Obama Memo Presses The Point: He's The Real Change Agent On Foreign Policy
Take a look at this memo that top Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power has just sent out about the Pakistan and no-nuke controversies to "interested parties" (read: reporters and pundits).
In it, she seeks to turn the current controversies over his foreign policy remarks into a larger story -- that the remarks prove he represents a clean break with the assumptions now driving the D.C. foreign policy establishment.
If you read it, you can see that one of the key challenges the Obama campaign faces in making this argument is to get people to see his initial opposition to the war as of a piece with a broader set of differences Obama may have with that establishment -- and to link that initial war opposition to the current Obama positions in a coherent way.
In a sense, Obama is using the controversy to now run against that establishment, using it as a foil, and turning his campaign into an indictment of it and of what he's arguing is a failed foreign policy status quo.
"Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq," the memo says. "Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong."
And:
"Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want...Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change."
Full memo after the jump.
It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.
Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”
Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.
Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.
On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.
Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:
* The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
* The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
* The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.
By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.
Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:
* Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
* Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
* Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.
By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.
Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.
Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.
Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.
Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.
Update: It's worth singling out this quote:
"It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America’s prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it."
The implication here, of course, is that either you agree with Obama, or you're proposing that said bombs be dropped on Pakistan. That seems like a stretch at best -- in my reading, Hillary was making a more general point about nuclear deterrence theory, not advocating in favor of such bombing. Whichever side you take here, this seems obvious.
His Pakistan position just seems contrived, and his nuclear statement, while not necessarily a flub, looks like he didn't know what message he wanted to send. He seems to have given three reposnes in as many sentances.
If he's serious about rooting Al Qaeda out of Pakistan it would require more than a couple of cruise missile strikes, it would require a substantial ground presence, which would be unstainable without Pakistan's agreement. He needs to stop playing politics with national security quite so nakedly.
August 3, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who would be interested in reading something about Barack Obama and foreign policy?? That doesn't typically get much response, does it?
The part that resonated most with me was:
August 3, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the other candidates ought to be talking about their plans for Al Qaeda in as much detail as Obama has done.
People can object to his plan, but he's the only one out there who has put something down for reaction.
August 3, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of things military:
[pre-emptive strike]
Posting this just proves to me that you are an Obama bot and a Hillary hater Greg!
[/pre-emptive strike] :-)
I like the press release.
Sounds about right to me.
I support neither Hillary nor Obama but I do think Hillary should have apologized for her vote 'cause if she was dumb enough to fall for that stuff then she ain't smart enough to be President.
August 3, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he was asked a specific question and he gave a specific answer. I don't see how that is "playing politics with national security" any more than anyone else's statements.
August 3, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear!
August 3, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is good marketing.
but more often than not when it really comes down to the actual policies and the criticisms that have been made of obama's agenda (or at least how that agenda has been articulated), the explanations i encounter always result in the candidates being the same.
issue: preconditions/diplomacy. axelrod first says the candidates are the same. then there's a big difference, and then bill speaks and they're the same again, and nobody in the obama camp says bill is wrong.
issue: pakistan and osama bin laden. first everyone say "omg!! he wants to invade pakistan." the obama people say "no. that's wrong. that's not what he said. and look at what hillary and edwards has said. see. they're all the same."
issue: nukes. there still could be a difference here, i guess. obama has taken nukes off the table. but that means not only off the table as a course of action but ALSO AS a deterrent. the other candidates have poo poo'd him speaking about that issue in cavalier terms. but again. on this issue. are they all really any different?
this is a marketing thing that essentially attempts to repackage the run up to the iraq war as the one thing that can take the obama campaign to the next level.
in any case, i see him trying to market himself as different, being the washington outsider always pays off, especially now that opinion of washington is so dismal across the board, but every time we end up talking about a specific issue (aside from the run up to the iraq war, and even then what to do now, alas, they're all the same, except edward might be more aggressively for defunding) i'm going to bet the obama folks, once they clarify their position, are going to keep falling back on "they're all the same."
August 3, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
His "Pakistan Plan" is not serious, it is "serious" in the worst way IMO. It rattles the saber while threatening an impractical military "solution." Most of the candidates support striking Al Qaeda's leaders in Pakistan if we get a chance, but that is highly unlikely to solve the issue. In part because our chances of getting a good shot at them aren't that great, and certainly not the bulk of their leadership.
Pressuring Pakistan to do more is correct, and the policy of the Democratic Party as a whole. But publicly rattling the saber about some, fairly unlikely, hypothetical violation of their terriory, is very bad diplomacy and makes much harder for Pakistan to cooperate with us.
August 3, 2007 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'd phrase it more as "there's not much difference".
With the exception of the Iraq ware. Which, of course, happens to be a huge difference--but on the other issues? I don't think there's much. However, as I've whined before, and will whine again, it's hard to say, because Obama is putting stuff out on the table, and everyone else is reacting to it, rather than putting their own stuff out there.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with you. Black is white. Up is down. War is peace.
Or, it's a hot Friday afternoon.
August 3, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pakistanis are burning US flags. I don't think Obama's message of getting the rest of the world with us is resonating.
August 3, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, the point I was trying to make is that Obama has something out there. The rest of the candidates are taking potshots at it without offering a plan themselves.
And the whole "Obama wants to invade Pakistan" meme that has now grown up is just disgraceful, and a crappy mischaracterization of what he actually said.
None of the candidates should allow that kind of crap to go unchecked. It only hurts everyone in the long run.
August 3, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a matter of Clinton playing chess and Obama playing checkers. Clinton did not make her statement because she actually intends to use nukes. You have to be foolish to really believe that. No, she was probably drawing Obama into this.
On the flip side, Obama probably has some polling data to suggest that its worth pushing another fake disagreement. But Obama's strategy now appears pretty obvious, while Clinton just seems to be playing with him. I'm not quite sure what Clinton's strategy is, but it seems like Obama's campaign is doing much to follow Clinton's script.
Really, Clinton using nukes? Seriously? Sorry, but only Hillary-Haters think that is even reasonable. I don't mind either one as nominee (though I trust Clinton more), really. But it seems to me that Clinton is stringing Obama along. I think this is political calulation on both sides so it will be interesting to see what turns out of this. But I think Obama has more riding on this than Clinton. He should tread carefully.
August 3, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very smart to address the "naive" criticisms head on and to turn the criticism into a sort of compliment.
I'm not convinced this is new policy, though. It's new language. But it's not as if Hillary Clinton is actually going to nuke anybody.
The hardest criticism of her here is the oldest. She was wrong on the war. It's worth reminding people of that, though. It's my biggest problem with her.
Still, the whole argument leaves me feeling it's a lot more about semantics than policy at this point.
I guess that's because the issue here is less about specifics than about what types of people the candidates are. Is Hillary the type to repeat her Iraq mistake? Is Obama the type who will reliably avoid one?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 3, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least, according to Fox News and Freepers.
When I tried to find an actual story that said Pakistanis were burning American flags in response to Obama, all I could actually find were stories of Pakistanis burning flags and effigies of George Bush.
Where'd you find the story that you're referring to?
