I Imagine That Denver Delegates Will See This RNC Ad

This is the latest ad from the RNC. Unfortunately, it effectively encapsulates Obama’s flip-flops on Iraq as well as visibly displaying his hesitancy and uncertainty when confronted with the hard questions:

There is a reason that 30+ flag officers endorsed Hillary Clinton. See:

• “More Flag Officers Endorse …“
• “Gen. Shelton Endorses, Obama Thinks Rumsfeld OK“ (This includes the statement of Gen. Antonio Taguba who endorsed Hillary because of her strong stand against the use of torture. Gen. Taguba was assigned to investigate Abu Ghraib and had his career “shunted” by DefSec Donald Rumsfeld as a result.)

There still is time to nominate Hillary Clinton who has the experience and track record on the hard issues to match John McCain.

I have no doubt that, if it’s useful, the RNC will also make an ad about that one speech that Obama made in 2002, and the true story behind that ad:

See also, the true story about that 2002 Iraq speech, so little noted that it wasn’t videotaped or even covered in Chicago media, forcing the Obama campaign to “recreate” the speech, as reported by NPR: “The Staged Iraq War Speech & More “Creative” Embellishments.”

This means, of course, that we have to take creative marketing guru David Axelrod’s word for it that he really spoke those words in 2002. By the way, after that unreported speech — unremarkable because he uttered those words safely ensconced in a very liberal neighborhood of Chicago — Obama never lifted a finger or spoke out again on Iraq. That is, until it became politically useful for him to make a major production out of that single unreported, unrecorded speech.

Sadly, his followers haven’t reviewed the true history of that one speech, haven’t questioned the authenticity of its reproduction in a recording studio, and haven’t factored in that Obama didn’t make any further effort to aid the anti-Iraq-war movement, even when he joined the U.S. Senate — where his voting record is identical to Hillary Clinton’s, except that he voted FOR the ill-suited Gen. George Casey, while Hillary Clinton did not. … Joseph Wilson’s writings about his memories of those opposed to the Iraq War and Obama’s notable absence from any participation in lobbying against the war before and since joining the U.S. Senate [are a must-read].

We are certain that the Denver delegates, entrusted with a very serious task of nominating a qualified presidential candidate, will review writings such as these:

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson noted in an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Obama’s Illusions on Foreign Policy“:

[…]

[Obama’s] 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.

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.

Read all eight of Joseph Wilson’s writings posted here at No Quarter with his express permission. Those writings include:

• “Legitimate questions of judgment, experience”
• “The Obama Campaign: Consent of, or Contempt for, the People”
• “Smears and Tears: How Obama’s National Security Week Turned Into the Mendacity of Hype”
• “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country“

At the immediate moment, our chief concern is ensuring that we Democrats nominate a candidate who the American people will find experienced and knowledgeable about foreign policy.