Obama’s illusions on foreign policy
By Joseph Wilson on April 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM in Barack Obama, Bush/Cheney, Colin Powell, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, John McCain, Joseph Wilson, NATO, Valerie Plame Wilson
Re-printed from the Philadelphia Inquirer with express permission.
Joseph C. Wilson IV is a retired career diplomat, a former U.S. ambassador, presidential foreign-policy adviser, and author of “The Politics of Truth”
Sen. Barack Obama declared in Pennsylvania on March 27 that his foreign policy would “return” to that of George H.W. Bush and that Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton both had strayed from that model. Having served in the first Bush administration, as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, and subsequently as ambassador to two African nations, I cannot fathom what Obama is asserting.
His entire foreign-policy claim that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton rests on the slender reed that he possesses intuitively superior judgment, which would have led him to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq had he been in the U.S. Senate in October 2002.
The first President Bush (Bush 41), of course, has publicly supported his son (Bush 43) throughout the second conflict in Iraq.
When Saddam Hussein’s troops invaded Kuwait in August 1990, I was in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, responsible for the safe release of Americans held hostage, and I personally confronted Saddam to persuade him to depart Kuwait peacefully. It was axiomatic in our approach that the only way to influence Iraqi behavior would be to threaten military action in the event Saddam did not respond to diplomatic demands. If we were going to make those threats credible, we would have to be prepared to act on them, which we were, and which we did, with full international backing.
What would Obama have done differently in the first gulf war from what he claims he would have done in 2002 had he been in the Senate at that time? In 1990, Saddam was deemed a threat by the first Bush administration. Senior administration officials threatened military action while working toward a diplomatic solution. Congress was ultimately faced with a vote to support the president’s approach. Some Democrats, including then-Sen. Al Gore, voted with the administration, while a majority voted against.
Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.
Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.
Would Obama’s intuitive judgment have led him to defy Powell while still remaining faithful to his fantasy of the “wisdom” of the Bush 41 foreign policy? Perhaps Obama would have urged a summit with Saddam Hussein, with no preconditions, as he has since proposed as a means to “transcend” traditional foreign-policy methods with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Secretary of State Jim Baker did meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz before the launch of Desert Storm, but this meeting was for the express purpose of conveying to the Iraqis the military consequences of not departing from Kuwait before the Jan. 15, 1991, deadline. There was never any question of demeaning the presidency by an unconditional summit for the simple reason that presidents don’t haggle. That’s why presidents have secretaries of state.
In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.
As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?
The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.
Joseph C. Wilson was involved in the controversy over the purported “Niger uranium connection” with Saddam Hussein. His wife is Valerie Plame, whose identity as a covert CIA officer was leaked by members of the Bush administration, leading to the conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice; he was later pardoned by President Bush. Wilson has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Joe Wilson is one smart guy. He should be Secretary of State in the Clinton administration.
it’s shaping up to be a good TV Hilary week
(hope this embeds)
Oh well - here’s the llink! (Scarborough no less!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ySIlpTzos4
Holy Cow. Apologies for postiing these OTS. I thought my posts would go to the bottom of the comments. Please feel free to delete, or repost at a more obscure area.
My guess is that would go Richard Holbrooke. He’s been waiting in line for a loooong time.
Thank you for this….all of it. I’m tired of hearing about Obama’s fantasy AUMF vote and I remember the social and political climate we all lived in that day too too well. I found his questioning of Petraeus and Crocker yesterday to reveal naivete and very very far from brilliant.
If Obama had been there, he would have done what he does best during times of critical or controversial votes: Vote Present. Or be someplace else.
A key point to remember is that HE WAS NOT THERE!! He was still too new in his political career to have been a U.S. Senator. Illinois Senate President, Emil Jones, had not yet taken this Illinois back-bencher, and burnished his resume sufficiently to get to the U.S. Senate at that point. Given Obama’s political record of lightning fast leap-frogging over the backs of more experienced politicians, and his promotion of cult-like adulation for his preciousness, if he were elected President in 2008, he would be bored by mid-2009, and angling for sainthood or deity status.
nah, we had that argument about him not actually being there. Obama won it more or less.