August 3, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I think Clinton is doing, and Obama is all to williing to follow along with, is pointing out that, though they agree on most things, Clinton is the much more careful of the two rhetorically. You can say what you want about Obama's supposed plan to invade Pakistan, but his wording made the negative interpretation possible (though he was quite reasonable). That's what I think people are jumping on.
Just like Bush's "Bring 'em on" was a stupid thing to say, Clinton seems to be forcing the idea that Obama's political inexperience is leading to gross misinterpretations. And this is going to lead many to question Obama's ability to compete in a general election when such "gaffes" will have much greater consequences. Obama's statement here is a very defensive move.
If you're a campaign and you have to keep defending your positions you're in trouble. It doesn't matter how reasonable your positions are. You shouldn't have to defend everything you say.
August 3, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we all know it's Obama's fault that the entire world hates us and are burning flags.
August 3, 2007 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, Obama's speech writers press agents need to rescue him from having stepped into a big pile of his own making.
What's so terribly difficult about putting out a press release?
The fact remains that in the debates and interviews, when he is without a prepared text, he doesn't seem to know what he thinks and is unable to give a cogent answer.
August 3, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, though this is another media failure. We're getting stories about "who's right?" but not stories that say, "Uh... these two basically agree on everything, they just say it differently."
I'd like to see this whoile debate defused because I think it's misrepresenting both candidates, even though it says a lot about style.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 3, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually went and read the FoxNews piece (which was an AP article) and there is absolutely no mention of burning flags.
That "Pakistanis burning American flags" was a headline at the Freepers place.
According to the AP, 1000 tribesmen gathered to object to a possible invasion of Pakistan.
But no flagburning was mentioned.
And this is why the mischaracterization of what was said, while politically expedient for Freepers and opponents, is so freaking irresponsible.
August 3, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't know what will be inflamatory abroad you have no business being president.
If we had a clear shot at taking out the top rungs of Al Qaeda I doubt there is much that would stop us and if there was plausible deniability Musharraf would be grateful rather than otherwise.
But any nation is going to be outraged by an open claim that somebodyelse is going to conduct military operations over their objections.
August 3, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just the Pakistanis are burning flags now. I hope he is more careful not to get more countries mad at us.
August 3, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress."
The facts are just the opposite. This simply is not true. In other words its a lie. At least in this universe. Maybe in whatever universe or dimension or planet that ms. Samantha Power inhibits that happened. Here in this universe on this planet in this dimension it was completely the opposite.
Before the Iraq War Resolution was passed numerous senators and reps got the assurances they felt they needed not only from the president of the US but from the relevant people on his staff. The actual wording of the bill went through several changes because senators and reps were not going to give bush a blank check to invade Iraq. The president of the US said publicly several times invasion is a last resort. Cabinet members, high ranking officials are all on record as saying invasion is a last resort. Why? Because congress made them. Just the opposite of what happened in Power's world.
It really is sad to see someone like Power lie like that. Bald faced, you are a rube I can say anything and you will believe it, lie. Just like the republicans do. Very sad. Bush threw out the UN inspectors. What doesn’t ms Power understand about that?
Did that happen in her dimension? Was her president on record saying "last resort"? Cabinet members and high ranking officials all saying publicly ‘last resort.’ In her world did the congress pressure and get her president on record saying last resort? In Power's world "majorities in both houses of Congress" were in a "rush to invade Iraq." What planet was she on? Here on earth things were much different.
And I went back and checked the roll call vote on that. And One Trick Pony’s name is not on it. Seems Obama didn’t vote no or yes on the bill. Hmmmm…. Seems to me if your FP cred hinges on how other people voted on a bill you didn’t have to vote on maybe having a bald faced liar front you FP is a good idea.
August 3, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're totally right about semantics. And what I suspect Clinton is doing is highlighting Obama's "inexperienced tongue" that can lead to problems when there really shouldn't be. Whatever the case, Obama is having to defend way too many statements.
Even if you really like Obama, you have to realize you're in trouble when you're having to defend so many things. There was such a long reply by Powers and no one is going to really digest all of that. The Obama camp has to get out of this defensive mode. He seems to be doing well in Iowa, NH and SC so whatever he's doing there needs to translate to what everyone else is seeing.
August 3, 2007 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
AP Aug. 3: Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks in Karachi, Pakistan.
August 3, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link, please, to the Pakistanis burning flags in response to Obama's comments.
Please provide a link, or, stop echoing Freeper comments.
August 3, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_PAKISTAN?SITE=TNCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-08-03-06-03-40
August 3, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that AP story is interesting.
People were protesting both Obama and Tancredo.
Someone better tell Tancredo to stop making people mad.
August 3, 2007 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Bush.
August 3, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I normally defend Clinton, I'll defend Obama this time. I opposed this war from the outset. Hell, I was at protests before the AUMF vote took place and there were very few people. I have a clip from an LTE I wrote to my campus paper because the head of the campus GOP group called us "anti-American", "pro-Saddam", etc. It did take courage to come out against the war back then. Obama deserves credit for that big step.
I do have to agree with you on the fact that Congresscritters felt assured that we wouldn't go into war. I don't consider AUMF a vote for war in and of itself. A lot of the people who voted for it were quite adamant that they felt this would give the president diplomatic power so that we wouldn't have to go to war. I can see that point. And after reading Hans Blix's book about the inspections, I've concluded that that vote was probably necessary to get inspectors back into Iraq. So, the AUMF vote accomplished what it set out to do but Bush acted in bad faith (and will ultimately be held responsible).
I don't expect Clinton to apologize for Bush's idiocy. He changed the rules after AUMF. It went from letting inspectors inspect to Hussein having to leave the country. That was never part of the plan. Bush lied and my scorn is aimed at him and his administration.
August 3, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain how Pelosi led a majority of Democrats in the House to vote correctly on this resolution. Explain how 21 Democratic Senators--joined by two non-Democrats--also made the right vote in the Senate.
The result was that a majority of Congressional Democrats opposed kicking the can of war down the road so Bush could make the final decision. That majority is the only reason I remain a Democrat.
But let's not obscure that we are over-represented with candidates for the nomination who were Democrats who voted for this resolution. The more interesting question is why that occurred.
I would rather have Pelosi as a female candidate than Clinton. Pelosi had it right; Clinton did not. In Pelosi's absence, I will go with Obama--who was right on the Iraq War, not wrong.
August 3, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say that on multiple counts, the Powers depiction of establishment consensus is tortured beyond all recognition.
August 3, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_re_as/obama_pakistan
August 3, 2007 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did not have to vote and that is why he can take the high moral ground on this issue. But, if he was in the Senate at that time, you better believe he would have voted the same way Hillary and John did. You know why? Because in the end Obama is a politician just like the rest of the bunch. Obama changes his stance from day to day on whatever the political environment is that day. One day he wants to be with the wingnuts and the next day he wants to be with the super liberal. He is confused and has proved he is not ready to be president.
August 3, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, his wording did not make it possible to say he wanted to invade Pakistan.
That's just false.
His wording was that if we have actionable intelligence on high-value targets in Pakistan and Pakistan won't act, we will.
