Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Great Op-Ed Today Titled "the Obama I Know"
For those of you who are deathly sick of the manufactured controversies, here's something to add a little pep in your step and remind you why you supported Obama in the first place.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story
This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.
This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and evenhanded analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.
Advertisement
Comments (25)
Promising.
March 14, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that!
March 14, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that! Interesting piece, and even-handed.
March 14, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he displays that great quality that Hillary showed when she listened to the AUMF arguments, talking to Tony Blair and Colin Powell and of course her husband who'd dealt with Saddam for 8 years and others, instead of just jumping to the position that everyone else had. Looking at what the alternatives were, examining arguments based on their merits and not just past history.
Because it's easy just to assume that Bush is wrong - in fact it's usually fairly obvious - but sometimes in government policy, especially with issues of war and security and terrorism, you still have to also consider the dangers coming from outside even if you don't trust the administration. At least this is part of the responsibility of being in the Senate. And it's easy just to reject the proposals of the other side because they're of the other party, but in security, there's less room for political maneuvering than in many other areas.
Great post.
March 15, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he displays that great quality that Hillary showed when she listened to the AUMF arguments, talking to Tony Blair and Colin Powell and of course her husband who'd dealt with Saddam for 8 years and others, instead of just jumping to the position that everyone else had reading the NIE.
Fixed that for you.
March 15, 2008 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, tried to fix that for you. Damn HTML. Hillary failed to read the NIE and most likely cast her vote for AUMF on craven political (i.e., presidential ambition) grounds. But whatever gets you through the night, D.
March 15, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
While you folks are so fixed on the NIE, there were Democrats who read the NIE who still voted for the AUMF, and the NIE affirmed that Hussein still had a biochemical program. And the missiles that could deliver these.
Note the letter "E" in "NIE" - it means "Estimate". Without inspectors on the ground, this "Estimate" was huge. That was part of the issue - Iraq was too much of a guess, and post-9/11 a number of people felt living with this doubt was not acceptable. Thus the serious threat to force Hussein to accept inspectors back. This would have never happened without a credible military threat.
March 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero says:
"there were Democrats who read the NIE who still voted for the AUMF"
--------------
Name one.
There were only FIVE Senators who read it.
March 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey desidero please name those senators who read the NIE and voted for the AUMF. I know the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee Bob Graham read it and voted against the AUMF. So did Dick Durbin. 21 Dem senators, Chaffee and Jeffords voted against it.
Only 7 senators in all bothered to go down and read all 70 pages of the NIE.
I obviously didn't read it beforehand without a security clearance but even I knew those biggest missiles of his once equipped with any kind of warhead fell within the range restrictions he was under. There was no bio warfare program and there was ample evidence in the footnotes and codicils to distrust what Bush and Cheney were saying.
There was also ample evidence that this senator on the Senate Committee on Armed Services should have noticed that Rusmfeld and Cheney were making a trainwreck out of the invasion and the war in Afghanistan too while she sat and said nothing.
March 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden, Bayh, Feinstein and Obama's buddy Rockefeller for the Democrats
Hagel and Warner as 2 of the Republicans if you trust them a bit. Obama's buddy Lugar voted for the AUMF but answered either no or doesn't remember on reading the NIE. Same with Kerry and Edwards.
Only 21 of 50 Democrats voted against the AUMF.
NIE vote
March 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Markg8
Levin read it and voted against it as well.
March 15, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary didn't take the initiative to review the NIE at the outset.
That's not exactly a demonstration of leadership. Worse, she didn't listen to her own colleagues that did take it upon themselves to read it and had serious concerns.
The fact that she was only one of many Democrats who cast the wrong vote is not a very compelling example that she has what it takes to rise to the highest office in the country.
March 15, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every time this subject comes up I'm reminded of a Harry Truman quote. It came upon his signature to send troops into Korea in 1950. Apparently he signed the order, put down the pen, looked at his advisor and gravely said:
"I know that someday, I will have to answer before the throne of God for every life that will be lost because I signed this order."
That's responsibility. That's accountability.
So every time I hear people dismiss Hillary's vote with the excuse that "a lot of people did it." It reminds me that She, along with many others, didn't take seriously their responsibility and don't want to be held accountable for their explicit approval to send our troops into Iraq. And to have not bothered to read the NIE should disqualify her from ever holding another elected office.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
March 15, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your opinion.
My opinion is that first, a President's accountability trumps anyone in Congress; second, that Hillary did take her responsibility and pushed for hard and tough diplomatic measures under threat of military action vs. military action itself.
She said exactly this in the AUMF at the time.
The AUMF worked - it got inspectors in. That Bush blew that opportunity is not Hillary's fault. We could have had Iraq properly *KNOWINGLY* disarmed and left in Hussein for all I care, even though I do agree with the idea that he would have tried to rebuild his programs given an end to sanctions.
Hillary sought reassurance from those in the administration and from Tony Blair. She thought she had gotten it. Blair quite frankly was the biggest disappointment - we knew already Bush was a liar.