Dean tried it but lost it. Obama still needs to confront the fact that we lost the war in Iraq. His stance is that of someone who knows the war is lost but seeks to maintain 40,000 troops in Iraq under hostile conditions because he will not admit defeat.
That’s the fundamental flaw that Obama presents.
What soldier will be willing to garrison a hostile Iraq with that sort of a leader?
If we lost get the hell out and be honest about it. If we can win get on with winning it and stop b*tch*ng so much.
“What soldier will be willing to garrison a hostile Iraq with that sort of a leader?”
Well, they’re certainly doing it now, aren’t they? And that’s under the worst commander-in-chief in American history.
Bush appears to believe in being in iraq. Although he’s delusional of course.
His entire foreign-policy claim that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton rests on the slender reed that he possesses intuitively superior judgment, which would have led him to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq had he been in the U.S. Senate in October 2002.
He would have voted against the civil war too had he been there, since he would have to choose sides.
______________________________________________
Obama’s position against the war would have led one to expect that he would lead on this issue when he came to the Senate. Not so.
I think that Obama’s failure to follow his antiwar speech with any serious political initiatives to end the war he claimed to oppose is a huge liability. Every time he lapses into the 2002 speech - he should be asked why he waited so many years to follow through. It’s actually a huge liability - no leadership when it mattered.
The media focuses on Obama’s 2002 speech to make him the antiwar candidate.
Don’t you think that it would be more impressive if he had worked like hell to end the war - and could point to all manner of initiatives in the Senate to get that done? Uh, I guess the word I’m looking for is - action. Uh - sticking his neck out to end the war?
He can’t. It’s a little pathetic that a 6-year old speech is held up as the most important thing he’s done about the war - when he’s had 3 years in the G.D. Senate!
Why did he seem to matter more when he wasn’t a Senator? Hmmm, interesting.
Damara | 04.09.2008 - 1:59 pm | # from TaylorMarsh Blog
—————————————————–
This person said it best so I’m reposting their comment.
he’s openly said he’ll keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq.
He argued with Edwards about keeping troops stationed in side Iraq. Edwards wanted them in Kuwait, Obama said they may as well be in Iraq.
My jaw dropped.
Obama’s greatest illusion (delusion?) about foreign policy is that he knows anything about foreign policy.
From Stop-Obama.org
—————————–
…”There is also something to be said for anyone willing to accept the INANE NOTION that judgment is INDEPENDENT from EXPERIENCE. Obama’s experience. So where is there proof of any good judgement?!….
—————————
You can imagine what it’s like in Obama’s cloistered world. Sycophants hanging on every word. Nodding like so many bobbleheads. The nonstop adulation. Screaming crowds, drooling at his feet.
Pretty soon you start believing your own bullshit.
“You can imagine what it’s like in Obama’s cloistered world. Sycophants hanging on every word. Nodding like so many bobbleheads. The nonstop adulation. Screaming crowds, drooling at his feet.
Pretty soon you start believing your own bullshit.”
Sounds familiar…
This nails most of the misgivings that I have about Obama as a CinC and Head of State. It’s almost all about his early misgivings about invading Iraq.
For example Gore called it right in 1991 and 2002, showing moderation and reason when needed–almost error free jusdgement about foreign affairs. You get a good idea of his ability and reasoning in a complete picture. Yet he failed to entirely win the public’s trust or the favor of the press. Obama hasn’t gained the full trust of the party and mysteriously meaintains the love of the media. I guess hillary Clinton has failed in that regard as well because she’s alienated the left. On top of that we still have to gain the trust of the public.
We have not seen how Obama’s arguments stand up to scrutiny when faced by an opponent prepared to take an opposing viewpoint–One who has a strong set of surrogates willing and able to reinforce the message of their chief. we ‘ve not seen such an argument since 1972.
Most of the arguments in the Democratic primaries were about purity tests on the IWR. McCain is actually proud of the war. No apologies and on to victory. He has no need to parse or feel embarrassed about old votes. He can comfortably say it’s a patriotic struggle with unsavoury characters now lurking in Iraq who are associated with Al qaeda (forget for a moment that the invasion allowed AQ to thrive in Iraq) So there is your enemy America–camped in the Mesopotamian plain jeering at you!