Very careful rhetoric and the correct policy (which, btw, Clinton agreed with before she disagreed with it).
He also didn't say that it would solve the issue, and it was a small part of his overall speech and overall approach to foreign policy. If Pakistan doesn't like it, they should start cooperating with us more.
August 3, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't take Obama's pre-war stance to be worth anything because he didn't have to vote on it, regardless of what he said at the time or now. But, politician though he may be, he's not nearly as bad as you imply. I think he does have principles and has been fairly consistent in a pragmatic way.
I don't think he's been in enough circumstances to have his political will tested under pressure which is why he's near the bottom on my list of candidates. But I have no reason to think he's unprincipled. I like him personally so far.
August 3, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument only makes sense if you assume from the get-go that Obama is some unprincipled, lying politician. And you make the argument to prove that...Obama is some unprincipled, lying politician. In logic, they call that a "vicious circle" or "begging the question." Its not very impressive, and what's more, it doesn't change the minds of anyone who doesn't already share your assumptions.
August 3, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, the people over at first read on msnbc are going apeshit over this memo, in a good way:
I'm gonna ignore the praise ones to focus on these:
August 3, 2007 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Axelrod didn't say that the candidates are the same on diplomacy. He pointed out that obviously meeting without preconditions didn't mean hopping on the first flight to Tehran without laying any groundwork for the meeting.
Look at North Korea. Nothing happened, we wouldn't talk, they wouldn't agree, then we decided to talk and finally worked out a deal. It took a long time, but it happened. It's probably not going to be perfect, but it's better than sitting here and refusing to talk while they continue to develop and test their nukes.
You are wrong on nukes. In context, what Obama said was that he wouldn't use tactical nukes on terrorists in Pakistan. He didn't say we won't have nukes for deterrence.
Clinton said you don't talk about their use or non-use. But of course, that is not the case, b/c in some situations we do in fact take their use off the table.
August 3, 2007 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they shouldn't harbor al-Qaeda then.
It's easy for Pakistani secret service to put together a crowd to demonstrate against the U.S. and burn flags.
But you better believe the Pakistani authorities sat up and paid attention, and they are going to figure out how to cooperate with us to prevent a repeat of 2005, when we had an opportunity to eliminate high-ranking members of al-Qaeda in Pakistan but did not b/c of Musharraf, if Obama gets elected President.
August 3, 2007 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can say what you want about Obama's supposed plan to invade Pakistan, but his wording made the negative interpretation possible (though he was quite reasonable).
See, it's times like this I wish I had my Alternative Universe Machine working. Because if I did, I could go and see the debate where Obama gave the OPPOSITE answer, and, yet, Clinton would have found a way to call him inexperienced.
And I think you're pointing this out, maybe, though not as directly. The thing is, it's not that "his wording" makes these attacks possible. It's that these attacks play in to the narrative that Clinton is trying to ascribe to Obama.
His actual wording has very little to do with it -- he could say the most perfectly careful things, and it won't matter. The Clinton camp has their playbook set, we've all seen it in action more than once.
In fact, you called it perfectly: "...forcing the idea that Obama's political inexperience is leading to gross misinterpretations. And this is going to lead many to question Obama's ability to compete in a general election..."
This is also a perfectly dumbed-down news media narrative that Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer will just eat right up.
I do agree with you, that Obama should not also be in the rhetorically defensive position, but that has much more to do with his campaign's inability to go on the offensive against Clinton (using an equally perfectly dumbed-down news media narrative that Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer will just eat right up), than anything around his actual wording of statements or responses.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
August 3, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't know what her strategy is, then how do you have any clue who is being played?
No one is saying she is going to use nukes. That's a straw man.
She just won't be specific with regard to any situations in which she might use them, even hypothetically.
That's more Shut-Up-and-Trust-Us governing, and I'm sick of it.
August 3, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, that's why all the focus groups said that he won the last debate.
August 3, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's happening is that Obama is taking positions, while Hillary is not.
That allows Hillary to sit back and try to take pot shots. Obama could say the sky is blue and Hillary would say that pointing out the color of the sky is a mistake only a naive and inexperienced candidate would make.
Her criticisms are that bogus. He's not having to defend anything of substance. He's just restating them to prevent her from further distorting them instead of putting forward any sort of plan of her own.
August 3, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
mopper, this is a blog. Things like "logic" and "sense" play no role here.
:-)
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
August 3, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really disappointed yet again. Power lied. She mischaracterized what happened so badly there is nothing else to call it.
Power:
"The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by... majorities in both houses of Congress."
The congress didn't rush to invade. Just the opposite. I have to assume Obama read and approved that. I don't know but I'd guess he did. Disappointing. Round and round the congress went rewriting the resolution, getting bush and other high ranking officials on record. And now here is an Obama's FP guru lying about what happened. Or maybe she just doesn't know what happened? Neither way works for me.
Power:
"Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong."
You:
“It did take courage to come out against the war back then.”
Lots of people said rushing in to war in Iraq was wrong and stupid. Hillary Clinton did. An FP expert that does not make.
Sure he gets a pulse. Does that mean he has the judgment to be president? I’d question his judgment regarding Power putting out lies in his name. A really ugly lie to. One that tries to rewrite history and trash dem members of congress. That is a minus bigger than the plus he gets for opposing the Iraq war resolution.
August 3, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was in a race for Senate already when he took the position against invading Iraq.
It looked at the time like he would have a very popular, handsome, young, charismatic and well funded GOP candidate against him in the general election.
Saying that he took that stance without the exact same potential political consequences as sitting Senators is just absolutely incredibly wrong.
Get the basic facts straight before posting here.
August 3, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so right. What Barack stated was distorted and spun by the media into a negative message. Which is a clear indication of how biased MSM is in terms of who they want as the front runner.
Obama is right we do not need soundbite Presidents. The status quo is wrong and no matter how clear their conventional wisdom soundbites are America is worse off for it. Look at what is going on now. Nothing of substance is being discussed it is simply a word of wars the way pundits are spinning this.
With all due respect to gqmarinez, I do not want a great campaigner for President. I want an individual who can excerise sound judgment when it matters. Not one who looks for calculated spins to win cheap political points when we are talking about this countrys national security.
August 3, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And cartoonists.
August 3, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
link
PS, if you're not aware, it's easy to make bloggy-looking links here. Highlight the words you want to link, click the little chain-link icon thing below the text box, paste in the link in the URL section, hit OK.
August 3, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? Are you from a different planet? This makes absolutely no sense.
If Clinton didn't want to rush to war, she would have voted for the Levin amendment, which required going back the UN before invading Iraq.
Just b/c you like her, stop going overboard. We all know what happened, how it happened, and what side she was on.
August 3, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This resonated a lot with me:
August 3, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton did not make her statement because she actually intends to use nukes. You have to be foolish to really believe that.
After Bush, haven't we had enough of saying things like, "You'd have to be foolish to believe [insert politician's name here] would do [insert latest atrocity committed in the name of the American people here]"?
I know that comes off like I'm comparing Clinton to Bush, or that I'm implying she'd commit the kind of atrocities we've seen under Bush. I'm not saying that, and of course she, or any other Dem, would never be like Bush.
