president has ever before. He already is. People have tuned into this race all over the world because they are marvelling at this new and different voice. If we elect a black guy named Obama it could have a massive impact on how America is perceived globally – and I do think he has the skills the inspire publics across the world to look differently and more favorably at our country – he’s inspiring people here in record numbers and that is a good thing.
<
p>He has more potential to win hearts and minds and if you choose not to believe that you are just mired in cynicism.
<
p>
I think you are True Believers because 99.997% of what emanates from his mouth is puff. “Hope” “Yes, We Can” They mean everything to everyone, so everyone gets sweaty in their pants when they hear it delivered in a nice baritone. Trouble is, we have been around this bend in Massachusetts, and we know that when this sort of overblown, “let’s change politics” schtick hits reality, reality wins, bigtime.
As I recounted after the YouTube debate, Obama has well set up his foreign policy schedule. American presidents pretty much have to separately hit Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Britain in their first year, and Obama has promised to meet one-on-one with Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela.
<
p>That’s eight meetings with heads of state, plus the semi-mandatory UN General Assembly, NATO, ASEAN, G8 and other summits. Obama has lined up at least 12 foreign policy commitments in his first year. That’s not a realistic foreign policy either.
Let’s not be silly. Please show me where Obama “promised to meet one-on-one with Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela.” I’d love to see that.
Surprised you didn’t hear about the YouTube debate…
<
p>linkadinakdoo right here.
<
p>Note: user has disabled embedding.
I’ve seen that debate. I’ve read the transcript. There’s quite a leap from “I would be willing” to “promised” but I suppose that’s not as fun is it?
…when one of these takes him up on it, what then? From 0 (no) to 100 (promise), where is “willing” on the scale of Obamaese?
<
p>If I were Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il, I would love the chance to meet with President Obama. Those two are more clever and shrewd than any American politician, much less somebody still trying to find his way through the first year.
“Willing” is not “promise.” But if the situation were to arise, it sounds to me that Obama will consider both the motive and the potential of such a proposal and not reject it out of hand. I, personally, don’t think that’s a bad thing.
“Willing” and “without pre-condition” will become “not willing” and “except under certain circumstances” and the original statement will not be, you know, not true?
The candidates were asked at last night’s debate if there were any words or votes they could have back. HRC responded as she has in the past that she regrets her vote on this authorization and its consequences. She added that if she knew then what she knows now she would not have voted for it. When Tim Russert, in one of his “gotcha” moments, asked if that clearly meant she would take that back, Clinton forcefully answered in the affirmative. What more do you all want since actual time-travel to fix it is not possible? I must say I’m completely unimpressed by the argument that a quarter of the Senate saw things differently. Like Mike Huckabee I did not major in math, but I’m pretty sure that means about three-quarters voted the way she did. Citing the wisdom of one-quarter of the Senate is like saying a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court should be considered precedent.
while the other 75% of the Senate (and the nation at large, pretty much) were dazed and confused by propaganda and fear-mongering. The fact that Bush was re-elected in 2004 shows that we are really a nation dominated by fools, cowards, and the apathetic. The defining image of the decline in American values, for me, is the Fidelity/Ameriprise commercials with ex-hippies piloting their yachts around and fussing over their stock portfolios. Meanwhile, we’re back in Vietnam again.
.. to follow an inspiring young politician with almost no foreign policy experience in solving the problem…… How do you think we got into Vietnam in the first place????
<
p>Just comments from one of those 25% ex hippy types who took time off from piloting his yacht to check my local Blog. Oh well off to my broker.
But what is hard to accept from her is speeches where she proclaims to be so experienced and wise but obviously did not show that in her vote on Iraq, the biggest one in her Senate career.
<
p>And your Vietnam comment is off base. Kennedy started us in Vietnam because he was pressed to follow the conventional wisdom on the domino effect and the need to fight communism in every place on every front to prevent its spread. He was sadly afraid to buck that conventional wisdom and look soft on communism – he listened too much to those with experience and didn’t have the sack to challenge it (although it is unclear whether he would kept up the escalation).
<
p>In Iraq, the conventional wisdom said to attack and Hillary went along with the majority on that. It was experienced people who said do it and she was sadly too afraid or convinced that they and the so-called intelligence were correct. On this, Kennedy and Clinton are more analogous that Kennedy and Obama. Tell me I’m wrong on that and why…
<
p>Now she regrets it. But for the 4,000 dead Americans over there there is no redos on this one.