Democrats have the right to be righteous in their fury at the illegal invasion and the incompetents who have administered the war–but you do have to wonder if Obama can skate on the “I opposed the war from the beginning” rhetoric that has brought him to within an ace of the nomination. It rubs me the wrong way and I also thought the invasion was stupid.
Obama’s argument is certainly the argument we should have been able to make in 2004–i’m not sure it is relivant today. The only way it works is if the public are prepared for a damnatio memori of the last 8 years and even a condemnation of the Clinton years. What then does Obama offer as a model for his Obama Doctrine. He can’t use the Clinton years. He can’t use the Bush years. So he goes back to Carter.
Kerry supports Obama because he reckons that he lost the electon on the IWR vote in 2002. It’s a logic that I have heard on many sites in the early arguments about Obama.
However, I reckon Kerry lost the election because the public were still in love with the idea of military victory in Iraq. That’s still a powerful emotion in the public–And obama knows this. He can’t present the truth about what leaving Iraq is: An admission of defeat. Kerry was too peabrained to address this head on, and thrashed around blaming his loss on the IWR and his running mate or Shrum or the Swiftboaters.
Yes America you lost a war. There’s no way around it.
Im not sure we can win the election without pointing out that America has been defeated in Iraq. And I don’t think any Democrat has the guts to point this out on national TV right before an election.
end note:
I’m pretty sure this simple question about victory and defeat was the subtext of the election and not Kerry’s swiftboat problems or gays or medals or windsurfing. I think it still is to some extent all about trying to pretend the US has not suffered a catastrophic military reversal. It’s an ummentionable factor. Even Obama’s criticism of the war rests on the bloody cost and political incompetence of guy like Bremer and not on admitting the abject position that the US now finds itself in Iraq.
That’s what happens when you elect Wall Street morons, they lose wars.
So, please, elect another one.
Pretty soon you start believing your own bullshit.
And eventually you end up like the Clintons.
yawn….
Thing abouthte Clintons, though, nobody kisses their ass.
See the difference?
See why it’s SUCH a warning sign when everyone tells you your poop is perfume, but, you know, it’s not?
They only love you when they hate you…
lol.
“Thing abouthte Clintons, though, nobody kisses their ass.”
(clearing throat)
Oh, I know a guy who does that, he’s the stupidest piece of shit I’ve ever known, A JOKE among the people who deal with him.
Funny thing is, he has no clue of the how people ridicule him, instead choosing to believe they’re just jealous, the ULTIMATE mama’s boy, you know the type?
And he does a shitty job, too, precious little thing too dumb to catch a clue.
Again, thing about the Clinton’s is nobody kisses their ass.
heh.
And retarded, too, lest I forgot, really, the stupidest man I know, dumber than Bush, the kind of guy who would lose Iraq, the VICTIM of some evil asymmetric warrior, that mama’s boy.
Heh.
Ahem.
NO MUPITY..
The Problem the Clintons and many people in the United States is that we have been Too Trusting..
and have Beleived OTHER Peoples BULLSHIT..look whats happening to the Clintons..and what is happening wityh obama..and thsi Game is being Played every day..all the way through the election..The Clintons are being cut out..
Now, its Time for some Fact Checking..Thats why we come here…to Expose the Bullshit..The Bullshiters..and give them No Quarter..
We, the People..Not We, The Sheeple..
Banish Bullshit…
“The Problem the Clintons and many people in the United States is that we have been Too Trusting..”
I agree. The Clintons actually trusted George W. Bush with the power to wage pre-emptive war in the Middle East.
So did the United Nations..
Deception Then…Deception Now..
Follow the MONEY…
“So did the United Nations..”
Yep…I say throw out the whole, gullible bunch.
Does that include your wannabe Obama, as he takes money from the same people.
Did you know, or forget?
Others haven’t.
tsk tsk.
If you want to see something new about Obama the liar take at look at this article I saw this morning on Savage Politics. Wow, if they don’t run the liar out of this race now I don’t know what will.
http://savagepolitics.com/
Extremely well written. This needs to be re-posted everywhere.
Obama claims that he’s an expert on foreign relations because he traveled to Pakistan and the Indian city of Hyderabad during college. The story here is not about how irrelevant a college trip to Pakistan is to the job of commander in chief, the real story is that he visited Islamic ecological niches at a young (and impressionable) age.
His trip to Pakistan and Hyderabad (Hide-there-a-bad) is a finger pointing at a Islamic moon. Why visit these two Muslim centers if you’re not yourself somehow involved in the religion?
Bonus question: Who was his roommate in college?
Bonus question: Who was his roommate in college?
Hassan Nemazee?
Mupity where might you have read that about Hassan Nemazee?
I’d like to know who he met in Pakistan and exactly what he did. That would be very interesting.
I think that the case can be made to put the blame on the first Bush for the current mess in Iraq. My very long and detailed diary: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/19/authorization-to-use-misleading-falsehoods/
demonstrates the atmosphere in Iraq before both wars. What George Bush the 1st left behind enabled Hussein to prompt the second war with Georgie the Shrub.
Huessin didn’t prompt the war, Bush and Cheney and Rove did.
This was a Wall Street war, drunks in search of empire.
Maybe we could do an Indian Jones thing, Cheney as Indy, and have the neocons go on a quest for the empire of oil, Obama playing Cheney’s young son.
“Anybody wanna start a war?”
It wasn’t Saddam.
Aw, why do y’all have to keep getting specific and nitpicky about policy and stuff?
St. Barack is gonna
teach the world to singgive everybody a Unity Pony.He’ll use his superior judgment to finesse issues like poverty, famine, post-colonialism, religious strife and all that other stuff.
He lived in Indonesia as a kid and visited Africa!
What more could you ask for?
/end snark
Oh goody, a pony! I knew there must be one under the big pile of manure he’s been handing us!
He cannot hold Hearings on NATO. It would appear part of Obama’s run for office is based upon an understanding that he put Condi Rice in no critical light with Committee appearances on Foreign Relations.
If he really wanted to do something of worth he’d put Cheney’s feet to the fire. Not just VP Cheney. The one who had Near East affairs around the time of the Niger forgery getting inordinate promotion through analyst ranks, that Cheney could be called into Committee. Much of the Niger forgery relied upon third person background from various EU/NATO members with(or lacking) Near East contacts, whose claims were disproven by the acting Ambassador there and an American General going to check background items. It appears the OVP had much influence in helping the OSP get these items stove piped ahead of analyst skepticism.
Dick Cheney could also be subpoenaed to see why the war started earlier than the coalition calendar date. His communications could give greater insight to the trespass. Why were we not on the same page as other NATO members when the war started? If Obama wants to run on the issue of opposition to the war, why has he failed to bring these items to scrutiny?
The only conclusion one can arrive at is that he’s scared to do so, he lacks the gravitas. Perhaps he has conflicts with producing discovery?
Meanwhile, someone at Clemons’ blog notes that there’s a new big dog on the world stage, as Dubya takes a back seat to the real power brokers.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/04/fading_from_rel/
You know, Mr Murder, who would take Bush, or Cheney, and by extension, Obama, seriously?
They are fifth banana wannabees, in no way up to fighting with Putin, the EU, or even China.
They represent the worst of what wall street has to offer, and if those countries can see the wall street mediocrity for what it is (unimaginative, obsequious, stupid, afraid, everything Kos, and the bloggerboyz are, specious intellect, myopic, provincial, unsophisticated politically, lacking any urbane sophistication, all that false machismo when everyone knows they’re weak) well, you’d flush the group , too, no matter how many bombs, google and other wise, they had.
It’s the old America, the America of the old style democrats, that scared them, the liberal or moderate who will fight for freedom, while developing a cure for cancer, say.
But a fat old Bush, Cheney or a stupid Obama, cheating with an ancient method of “strategy,” that’s laughable to the Russians. I get the feeling htey look at Cheney, or Bush, and Obama, and they dismiss them as gay, effeminate Americans. Not me, I think they think this way, they see cowards who have to cheat like the whiny, untalented boys they are, and they’re right.
Um, no, they’re not afraid.
Give them a hard fighting Clinton, after they try her out, they’ll respect her, they respected her husband.
Yes Mr. M…We are indeed reaching another “New” Level…in a repeat of the same old Game of the “Struggle” for Power..Same Old Players..Chap..and same Old Money…and Now the “New” Players..New Money..New Boys Establishing thier “Turf”….and Thier “Game”…backed by the EURO..
We Have all the Other Old Players in town too…some with New Money..since the “Market” favors them all Pretty much..some more than others..The Old Players are Happy that they are not getting much attention..especially here in America.. But You can Believe they have thier Fronts..Thier People..Thier influece..and Spying..and Groups and Contacts everywhere..with the Potential of real big racial and Crime Problems in the United States..beyond anything that has happened so far..under ther right circumstances..including the Hispanic Issues..all of which need peaceful resolutions..
yes..There are New Power Brokers..But They can’t Hide..and we will See How Much we will Have to Fight to Maintain Our Freedom of speech so w2e..The Peop-le..can Expose them..
You mentioned groups with everything but true intellect, and integrity, they’re all the same.
The person who fights them for the reasons our fathers did is the one who wins.
That would be love of country, a selfless love of the true American ideal.
I read an article somewhere about a guy who trained CIA officers, and he was quoted as saying to them “you dedicate your life to it, you get nothing in return, ever, you do it because you are dedicated to and love your country. If everything is stripped from you, you still fight for the love of your country.”
Not Wall Street, or a suite at the Ritz.
Period.
Bright man, wasn’t he?
All those men you mentioned, they do it for the money, and the ego recognition, so they’re weak.
That was great! I so admire Joe Wilson!
It’s very strange that Obama is still trying to pretend he has substance. he’s a motivational speaker, substance has never been his strong suit. I’d guess that he’s been successful in pulling the wool over eyes that weren’t seeing much to start with that he now thinks he can get away with spouting nonsense and no one will notice. Joe Wilson is one of the best at noticing nonsense and he’s fearless when it comes to telling it the way it is. The Obama blogs will call for is head, as usual. He cares not.
Mr. Wilson, please explain just how Hillary hasn’t suffered from illusions regarding Foriegn Policy.
For once, I’d like to hear something about policy differences that will help whomever the Democratic nominee is - not this continual trashing of people just because they toe the particular line you believe is put forward.
I’m sorry, but right now - I’m less than enthused about either Dem candidate. Unlike many other posters on this site - I’m damn sure not going to vote Republican in protest, but I need to start hearing something solid from both camps besides flinging poo at one another.
Obama has no policies, except a continuation of what Bush is doing, which is losing the greater asymmetrical war.
The republicans, most of them, AND OBAMA, don’t understand the concept, in fact, don’t recognize the factors surmising an asymmetrical war.
If they did, we never would have gone into Iraq.
Since the end of ww2, the US was fighting not only a cold war, but a greater asymmetrical one, and doing it successfully. When the old creepy Bush and Rumsfeld guys came in the drive was toward a bullying simplistic physical warfare, and it resulted in the mess we see in Iraq, and America, opening the government to foreign penetration. Think all that foreign money affects American policy? They did this because they do not understand the premise behind political, military and economic war, all factors combined.
Imagine Bush or Obama or Cheney with this concept, even Addington. They’re too busy bashing democrats, and advocating torture, to successfully compete. Auchi, one of the world’s richest men, has been financing conservative candidates all over the world, in France and Germany, especially. And he finances Obama, too. So, Obama answers to Auchi, Saddam’s former bagman?
So now this has to be cleaned up, it’s still a democracy, hopefully the people of this country will be enabled to make the right choices.
To that end, electing Clinton would be in the best interests of America, but if McCain gets in, well, we will see.
Axelrod, and Rove really aren’t Miss Stuff, despite their illusions. Neither is Auchi.
“The republicans, most of them, AND OBAMA, don’t understand the concept, in fact, don’t recognize the factors surmising an asymmetrical war.”
Okay, then how do you explain Clinton’s votes on the use of force and the funding then in light of that statement?
Better still, considering that just the other day (funny how it disappeared, but older posts still appear in the right hand side) there was one of the typical NoQuarter posts slamming Obama for saying he’d start bringing home troops - everyone hitting him for being naive and saying that Clinton knows better - yet lo and behold we have this statement today:
“We need to be planning and preparing to start bringing our troops home, and I have committed to doing that within 60 days of my becoming president,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040904190.html
Kevin, Poo flinging is politics by another name.
but I need to start hearing something.= ?
Teak, if that’s the case then the country is beyond recovery
Obama-Odinga:50-50 Split Demands Sound SOOOO FAMILIAR…
The news that Odinga wants a 50-50 split in Kenya’s cabinet made me dig deeper…and wow, there are some interesting Obama-Odinga similarities/links….and they way Odinga ran his campaign sounds eerily familiar, too!(see the Newsweek Intl. article link)
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/
Bless you Joe Wilson and thank you and your bride for service to country.
You an HRC have something very much in common. Bush/Cheney and Rove choose to denigrate your service to country when you opposed them. HRC’s service to country has been denigrated, this time by Obama and crew, because she stands in their way.
Despicable on both counts (3 if you throw in Kerry in 2004). Obama and his minions are as disgusting as the rovian smear machine in bushworld.
“There was never any question of demeaning the presidency by an unconditional summit for the simple reason that presidents don’t haggle. That’s why presidents have secretaries of state.”
Pay careful attention to what’s being said here, because it figures prominently into my reasons for not supporting Obama even though I’m an AA.
The man has no diplomatic experience. He thinks he’s going to strut upon the world stage and leaders of other foreign countries are simply going to keel over to his ‘greatness.’ The man is delusional.
Diplomacy is a labyrinthine world of careful maneuvers based on cultural respect and knowledge as well the political power of the players involved. Nothing about a Barack Obama presidency is going to change that. He may be able to posture such nonsense in the AA community, but in the real world no one cares about the egocentrism of a biracial American man nor of a community that’s still choking on anger of the historical wrongdoings inflicted on them and their ancestors. In the scheme of things, racism does not resonate with foreigners the way AAs would like to believe. Not even with a lot of Africans, who have their own issues with colonialism and the corrupt African leaders who have been in charge since their independence. (I guess it would be unfair of me to mention Obama’s own cousin here, but fuck it, Odinga fits the bill.)
It’s crazy scary that Obama is even close to be POTUS at this point in time.
Mimi,
Being AA, would you say that the US is probably one of the best countries to live in regardless of race? You don’t have to answer obviously, but I have always wondered what AA’s think of living in the US. I know there is a bad history, but America has been moving in the right direction. I saw a comment you made on another post about how you felt Barack Obama would cause negative repercussions in the black community in the future. I was wondering what you meant by that.
Amb. Wilson, thank you for your words.
It pains me you are “pressed” to state the obvious, as a person with your insights and experience has much to add.
Thanks for calling it what it is, “a misguided illusion”.
I’ve met Mr. Wilson when he visited Charlotte, NC. I could kiss his feet as a respect for this gentleman. An outstanding article. Thank you very much, Sir.
Great words from Mr. Wilson. My take on Obama’s comments are much more juvinile. First, did he not run home from Indonesia to Hawaii to be with those “typical white” grandparents- I guess that why he would negotiate with them so he did not have to visit. Second, I had a stop over on the way to Korea in Japan, as a 6-year old, so can I be either secretary of state or at least ambassador to Japan.
Obama’s greatest illusion (delusion?) about foreign policy is that he knows anything about foreign policy.
This above posted statement is absolutely true. His knowledge about domestic policy is just as limited. There is nothing about this guy that qualifies him for even the second top spot in our country, much less the presidency. Being half black is just not enough to warrant my vote.
[…] Joe Wilson has also written several strong op-eds — including Wednesday’s “Obama’s illusions on foreign policy” — that foresee the perils Obama faces when voters become more familiar with his lack […]
[…] Obama’s illusions on foreign policy (by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, posted at No Quarter) Sen. Barack Obama declared in Pennsylvania on March 27 that his foreign policy would “return” to that of George H.W. Bush and that Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton both had strayed from that model. Having served in the first Bush administration, as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, and subsequently as ambassador to two African nations, I cannot fathom what Obama is asserting… As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences? […]