But isn't that the excuse of like half of the politicians who voted for the war? That they never thought Bush would go to war without checking in with Congress, blah blah blah?
I'm just sayin', I think a bit more cynicism is in order, across the board. Not taking politicians at face value is a dangerous thing.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
August 3, 2007 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank thee, Lord, for one favor.
The MSM is right and for once destor is wrong. Even the best are wrong at times - except for me. LOL!
The difference between obama and Hillary is the difference between night and day.
Obama is right - er, left. Hillary represents the old way.
It is not just that she voted for the war but she voted for the Patriot Act that destroyed civil liberties and she paid no heed as torture was used and American citizens were little better off than the most extreme terrorists. Maybe they were worse off because terrorists had their governments fighting for them; Americans, innocent or guilty, had their government as their captor and torturer.
Hillary does not want to end the occupation of Iraq; Obama does.
Hillary thinks that it is not right to talk to foreign leaders who might use the talks for propaganda. Hillary says it is not right to say you will go after bin Laden and al Queda whereever they hide but it is also wrong to say you won't use nuclear missiles to attack terrorists in a foreign country.
Obama has said lots of things I disagree with but when did he speak that sort of nonsense - and worse?
Best, Terry
August 3, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton thinks she is playing chess, she is seriously overmatched when her opponent has her saying that she would Nuke terrorists. She is the only one looking foolish. She is triggerhappy to refute whatever Obama says and that makes her look fickle, overreative, indecisive and just plain irresponsible. Not Presidential at all. She comes across as a cheap political operative. Obama hasn't been playing checkers since calling her BushCheney lite...and Hillary true to form keeps making Cheney statements with 'no options off the table'. Obama is making her 'sophisticated experience' look like nothing more than neon glowing rhetioric.
August 3, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
All three of those posters are Nuke 'em Hillary clones...they blast the boards daily with all Hillarys talking points it is just so friggin obvious.
They can't see how foolish Hillary looks by continuing this spat with Barack. No one is buying her 'inexperience' meme...she is the one showing how inexperienced she is with this policy flap over nothing.
The bottomline is that Hillary has whatever stance the polls say is the winning one, she will flip flop according to tested messages daily...Obama is the only one putting forth a substantive FP , just like he has a universal health plan and Hillary doesn't.
Hillary's bad judgment becomes more apparent daily. Smart lady but she lacks the ability to judge when to use a nuke and when to talk and to make matters worst she actually Believed GWBush.
It is time to turn the page. Hillary is the status quo. Hillary is BushCheney lite. Hillary was against nukes before she was for them. If only she had known then what she knows now.
How much of this flying in the wind nonsense do we have to put up with. Heck most folks know when they have dug a hole to put the shovel down. Hillary just keeps digging.
aaaarggh!
August 3, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Just b/c you like her, stop going overboard. We all know what happened, how it happened, and what side she was on."
If you read what Power wrote then we don't all know what happened and how it happened. Or else Obama knowing let a liar lie for him.
Earth to you:
In her October 10, 2002, floor speech on the resolution to use military force against Iraq, Clinton specifically explained why she rejected the idea of mandating that the president obtain approval from the UN Security Council [The Levin Amendment] before launching a military attack:
CLINTON: Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706220010
August 3, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
O please this is utterly illogical nonsense. Hillary should have taken the high moral ground because the vote was that monumentally important. Yet she failed to read the NIE report. She voted for the AUMF despite the ranking chairs on the Senate Intelligence and Senate Armed Svs's committee voting against it having read the NIE report. Obama did not have high moral ground then or now. What he had was sound judgment. Sound judgment that demands you stand up for your country and not lie down when a village idiot is ready to send citizens to die just so you can score political points and appear to be a war hawk.
This is even more ridiculous logic. Do you understand that 123 POLITICIANS did not vote for this war? They knew it was a DUMB war just like Obama. More importantly those with access to the classified NIE report understood there was no intelligence to support a pre-emptive strike. Being a politician was not the issue. The issue was character and courage of conviction, you know principles..like integrity honesty and judgment. to do what is right when it is time to repreent the American people you were elected to. Rather than put their personal ambitions ahead of the nations best interest.
Wrong politician. That is Hillary that changes. Remember she was for talking to rogue states before she was against it. She was not for nukes before she was for them. She was against the war until she cast her vote. In 2003 she went to Iraq with Joe Biden and called for sending in more troops. O yes, Hillary who claims if only she had known then what she knows now. Just call her Hillary 'what did the polls say today' Clinton.
August 3, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you have a more dishonest portrayal of this controversy?
Who has "propose[d] that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan"? Why, no one of course.
And this absurd, misrepresenting crap lands nothing but over-the-top praise from the Obamatons? What a big surprise.
August 3, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks mopper for the link. This one resonated with me:
August 3, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Nuke'em Clinton,
August 3, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where might be a link verifying this?
I'm sure you have one, of course.
August 3, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Gravy!
"no intelligence to support a pre-emptive strike"
Nobody in this world voted for a "pre-emptive strike." Maybe you live in the same world Power does?
Guess what the idea of putting UN inspectors back in Iraq was? No, not for a vacation. To see if there was reason for a pre-emptive strike. When they proved there wasn't reason for a pre-emptive strike bush threw them out. Then bush invaded. Now you and Powers can try to rewrite history and tar dems with bush war if you like. Fine.
August 3, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
August 3, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, no one has proposed it, they've all just said you can never take it off the table because that would be inexperienced, naive, irresponsible, etc etc. So, basically, its a completely legitimate position to have, that you are open to that possible.
CW says "never rule out that possibility"
Obama says, "no, I'm ruling that out."
It seems pretty obvious
August 3, 2007 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that a campaign that has to defend its positions is in trouble is the kind of silly Shrumian thinking that lets the GOP run all over Dems while we refuse to hit back.
The reason that Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to win a Presidential Election in the last 30 years is because he had an ironclad rule: Respond in the same news cycle.
It's not as though Bush wasn't doing his best to attack Bill's policies and make him out to be a leftist looney tunes.
Barack is going out and setting the terms of the debate. When he's attacked, he hits back hard. Whether the nominee is him or Hillary or Edwards, I hope that when the spin, distortions, and lies start coming, they'll do just what he's doing now: hit back hard and fast.
August 3, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fine memo. Except for a few exagerations here or there, what's not to like? I'd guess there isn't one poster on this thread that wouldn't be happy having Obama as US President.
But all the venom written here about Clinton, makes me redouble my mental arguments in her favor.
August 3, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do be sure and post one if you can think of one reasonable argument.
No one else has. You can be first.
Best, Terry
August 3, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll always read your posts Terry. Laughter makes the venom go down smoother.
August 3, 2007 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That story is great. Bush called Musharraf and basically apologized to him, even though the admin said the same thing as Obama last week. Who is soft on terror now?
August 3, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That story is great. Bush called Musharraf and basically apologized to him, even though the admin said the same thing as Obama last week. Who is soft on terror now?
August 3, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations. I didn't think you could do it but danged if you didn't.
Take care.
Best, Terry
August 3, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
clinton judged that bush could be trusted, that's all. great judge of character, that hillary.
August 3, 2007 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"clinton judged that bush could be trusted, that's all. great judge of character, that hillary."
Simply not true. That's not what happened here on earth.
August 3, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the way this campaign is unfolding. I was a little worried for awhile that Obama wasn't going to get in the race aggressively enough. Guess I was wrong about that.
August 3, 2007 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
[Removed double post]
August 3, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, as I recall people came into the debate Hillary supporters and left as Obama supporters. So much for the pundits calling the debate. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
August 3, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/undebate_10-15-02.html
If you can stand reading it thats the late Jeane Kirkpatrick and (possible Clinton Secretary of State) Richard Holbrooke in 2002, i.e., the bipartisan foreign policy establishment that waltzed us into this disaster that won't end for decades and will waste lives and money and the country is sick of it but these great minds won't let us get out.
August 3, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the whole thing.
Holbrooke nailed it. And the UN went around and a around with the bush admin. Because just like congress they were not going to give him a blank check to invade.
Everything worked fine until bush threw the UN inspectors out. And then bush invaded Iraq.
August 3, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton also believes in Change. and Obama in 08
He himself said that we could not keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
He knows that judgment matters moreso than experience.
Listen to him.
August 3, 2007 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And the reason this is important is stated right in the memo: "For years, Washington’s conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway". Obama answered a serious question with a serious answer, rather than the Beltway Dance, and the CW clic shrieked at his naivete because he didn't answer with the platitude script that has been mandated by the "very serious people" in Washington for decades.
Now, I can appreciate where this script came from: mutually assured destruction. And certainly, any state with nuclear weapons should always be assured (implicitly, not threateningly) that any nuclear attack on the United States would be met in kind. But I don't see why anyone needs a lesson on how "the terrorists" are NOT the Soviet Union and therefore demand totally different policies. I've said this before and I'll say it again: the last six years have been led by an administration of Cold Warriors (and colossally stupid Cold Warriors at that); I expect a heck of a lot more from anyone who wants to be the Democratic nominee.
Good judgement should tell you when you need to dance and when you can just walk. Obama seems to grasp this much more intuitively than anyone else out there right now; he's not trapped with advisors who still cling to the familiar Cold War policies of 20 years ago. "The terrorists" care a lot less about what we say than the Soviet Union did; they care about what we DO, because that's the only thing that can stop them.
Currently on foreign policy, Obama is the straight-talk candidate, and it has certainly gotten my attention.
August 3, 2007 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she thought that the President should have the power to go to war at his discretion because that's what she would have wanted if she were President. She didn't take into account that she was not President, that George W. Bush/Dick Cheney was President, or she decided that they could be trusted as much as she would trust herself with that power. Of course, as I've said before, the whole idea of giving the President the power to go to war at her/his own discretion is mind-bogglingly stupid anyway. The Constitution wasn't written on the back of a napkin; the power to declare war was given to Congress in order to prevent this kind of madness and Hillary Clinton (and Bill too) didn't grasp this and STILL DON'T.
And on the question of should she have known better: Bob Graham was the Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Committee in the Senate at the time. He was from Florida. He was contemplating a run for President in 2004. He wasn't a "bleeding heart liberal". He was no Paul Wellstone or Ted Kennedy (no offense to those guys, who I admire greatly). He read the intelligence and concluded that it didn't support the administration's bellicose rhetoric. He said so in public and voted against AUMF. This proves that it was possible to come to the right conclusion even in the thick of all of the pressure the administration was putting on Congress. Why could Bob Graham, who had a lot more to potentially lose than Hillary Clinton, come to the right conclusion, and she couldn't? I don't have an answer to that, but I'm afraid that there are no good answers.
Incidentally, I think Bob Graham would be a great pick for any Democrat's Director of National Intelligence.
August 3, 2007 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you mean; I think "suggest" would have been a better choice of words rather than "propose". The thing is that when Clinton and Dodd (especially) criticize Obama over what he said, they do suggest that they would consider nuking "the terrorists", which is absurd (unless you're Tom Tancredo).
Reasonable people, and I hope I can include Senators Clinton and Dodd in that group, DO take this option off the table. The difference is that Obama thinks that it doesn't cost us strategically to admit that, yes, this really is off of the table for this particular situation, while Clinton and Dodd think that it does. That's okay, I guess, except that when they go over the top with their criticism of Obama, they implicitly DO suggest that they just might nuke "the terrorists".
But, yes, you're right: "propose" is inappropriate unless you're talking about the aforementioned Rep. Tancredo.
August 4, 2007 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
JoeChi, I doubt from reading your comments that you understand what cogent means. Seems like every time I read a comment by you, you write only a few sentences that allow you to embed negative terms to dis Barack Obama. Are you the same JoeChi who has done this on so many other sites? I seem to remember a JoeCHI began this anti-Obama stuff way back in January [that JoeCHI repeated the very same smear post back then on every discussion site I visited]. I have never heard you make any cogent points that further a good discussion of issues or concerns. What is your problem?
August 4, 2007 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
hadenough, your post fails to persuade in one great respect.
When Bush short-circuited the inspection process, it was obvious to many millions of common folk that Bush hastened to stop that process because he itched for that war. Where were the majorities of both parties at that critical time in March of '03? In fact, where was Hillary Clinton at that time? Did Hillary or those majorities stand up and say, "Wait, you said 'last resort' and so we need to finish the inspections first."
Hindsight is cruel sometimes.....turns out that 'last resort' was an empty phrase for Bush AND for those politicians who now try to hide behind it to justify their complicity, or at least their political cowardice.
August 4, 2007 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will be the 'change' agent when he 'does time' in the Senate. He is too 'green' and we do NOT want another GWB.
Let's restore the US credibility by electing the pros, just like we would promote people with experience to run Americas' Fortune 500 companies. From Illinois Senate to the White House in less than 4 years is not how to restore America's greatness after 8 years of GWB.. Really. I love Obama just fine (my 'roots' are squarely in Africa), but this is NOT the time for novices. If Obama is nominated, the Repubs will have a field day with him... Consider the same misgivings you are now having about him and then amplify them by 200% to get a picture of what the wingnuts' smear machine would do to him!!! We MUST win in 2008. This is our election to lose (it's been for the past 2-3 cycles but we managed to lose!). I am tired of losers. I like Sen Obama but he will lose for sure. Hillary's been there and done it. There is little they can do to her. The voters will just say 'yawn, give us something that we already do not know..." With Obama, the Repubs will have a field day. You won't know him at all after the wingnuts are done with him... He'll be 'French', just like Sen. Kerry. Just you watch.
You heard it here first.
Cheers,
DCS, NYC
August 4, 2007 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi and the other Democrats in the House and in the Senate are also politicians. Being a politician simply did not mean that one was somehow allowed to vote "yes". The majority of Congressional Democratic politicians managed a "no" vote.
You'll simply have to provide examples of your charge of being with "wingnuts" and then with "super liberals" to support your position. So far it is not supported.
August 4, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...this is an interesting claim after reading the memo. I mean, sure, I guess you could still argue it, but I would think one would instead try to engage this point from the very statement to which you're responding by posting in this comments section:
August 4, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did a quick google to see what Hillary said and found nothing. Then I checked her senate we site and found nothing. Then I did a quick google for senators in geeneral. Found nothing about bush throwing out the inspectors. Then I checked several senators web sites including Kerry and Feingold. Nothing. Maybe I missed it.
Again these were quick searches. I was only checking march 2003. But still nothing. Doesn't mean nothing was said I just can't find it. So I don't know where Clinton was. Or anybody else. Seems like more than one senator would have said something.
Something I did find:
"On the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper baselessly claimed that an "inherent contradiction" exists between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) statements prior to her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq and her recent explanation of that vote. Specifically, Tapper juxtaposed Clinton's comment during a September 15, 2002, interview"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130010?offset=20&show=1
tapper clipped her quotes. On purpose. He clipped out what didn't fit in to his narrative. What Hillary really said was disappeared. So I'm thinking it would take some serious digging to find out what was said by any senator about bush throwing out inspectors.
Gore:
I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first. Especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you.
...
Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does indeed pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
Feingold:
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Opposing the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force Against Iraq
From the Senate Floor
October 9, 2002
And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.
And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.
http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html
This was not a rush to war. Lots of people put serious thought in to this. Lots of people thought saddam was seriously dangerous. Obama's FP advisor Power is way off base.
Also I'm gonna look harder and try to find what senators said in March 2003. If you have anything please post.
August 4, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think that's her point, actually.
August 4, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, Mr. Obama's position in regard to an unsanctioned surgical attack on Pakistani soil has cost him my support and vote.
I generally love both what he has to say and the way he says it. I find him to be the most likely Democratic candidate to overcome Hillary, whom I perceive as a probable disaster for both our country and for the progressive cause.
It's not that the benefit of his position is hard to understand, nor his frustration. But examine his underlying assumption: that the United States has a right to use military force anywhere we please without international support. It smacks of neoconservative arrogance.
And to follow a Wolfowitic policy and mount an invasion of a neutral-to-friendly country is to invite further military, economic, and diplomatic disasters. Certainly we have enough of those to cope with already. (And BTW it is the very definition of an invasion to apply military force within the borders of another nation without its permission)
I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama's advisors can persuade him to flip-flop on this disastrous proposal. Otherwise, it is a disqualifier as far as I am concerned.
August 4, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otherwise, it is a disqualifier as far as I am concerned.
well, then most democratic and all republican candidates are similarly disqualified. whatcha gonna do if kucinich or gravel don't get the nomination?
OT, way to cave on FISA, harry reid! some fighter.
August 4, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why you keep repeating this poorly reasoned assertion is beyond me. Obama is in no way green relative to GWB. He has a track record of success, upbyhisownbootstaps excellence and overachievement. In contrast GWB had a track record of failure, mediocrity and fratboyelitistnepotism underachievement. An undergraduate degree from Columbia, President of Harvard Law Review, a JD from Harvard and a professor of Constitutional Law at one of the most outstanding institutions in Constitutonal law does not constitute green.
For someone who claims to be an "Ivy Leaguer" you are really slow on the uptake. You need to read this part of the memo until you grasp it's profound significance:
Let's review, both Cheney and Rumsfeld headed Fortune 500 companies and both of them had exceptionally poor judgment when it came to going to war in Iraq. They not only put America on the wrong battlefield when Al-Q was in Afghan but they distorted the intelligence and claimed Saddam had connections with Al-Q worst of all they planned a war with inadequate troop strength, no armored vests/vehicles and no exit strategy. Yet you want to keep pushing this 'experience' like Fortune 500 companies. It doesn't work...that experience was a complete and utter failure and is responsible for America being in the worst military debacle in our entire history. No way to win and no way out. It doesn't get any worst than that..got that?
Riiight, sure so how about you tell us about all your good friends who have 'roots squarely in Africa'? Better yet, tell us all why Obama is not white enough for you?
Electing a glorified social hostess who was the spouse of a former President is no way to restore this nation's global reputation, either. The way to restore America's greatness is no more of conventional wisdom like yours. It is time for change. All that 'washingtonexperience' is the reason we are in this mess.
The only thing we are going to hear about with Hillary is that it is a re-do of Bill. Other than Monica Lewinski, the vast majority of the electorate does not want and a re-do with Bill in the oval office.
Remember you heard it here first.
No more Bill. No more HILL.
August 4, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he is...you will find his remarks on Politico and HuffPo...same vapid nonsense all over the boards. Hillary pays her bloggers well obviously. Being cogent is not a pre-requisite she wants them blatantly obvious.
August 4, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly can understand how a person's position can cost them votes. I feel that way about Hillary. Her AUMF vote cost her my support and vote. There is no way I can ever consider elevating someone to the Presidency who had such monumentally flawed judgment as to give the President carteblanche authority to wage war endlessly in direct contradiction to the US Constitution.
I continue to be impressed with the fact that Obama is willing to hunt down the actual terrorists and exercise unilateral force against those responsible for 3,000 American lives. I believe it is admirable that he has the willingness and courage to do what GWBush failed to do. GWBush made a pre-emptive strike on a country for no reason whatsoever and Obama's use of force would not in any way parallel the arrogance of GWBush.
I sincerely believe the majority of Americans will feel a lot safer when OBL is captured and those responsible for 9/11 are hunted down.
August 4, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No, I think that's her point, actually."
I don't know who her is but if you mean Power she distorted the truth so badly that she can only be called a liar.
Power:
"The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress."
Simply not true. As I have commented on above with links to prove the point. Power is a liar. I'm assuming Obama took the time to read Power's lie filled statement. A lie filled statement that tars dem with bush's war. Terrible. Just terrible.
August 4, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. This is something parents learn early. Do not threaten your children with consequences you have no intention of doing. Overtime, they basically call your bluff. So, it does no good from a 'deterrent' philosophy to suggest/propose nuking folks. Just like the death penalty is no deterrent to crime neither is the nuclear option. It is a stupid tactic to begin with. Which is why Dodd and Clinton come across as ipso facto idiotically insane to even suggest let alone 'propose' nuking folks as a deterrent.
It's just plain stoooopid...all it does is escalate proliferation of nuclear arms. Just like the death penaly results in all witnesses being executed during the commission of a crime.
August 4, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel the same way about Hillary. She generated queasiness in me from her first campaign onward, but I was a supporter -- even a fan -- right up to the the moment of treachery when she co-sponsored the right-wingers' attempt to weasel around the First Amendment with the flag-burning legislation.
As for Obama, I understand your admiration for his courage, but I am not one of those who thinks that the purpose of the universe is to make Americans feel good. To invade a friendly country is not only counter-productive, IMNSHO, it is also plain wrong. And I think we've had more than our share of America acting "plain wrong" lately, wouldn't you agree?
August 4, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed about the Senate Dems. What a fluther of jellyfish. We need another 60 Russ Feingolds in the World's Most Exclusive Cave-In Club.
Back on topic: Are other Dem candidates advocating the invasion of friendly nations? If so, then yes, they also lose my vote.