March 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero says:
My opinion is that first, a President's accountability trumps anyone in Congress
----------------
This is a very poor understanding of our democratic government which has 3 COEQUAL branchs of government. The Executive Branch cannot even declare war so how your opinion is deeply flawed. The founding fathers knew better than to concentrate that much power in one persons hands. Congress is representative of the people and has a far greater responsibility when it comes to taking this nation to war. Bush NEEDED that AUMF or he would have been in violation of the US Constitutional.
So, if anything Congress is EQUALLY responsible for this nation being at war and anyone who voted for it without due diligence was grossly negligent and did so without regard for the lives of American citizens and their responsibility not to abdicate Congresses war making powers to the Presidency.
Hillary pushed for nothing. She used words prior to her deed to obfuscate her deed which was to cast her vote for war. The AUMF was unconstitutional as it gave carte blance authority to Bush to wage war endlessly around the globe. So Hillary failed to uphold her consitutional responsibility by casting that vote.
The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the war. Rockefeller, Durbin, Levin, Graham and Feinstein read the NIE.
March 15, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, 3 equal branches so really the Supreme Court is just as responsible as Bush for Iraq.
And we know we couldn't have war without a formal declaration of war from Congress.
"Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress passed on August 7, 1964 in direct response to a minor naval engagement known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It is of historical significance because it gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in Southeast Asia. The Johnson administration subsequently cited the resolution as legal authority for its rapid escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict.[1]"
And it's funny about how this post is about the complexity of decisions that require careful deliberation, yet all the followups are about how Hillary should have just accepted gut feelings as Obama did. Which is it, folks - accept that real life decisions are complicated and require careful deliberation, or that everything's simple and judgment is just observing the obvious?
March 16, 2008 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Doesn't that prove the point?
You've just demonstrated that she is not accepting responsibility nor accountability for her vote. No one made her vote yes. Yet, she won't own up to it. Deflecting, dodging and excuse making.
March 15, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she owns up to it. She doesn't disown her vote, she doesn't apologize for her vote. That's what has you and some others riled. She didn't say she did it for polls as Edwards did. She believed it. And she felt Hussein was a worse threat than semi-trusting a lying Bush whose people had given assurances and pushing for the return of inspectors. Not an easy choice to make, but understandable for a Senator from New York 1 year after 9/11 (no, not that Al Qaeda was tied to Hussein, but that the possibilities of terrorism were too unknown and too significant at that point to simply ignore Hussein's cat-and-mouse games anymore).
March 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can accept that she really believed that war was the only option.
She does not understand the complex and intricate patterns of of the world, the historical events and undercurrents that influence the current and she lacks the judgement and foresight it takes to be an excellent leader.
The arguments you present, by the way, are blatantly false--not falsified, but incorrect. I would recommend reading her and others' comments from that time. Your assertions are completely contradicted by those facts.
March 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about providing an example or even quoting one.
March 16, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Heinlein: "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
If you're going to take non-violence as your model, be prepared for what it'll take.
And regarding your statement, no, Hillary noted the sincere prepared *threat* of violence as the option and persuader, not the violence itself.
March 16, 2008 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
How come Hillary supporters continue to give her credit for experience when she did not have, earn, or execute authority in the White House? How come her involvement, and unwillingness to listen to others and understand basic politics had her attacking Democrats and ultimately bringing the Health Care Reform down in flames? How come the fact that it is the SAME PLAN she is touting now, doesn't raise any eyebrows? She still believes she is right about the plan, and she has waited 15 years to try and implement the same plan with the same tactics that didn't work before and won't work now. Wow, that's evenhanded consideration of the issues, that's real listening... Sounds a lot more like "the decider" to me.
March 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
She ran into a bladesaw called "Congress". She learned. She and Bill were new on the national scene, they overplayed their hand, and the spoiled Democrats in Congress were more interested in turf than progress.
That's also why Congress has so nicely supported Bush since gaining the majority in the 2006 elections - protecting personal power over what might take courage and principle.
So Mr. Obama can criticize her failure, but let's hear what he would do differently. Buy Bill Bradley a basketball gym? Personally crawl across the floor to massage and kiss Robert Byrd's feet? These are the kind of abasements Senators treasure. Of course there are threats, which seem more effective (viz Tom "The Hammer" DeLay"), but common wisdom has it that Hillary was too tough, too mean to those poor Senators. So what's Obama's strategy for herding cats?
Here's a good one - 3 guys, an American, a Russian, and a Chinese, are drinking in a bar and they see a cat. They come up with a bet to see who can make the cat eat hot mustard. The American says, "you have to persuade him", and spends the next half hour going "here kitty kitty kitty" to no avail. The Russian says, "force is the only thing they understand" and spend the next half hour futilely pistol whipping the cat. The Chinese finally tells them, "You have to understand the cat's mentality", and rubs a little bit of hot mustard on its butthole. Welcome to Congress.
March 16, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Samantha Power, Cass Sunstein and Goolsbee (a conservative economist by the way) are precisely the reasons I became attracted to Obama's candidacy. Too bad they suck at political speak, but I hope that's a good sign.
March 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not often impressed by recommendations, but this is one I take seriously. I have admired Sunstein since I first read one of his law review articles. I will never forget the deep breath of relief I felt as I read his clear-headed analysis.
That Obama would choose Sunstein for advice gives me that much more confidence in Obama's judgment.
Nice to have some good news!
March 15, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment