« Why is the Lying Man Still In Charge of the Law? (video) | Main | Saudi Arms Deal Explains Recent Fear Mongering »

Who was More Naive or Mis..calculating, Hillary or Obama?

The brouhaha of the week (with audio) was Clinton calling Obama "frankly naive and irresponsible" about 'foreign policy', and Obama replying in kind about Clinton.

I think it is incumbent upon us to compare then, what the two senators had to say on the most important foreign policy decision that the present administration has taken; the wisdom of going ahead with the invasion of Iraq.

First to Hillary who in a Senate floor speech, October 10, 2002 supporting the Senate resolution, authorizing the President to use force military force against Saddam, begins:

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program...

Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone.... (It's too bad we haven't been able to keep Al Queda in check as Saddam had)

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack....(an appeal especially to the neo-cons and like-minded)

I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible ...(that was the last thing on Bush's mind, as we know from the Downing Street memos)

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world....(unfortunately, that's how practically everyone in the world has since viewed it)

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation.(so much for conviction politicians)

And in comparison to Hillary's pronoucements on the benfeits of the invasion, we have the inexperienced and callow words of state senator Obama eight days earlier, in a speech in Chicago, in Daley Plaza, on October 2, 2002.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings...

You be the judge who was more naive and irresponsible? or more cunning and mis..calculating? Hillary or Obama, about Bush's intentions and the consequences in the Middle East and America, in giving the President the blank authorization he wanted?

As we know, Hilllary has never been shy about wielding authority."I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she said in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.4/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (3)


Obama hadn't seen Duelfer's documentation of Saddam's will to WMD, nor Rossett's documentation of his means. We took out Saddam at the best possible time, and may yet help Sistani forge one nation out of three.

Steve Crickmore:

kim..Here is a 'compendia' of The Duelfor Report, pro and con..I don't buy it. The Bush Administration and 'mark' senators like Hillary all too willingly wanted to believe it. but conviently forgot that Saddam was 'the mother' of smokescreen and blowhearts. Did his miilitary forces even have or ever use one airplane?. The occuppying troops were more interested in securing the oil installations...And permitted the stacks of potential WMD and munitions scattered all over the country to be left unattended, to be vandalized and looted. As Wolfowitz said, the WMD was just the bureaucratic reason for the invasion. He didn't fall for it, but Clinton did or said she did. Who knows if she really did? It was in her interest and establishment backers.(As we now now know she didn't read the caveats to the CIA assessment before that vote and speech) Wasn't it Moynihan, her predecessor, in New York, who said that the CIA had misrepresented or got wrong every threat this nation has faced. And of course, Saddam was the perfect foil. But you don't remove one person with an elephant. After the imperial presidency of Bush, we are about to get 'empirelite' with Hillary, who may be less ignorant but even more self-righteous.


Saddam had the will and the means. You doubt he'd have acquired WMD?

But the rest of your comment I find hard to disagree with.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.