By Nov-2008, I may well be down to voting for Tankard -- the liberals' choice!
August 4, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's comment was very specific with the word "invasion" not mentioned at all. He was very specifically referring to the regrouping of the Taliban and al Queda in the ungovernable regions of Pakistan. Musharaff made a truce with these tribal leaders and in exchange for the withdrawal of Pakistani military, the tribal leaders were to prevent the settling in of Taliban and al Queda folks. This has simply not worked out. Yet America continues to pay money for Musharaff's agreement to root out these folk.
If you have a suggestion on how to deal with this situation, then present it. Ignoring the situation, IMHO, is similar to what we did with the Taliban and al Queda in Afghanistan as we respected their borders; we all know the result of that respect was 09/11.
August 4, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Some enterprising reporter should ask Hillary whether she would rule out a Tancredo Doctrine nuclear attack on Mecca in the event of an imminent jihadist terror threat and see if she's naive enough to knee jerk the standard "no president should hypothetically rule out the use of nuclear weapons"
After all this is the very Senator Clinton who voted to launch a war of aggression based upon all sorts of hair brained hypotheticals, the candidate whose experience compelled her to trust that George Bush wouldn't do it.
Great comment in Slate by the way
August 4, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe what you need to be asking then is why doesn't Hillary listen to Bill and stop making a big flap out of differences without a distinction. She needs to stop attempting to sound profound over nothing. Hillary is the issue here. Ask Hillary why she wants us to know that she is just an individual who likes to bicker and keep ruckus going over meaningless blather when national security is being discussed.
Perhaps it is because she is so lacking in substance that she is unable to differentiate between trivial differences and matters of significance. Due of course to her exceptionally poor judgment and lack of discernment when it comes to matters of vital importance. Hillary is flailing wildly unable to see clearly due to fear.
Here's another view:
August 4, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's comment was very specific with the word "invasion" not mentioned at all.
I never checked, but I'm guessing that our current Beloved Leader never mentioned that word either. Does that mean we didn't invade Iraq? Please educate me on the difference between Mr. Obama's proposal and invasion. I strongly suspect we are dealing with a distinction that lacks difference.
If you have a suggestion on how to deal with this situation, then present it.
Although I have not yet officially announced my candidacy, it is proper for you to ask, and for me to answer that question in the constructive manner in which it was asked. However, the whole question is ginormously hypothetical, and therefore I cannot promise that these are precisely the steps I will take. It will depend on the situation on the ground at the time.
First, every effort should be made to convince the Pakistani government (and it is by no means certain that this means Musharaff) either to resolve the situation themselves or to grant our armed forces permission to do so. Every dipomatic avenue should be explored, including economic, political, and as a last resort, military threat. It goes without saying that we would seek to cut off all aid to Pakistan that is not directly humanitarian.
In these efforts, we would ask for support from around the world: among Pakistan's friends, neighbors, and trading partners, particularly military trading partners. We should involve the United Nations, Russia, China, and India. We should exert every pressure to persuade Pakistan to acceed to our legitimate request.
If all diplomatic effort fails, the President should go to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war against Pakistan on the grounds that a nation that harbors terrorists is a terrorist nation. S/he should make the extremely limited goals of such a war explicit. Congress should take their time in debating the declaration, allowing Pakistan time to realize the seriousness of our resolve. In the end, however, Congress should make the declaration.
We should then do what needs to be done by demanding sacrifices from every facet of the American public. Raise a war tax that affects everyone but strikes the rich particularly hard. Demand concessions from our military industries. Impose gas rationing. Continue the complete mobilization of the National Guard. My staff has not yet completed the list of sacrifices that might need to be made. Of course, the bulk of our Afghan forces would be involved, and we would certainly not have any soldiery to be wasted on the Iraq debacle.
The military would be informed that their first priority is the safety of civilians. Second priority would be the accomplishment of the mission. Third would be the care and feeding of the troops.
We would blanket the region in question with troops, ruthlessly seek out and destroy the evildoers, and get out. The planners would be held strictly accountable for their predictions concerning the amount of time required, and punished for bad estimates.
Oh, but you wanted a 10-second soundbite answer, didn't you? Sorry.
See, most pundits fail to remember that American sovereignty and American interests are not always the same thing. Sometimes we have to respect the rights and perquisites of other nations, even when it is counter to our interest.
Another thing that folks forget is that Mr. Obama and (and even one as exalted as I when elected President) is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States to stage the sorts of military adventures that we have seen in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama (maybe, I haven't thought too much about that situation), and Iraq (twice). Congress alone has that power.
Ignoring the situation, IMHO, is similar to what we did with the Taliban and al Queda in Afghanistan as we respected their borders; we all know the result of that respect was 09/11
The same paradigm that I suggest above could have been applied to Afghanistan. But in any case, the United States cannot swagger its way through the world without regard to international laws and customs, let alone its own. Shortcuts like off-the-cuff invasions may -- may, mind you -- lead to short-term relief of a problem, but usually lead to long-term misery. We need to learn to play the game by the rules.
Now, was there another question?
August 4, 2007 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes and no. By the technical definition of "invasion", yeah, Hillary didn't really criticize Obama on the policy itself and said that regardless of cooperation, she would "ensure" Bin Laden's capture/kill given the actionable intel. What else could she (or any candidate) say? I think Biden said something along the lines of "this is a policy you have but never tell anyone you have" lol. I'm afraid most candidates probably share that view.
But back to the word "invasion". Technically, yes, any unsanctioned US boots on Pakistani soil constitutes an "invasion". But colloquially speaking, no, not an invasion (which carries the connotation of a country-wide assault, occupation, etc etc). Given the context of the speech, we're talking something much more akin to, say, the Israelis hitting the Osirak lightwater reactor in Iraq back in the early 80's than the Iraq war we're currently in. "Incursion" is probably a better word, as it's much less likely to confuse about the extent of the operation.
August 4, 2007 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that you want established rules of international behavior to apply to any and all circumstances that arise.
I'm a bit surprised that you do not know that what you are suggesting for Pakistan was actually what was done with Afghanistan under the Taliban. Only two countries even recognized Afghanistan--Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Human rights were practically non-existent. Still, America and other countries kept in contact--Colin Powell was even en route to Afghanistan with a check because the Taliban had reduced the opium crop. Before he could deliver it, 09/11 happened. Needless to say, it was never delivered.
Following the international rules simply did not lead to the desired result. The Taliban and al Queda have regrouped in Pakistan--and from there are making "invasions" (I'll use your word instead of the more definitive "incursion) into Afghanistan, where NATO troops are under fire; schools are being burned; suicide attacks are becoming common; etc.
In spite of that, we are providing aid to Pakistan, including aid for expanding their public school system into the tribal areas. In return, Pakistan was to reduce these invasions and to capture al Queda folks found in Pakistan. Since Mushariff's truce with the tribal leaders in 2005, these invasions into Afghanistan have increased and al Queda are being given a safe haven in the tribal regions.
Although what you propose as a solution is the boiler-plate international relations answer, you also need to acknowledge the failure of this process in Afganistan under the Taliban, even though the Taliban's control did not extend throughout the country. (Anyone recall the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan?)
Even though the current leaders in Pakistan apparently don't want to admit it, they have regions they are claiming are part of their country over which they have little or no control. I would suggest to you that the American quarrel is with this lawless region and not with Pakistan "proper". Even Mushareff acknowledged this with his truce in 2005.
Actually your solution has a rational and logical basis that should not have survived 09/11. We have to acknowledge that terrorists and other lawless elements can hide behind our legal niceties and venture into our societies with bloodshed on their minds. Tragically, we also have nation-states that will provide safe havens. Until your solution--and the international community--addresses this, we remain exposed to the danger from these folks. That is simply not acceptable to me.
I support Obama's recommendation.
August 4, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a bit surprised that you do not know that what you are suggesting for Pakistan was actually what was done with Afghanistan under the Taliban.
My solution is precisely the same as what happened in Afghanistan. Well, except for a few insignificant little details like a declaration of war, a tax increase, a request for short-term national sacrifice in the name of of long-term security, and competent leadership.
We have to acknowledge that terrorists and other lawless elements can hide behind our legal niceties and venture into our societies with bloodshed on their minds.
Actually, my solution does acknowlege that terrorists violate the rule law. It is built on the premise that the United States of America should not behave like terrorists. That is simply not acceptable to me.
I support Obama's recommendation.
I find Obama's recommendation abhorent. So does much of the international community. Perhaps he will come to see the criminality that he is espousing and come back to Jesus, so to speak. I hope so. Until this fiasco, he was a strong contender for my vote.
August 4, 2007 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can I say? I'm a technical guy, not colloquial.
But let's have it your way for the sake of argument. If Cubans landed on Key West and set up shop with artillery and, say, a couple of battalions, that's an incursion but not an invasion, right? Washington would have no grounds to protest? There would be no short-term retaliation? No UN condemnation? No long-term enmity to Cuba from Americans?
All righty then.
August 4, 2007 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, here is a couple of paragraphs from Current Events, dated March 14, 2003:
"Meanwhile, inspectors have said that Iraqi officials have been cooperative. The chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said that inspectors have been turning up unannounced and have been given the access they need to all sites. Blix told CNN that the inspectors need more time--maybe as long as six months--to accurately determine whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. He was set to make another report to the Security Council on March 1.
Is War the Answer?
Time has run out for Iraq, say U.S. officials. "More inspections--I am sorry--are not the answer," said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. On February 6, Powell unveiled U.S. intelligence to the Security Council that, according to many U.S. officials, proves Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction. Powell used satellite photos, audiotapes, and spy interviews to make the U.S. case against Saddam Hussein, whom the United States views as a threat to U.S. security and world peace. Powell said that the Iraqi leader must be eliminated--by force, if necessary.
As CE went to press, the United States had amassed more than 150,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region and was preparing to invade Iraq.
While the United States had the strong support of Great Britain, other countries on the 15-nation Security Council either opposed war against Iraq or insisted that the inspection process is working and needs more time. France, one of five nations with veto power on the council (the other four are the United States, Great Britain, China, and Russia), has been very outspoken in its opposition to waging a U.N.-endorsed war against Iraq. "The use of force would be so fraught with risk that it could only be envisioned as a last resort," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. "There is an alternative to war, disarming Iraq through inspections," he added."
So, hadenough, this may remind you of the mood at the time Bush gave Saddam the ultimatum, ignoring all calls to allow the inspections to continue. Again, I ask, where were the outcries of those folks [including Hillary] who were, a few months earlier, insisting that war should be a 'last resort'. Google 'Bush gives Saddam an Ultimatum' to refresh your memory of what happened next.
August 4, 2007 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
uprated to balance those who want conformity rather than fact-based argument
August 5, 2007 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's an incursion. Or maybe an invasion of Key West (but not Florida or the US). Or whatever. Of course we have a right to be pissed off, and respond, and have it condemned, and what not. I never suggested the opposite.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that they expect Pakistan to just "take it", so to speak. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the move would be seen as internationally illegitimate. Bin Laden, after all, is not just wanted in the U.S. For example, he's one of interpol's most wanted. I can't imagine he's not wanted in Spain. Etc etc. So the situations actually aren't nearly the parallel you're suggesting. I don't think its crazy to suggest that we would have international support for the move. Indeed, we have near unity behind us in the international arena for a much bigger operation in Afghanistan with similar goals in mind. If we can't drum up support, it most likely would have less to do with the actual act and more to do with the politics surrounding our foreign policy in a post-Iraq international environment. And I think that's a fair point to make, that given our massive blunder in Iraq, we certainly aren't ones to be shooting from the hip and asking questions later.
That being said, Obama's given now 2 speeches on foreign policy, totaling over an hour and fifteen minutes. He's published both those. He's published a 6-page article in Foreign Affairs about his foreign policy. He's spoken eloquently and passionately about the value of diplomacy and shown a willingness to involve himself in the process. He's been the first candidate in memory to *gasp* take nukes "off the table" in certain circumstances. So given all that, the fact that in one very narrow situation, involving one of the most wanted criminals in the world, Obama voiced support for a very limited incursion. One sentence. Out of 75 minutes worth of speeches. Out of probably 20 total pages worth or writing, one sentence. And all of a sudden he's "Bush on steroids!!" No, I would not say that should characterize him as "shooting from the hip and asking questions later" or anything of that sort. The man is not a dove, but he certainly is not a hawk, and if we have to stick to that gradient, he's far closer to "dove" than "hawk".
August 5, 2007 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you are certainly aware by now, my objection is not to the bulk of his policy proposals. I like them. I like him. Nor have I characterized him on the "dove-hawk" continuum, nor as a hip-shooter, nor as as Bush Magnus Redux.
The amount of time he spent on the statement is not a consideration -- it doesn't take long to say "nuke 'em" or "mission accomplished" either.
I simply find this one particular proposal to be massively inappropriate, and that removes him from the domain of acceptability for my vote.
August 5, 2007 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Again, I ask, where were the outcries of those folks [including Hillary] who were, a few months earlier, insisting that war should be a 'last resort'."
I don't know. I can't find any. None. More than one senator must have said something. And I remember the mood. What I can't find is any statement from any dem senator saying anything. One way or the other. Seems strange. Not even Feingold? The Clinton example above was to show what a dem is reported to have said is not always what that dem said. In this case I can't find any dem saying anything.
The build up of troops and the most insane statements from the bush admin didn't start till after the Iraq War bill was passed. The US senate did go around and around with the bush admin before the bill was passed. The UN did go round and around with the bush admin before they voted. There was no rush to war by US senators. There was no blank check to invade. Just the opposite.
I hope to spend time today looking to see what dem senators said when bush threw the inspectors out.
August 5, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair enough, though I believe that basically leaves you with Kucinich and Gravel from the Dems.
August 5, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are still a few spots left on the Tankard campaign staff if you're interested.
But you'll have to learn some political geography. Key West IS part of Florida. It's the stoned part.
August 5, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted for stupidity.
The "link" part----
August 6, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink