Democrats, Primaries etc - Since I'm not sure where to put this one

[Big Magilla]

I don't recall that in 2002 three-quarters of Americans believed Saddam was responsbile for 9/11. I don't think three-quarters of Americans ever believed that. What they may have beleived was that Saddam was in his own way a threat as dangerous as Ossama Bin Laden, but I dont think most people connected the two despite the administration's efforts to make us think so.

Click on this link, and be frightened. Be very frightened:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

And that poll's from September of 2003!

Five months into the war, yes. I could be wrong, but as I remember it, after the weapons of mass destruction were proven not to exist, those supporting the war were looking for other reasons to justify it, which is when many started to believe the 9/11 conenction.

[Sonic Youth]

Like I said before, all this back-and-foth over who said what when gets us nowhere.

Yeah, maybe. But if there's going to be so much back around here, there's got to be a little bit of forth. (Jesus, I'm gonna regret that one.)

I don't recall, though, that in 2002 three-quarters of Americans believed Saddam was responsbile for 9/11. I don't think three-quarters of Americans ever believed that. What they may have beleived was that Saddam was in his own way a threat as dangerous as Ossama Bin Laden, but I dont think most people connected the two despite the administration's efforts to make us think so.

Click on this link, and be frightened. Be very frightened:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

And that poll's from September of 2003!

[Big Magilla]

Yup, Hillary played it safe, like most Democrats during a time when most Americans were clamoring for a good fight. And they CONTINUE to play it safe, by speaking out against the war while at the same time funding it. What if Bush's claims had turned out to be right? Or what if the war was a huge success, and Iraq was majestically transformed? Then what becomes of the Democratic party? But that's realpolitik for you, and it's a tough position for any politician to be in, particularly in 2002 when things were fraught and three-quarters of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and especially in a democracy where war is seen as a fundamental aspect to uphold it (and Bush knew that very well.)

Like I said before, all this back-and-foth over who said what when gets us nowhere. As long as they're both against it now it's a non-issue for me.

I don't recall, though, that in 2002 three-quarters of Americans believed Saddam was responsbile for 9/11. I don't think three-quarters of Americans ever believed that. What they may have beleived was that Saddam was in his own way a threat as dangerous as Ossama Bin Laden, but I dont think most people connected the two despite the administration's efforts to make us think so.

[Sonic Youth]

Obama certainly carried no pretense about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime, referring to the late Iraqi dictator as “brutal” and “ruthless” and acknowledging that “the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.” At the same time, he recognized that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.” Furthermore, Obama recognized “that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained.”

That same month in Washington, Clinton was insisting incorrectly that Iraq had ties to al-Qaida, was “trying to develop nuclear weapons,” and that Iraq’s possession of biological and chemical weapons was “not in doubt."

The journalist is a liar.

There's been a recent meme on this board that essentially says, in Oct. 2002 some people believed Saddam had - or was developing - WMDs, some didn't. It's time to put that one to bed. But first, let's get deal with this lie here and now.

Here the author is bringing up differences of position between the two. The contrast couldn't be clearer. Clinton is "insisting incorrectly" that "Iraq 'was trying to develop nuclear weapons', and that Iraq's possession of biological and chemical weapons was 'not in doubt.'" Obama says nothing of the sort. Right?

The fact is, Obama DID say something of the sort in Oct. 2002. Obama is on record as saying Saddam has "developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity." The same things Clinton "incorrectly" insisted.

How do I know Obama said these things? BECAUSE IT'S IN THE SPEECH THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE IS WRITING ABOUT.

Here's a link to the speech. Pretty good speech, even I'll give him that:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

"Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."

The author must have seen this. He quoted words from that very same paragraph. But he omitted this information, yet calls Clinton "incorrect" for maintaining the same thing that Obama maintains, which is Saddam's weapons capability. Hooray for the double standard, the same one that gives Kerry a pass for signing a bill Clinton signed.

The author is a hack, but that's really beside the point. More importantly, this illustrates a bigger picture. At the time, Obama didn't want to go to war. But he did believe in October, 2002 that Saddam possibly did have WMDs. Think about that. I think everyone has forgotten what the mindset was back then. Lots of things hadn't happened yet. Colin Powell's bogus U.N. testimony hadn't happened yet. Hans Blix (Ah, Hans Blix! More on him later.) hadn't yet entered Iraq with his inspectors. Iraq was a depleted force. It was likely these claims of WMDs were overblown. But AT THAT TIME, no one had any concrete proof that was the case.

During the Kerry campaign, some evil fuck collected a bunch of quotes of Democrats having stated in years past that Saddam Hussein indeed had an arsenal of WMDs, and it made its way around the internet. The premise was something like "Who's lying? Bush or the Democrats?" It included quotes from Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Al Gore, Madelaine Albright, etc. But it also included these quotes from Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Robert Byrd. Three very outspoken people who voted AGAINST the war.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002


I think there can be no doubt that if the phrase "taken out of context" ever applied, it was here. I'm positive these quotes were taken from a larger statement insisting we not go to war. In Byrd's case, it definitely was. (I know the page doesn't give Byrd's name, but trust me. It's him. Know any other senators who'd say "Fie upon the Congress"?) But again, look at the dates. Approximately the same time the authorization was signed, Kennedy a little earlier but not substantially. Boxer claimed Iraq hadn't dismantled its WMDs one month AFTER the authorization was signed.

So let's not paint Hillary as some sort of buffoon because she entertained the possibility that Saddam might have weapons. So, apparently, did everyone. To say otherwise is to commit historical rewrite. Again, this was BEFORE the inspections and BEFORE the U.N. meetings. CONTEXT MATTERS.

Yup, Hillary played it safe, like most Democrats during a time when most Americans were clamoring for a good fight. And they CONTINUE to play it safe, by speaking out against the war while at the same time funding it. What if Bush's claims had turned out to be right? Or what if the war was a huge success, and Iraq was majestically transformed? Then what becomes of the Democratic party? But that's realpolitik for you, and it's a tough position for any politician to be in, particularly in 2002 when things were fraught and three-quarters of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and especially in a democracy where war is seen as a fundamental aspect to uphold it (and Bush knew that very well.) Maybe that's pragmatic to a fault, maybe it's immoral. But that's the price you pay for being a politician in America, as Fund-the-War Obama could tell you. (How many politicians have kept us out of war and are seen as successful? Carter avoided a confrontation with Iran. Now he's remembered as a lousy president.)

More tomorrow. I've only scratched the surface. I haven't even gotten into what was in the actual "authorization".



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1203576353

[Akash]

TIME MAGAZINE
Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2008
Clinton's Spin Machine: Spun Dry
By Michael Grunwald

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the ninth and tenth straight time last night, with blowouts in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Needless to say, this means nothing. As Clinton strategist Mark Penn explained yesterday, Wisconsin has a lot of independent voters, so it doesn't really matter. And Hawaii is practically Obama's home state, so it obviously doesn't matter. Anyway, as Penn said recently, "winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election." It's apparently not even a sign of who can win the Democratic nomination — at least not when the victories are Obama's.

The Clinton spin machine has been consistent about this. Nebraska, Idaho and Utah didn't matter because they were deep-red states. South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia didn't matter because they had large percentages of black voters. Maine and Washington didn't matter because caucuses aren't truly representative. Maryland and Virginia didn't matter because Obama was expected to win there. For a moment, it looked like Missouri might matter when the networks called it for Hillary — her campaign quickly bragged about winning a "closely contested toss-up state" — but the networks were wrong. On the other hand, it looked like Nevada wasn't going to matter at all because there were polling stations in casinos, but it ended up huge because Hillary won.

It turns out that the only state Obama won that could have mattered was Illinois, his real home state; unfortunately, home-state victories don't really count, except when they take place in New York. "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states outside of Illinois?" Penn recently asked.

Well yes, in fact, it's starting to look like we could. So maybe all these Obama victories mean something after all. Maybe they mean that voters are sick of the perpetual Clinton spin machine. At the very least, they've made it clear that the machine is broken, if not dead.

Spin is about framing a coherent narrative, and Team Hillary's narrative borders on self-parody. When Hillary was getting lots of endorsements, it showed that she was the people's choice. Now that Obama's getting lots of endorsements, it shows that he's the "establishment candidate." When Hillary was doing better than Obama in head-to-head matchups against Republicans, it showed that she was more electable. Now that Obama's doing better, it shows that he hasn't been vetted. Obama was naive for saying he'd meet with foreign dictators; he was also deceitful for claiming that Hillary would refuse to meet with foreign dictators.

Let's face it: All campaigns spin. They all try to put favorable glosses on tough situations. Back when Hillary was dominating the polls and Penn was churning out inevitability memos declaring that the race had stabilized (3/27/07) except that Hillary was widening her lead (5/7/07) and strengthening her lead (6/18/07) and better positioned than ever (7/9/07), Obama had to argue that he still had a chance — otherwise, why would anyone have supported him? Now that John McCain is the presumptive G.O.P. nominee, Mike Huckabee has been saying he believes in miracles. What else is he going to say?

But at least Huckabee isn't trying to claim that his race is actually neck-and-neck, or that he wasn't really trying to win states where he campaigned and lost, or that one failed prediction after another just proves what he's been saying all along. Spin works best when it's intermittent and plausible; the Clinton camp's has been constant and ludicrous. Is it really wise to dismiss the vast majority of the United States as insignificant? Does anyone believe that the misguided attack on Obama's kindergarten ambitions was "a joke"? Explain to us again why Michigan's delegates should be seated even though Democrats agreed not to campaign there and Obama wasn't even on the ballot? Why are we supposed to ignore Wisconsin when it's got exactly the demographics that Penn has assured us are part of Hillary's "enduring coalition," back when Hillary had a massive lead in the state and just about every other state?

It's strange, because when I covered Hillary's first Senate race in 2000, I felt like she was a pretty bad candidate with some very smart advisors who helped carry her to victory by sticking to a relentlessly disciplined — though frustratingly banal — message. Now she's a much better candidate; she has eight years in the Senate on her resume, she actually lives in the jurisdiction where she's running for office, and she's much less stilted on the stump. And while she's still got the same advisers, they can't seem to keep their story straight anymore.

It's understandable that the Clintonites operate in permanent spin mode; they weathered a constant barrage of attacks in the 1990s, and they came to see politics as a perpetual war room where you say whatever's necessary to win the day. It's hard to know whether their self-justifying and self-contradictory nonsense bothers actual voters, or just the reporters who have it force-fed to them. Strategy and marketing can be overrated in the world of retail; it might just be that a majority of Democratic voters, faced with a choice between two strong candidates with similar policies, prefer the Obama product.

But the Orwellian spin and the silly gotchas certainly could reinforce Obama's message that Clinton is mired in the small-minded, zero-sum, it's-all-a-game Washington politics of the past. There was that classic debate moment when Hillary said her worst quality was her impatience to change the world, and then criticized Obama for admitting he was disorganized. The next day, Obama said that if he had known that was how the game was supposed to be played, he would have said his worst quality was his overeagerness to help old ladies cross the street. Who do you think won that argument?

This morning, after his resounding victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii, Hillary finally acknowledged the obvious about Obama: "He's had a good couple of weeks, and he's run a good race." It wasn't an admission of defeat; it was an admission of reality. It added a bit of credibility to her larger where's-the-beef argument, which is that Obama isn't ready to be President, and voters have been falling for his fancy speeches without examining his substance. That's spin, too, but it's reasonable spin that tells a debatable but plausible story. We'll see if voters buy it in Texas and Ohio.

And if they don't, we'll find out whether Texas and ohio don't matter either.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1714840,00.html

[Akash]

I think last night made it clear Obama's the nominee-presumptive. And, though I know many in the press (and some here) want to see that as stinging repudiation of all things Clinton, I think it's more that 1) Obama is a unique political talent, fit to join the two Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton among charismatic presidential candidates this century; 2) however she's tried to twist out of it, Hillary's vote for the Iraq war was in the end disqualifying for a party that mostly opposed it before the fact; and 3) there comes a point in primary campaigns where voters just want to resolve things -- the "making inroads into Hillary's base vote" about which the networks were so breathless last night is more people deciding that Obama is ahead, and the sooner the party settles the issue, the better off everyone is.

Right. Even though our political views don't always align Mister Tee (and even though -- I think -- you're more optimistic about Hillary or Obama than I am) I agree with this assessment.



Edited By Akash on 1203574037

[Sonic Youth]

The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
February 18th, 2008
Clinton Bought Bush’s War Talk, Obama Didn’t

by Stephen Zunes



Former President Bill Clinton insisted recently that Clinton and Obama had had virtually identical records on the Iraq war and that Obama’s claim that he “had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning” was “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

The record from that month, however, shows that there were indeed major differences between the two future presidential contenders,

Already misleading, and he's just getting started!

This is probably a minor point, but it's used to establish the premise of the article, so it's worth a going over. It doesn't have anything to do with the authorization bill in question, but commentators are using that bill to illustrate the difference between Obama and Clinton, and how Obama is the anti-war candidate. And he's no more so than she is.

Clinton did NOT say Obama's quoted claim was a "fairy-tale". He was referring to Obama's opposition to the war throughout his career and that it's at odds with how the media portrays him. And here's the transcript of Clinton's remarks where you can see for yourself:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news....he.html

But the article interprets his comment to mean his opposition "from the very beginning" was a "fairy tale", and runs with it.

As appealing as Obama may seem in that article, Heksagon, since Obama took office, he has voted for EVERY war funding bill, continuing the slaughter of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis after speaking out against said war in '02. That's a fact. Hardly another Russ Feingold, though you wouldn't know it from any of these articles.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1203571798

[Sonic Youth]

Well, if the article below is true,

And there's the rub. Much of it isn't. There's a lot of stretched truth, untruths by omission, and flat out lies in that article. I'll deal with it.

Most delicious of all, would you have ever believed that the bloody-handed enablers of the Iraq war--Clinton, Edwards, Kerry--all of whom knew exactly what they were voting for, and all of whom did it to advance their personal ambitions over the dead bodies of Iraqis and Americans alike, that these disgusting opportunists would have been handed their walking papers, in no small part because of this vote?

Sigh... And here's the level of discourse American commentary has taken on. Thank you very much, 24-hour-news-cycle. Grand platitudes, rhetoric, abstractions and presumptions in place of context and historical awareness. No wonder Obama supporters are drawn to this. It's just like their candidate.

("Gasp! Ask the Iraqi people if THEY think it's rhetoric and platitudes!" There, I just saved someone a minute-and-a-half from using a straw man.)

Since this horse continues to be beaten, it's time to straighten out the record or at least provide balance. Highlighting over and over again multiple opinion pieces saying "She authorized the war, she authorized the war, she authorized the war" like a series of "Gotchas!!" may be enough for those who are convinced and feel no need to dig any deeper. Hey, it reads real good! It ain't my idea of rational persuasion. All I've learned is that there are people out there whom I disagree with. Well, I knew that already. Now what case can be made to persuade me otherwise? Absent one, I'll make a case of my own.

And I'll do it without opinion pieces. I don't need opinion pieces to speak for me. I can do well on my own, and I can find the appropriate facts, quotes and articles that I believe speak for themselves. I'm doing this not to demogouge (I supported Edwards, and Kucinich before him), nor to fight, although it's clear the reason these particular articles are posted and these particular passages are highlighted are meant as a kudgel against me. This particular angle has been a major pet peeve since people started bringing it up six months ago or so. What Hillary is being trounced for in 2008 is EXACTLY the same thing Kerry had on his record. And much of the same people - including NEARLY EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD - gave Kerry a pass for voting for the resolution. In 2004, Kerry supporters defended his actions against accusations from the Bush adminstration. Now these accusations have been appropriated by former Kerry supporters who are now self-designated anti-Clinton's. Well, I don't accept applying one narrative to Kerry one year and a different narrative to Clinton in another year. So before this conventional "wisdom" calcifies for good, let's get our facts in order. I'll do this bit by bit.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1203569480

[Akash]

Ugh. The damn thing won't post. So just follow the link:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/20/7174/



Edited By Akash on 1203555915

[taki15]

I think Chuck Todd said it best about Obama's charisma:

''Obama is coated in the same Teflon Reagan and Bill Clinton soaked in during their campaigns''.

[Steph2]

I think last night made it clear Obama's the nominee-presumptive. And, though I know many in the press (and some here) want to see that as stinging repudiation of all things Clinton, I think it's more that 1) Obama is a unique political talent, fit to join the two Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton among charismatic presidential candidates this century; 2) however she's tried to twist out of it, Hillary's vote for the Iraq war was in the end disqualifying for a party that mostly opposed it before the fact; and 3) there comes a point in primary campaigns where voters just want to resolve things -- the "making inroads into Hillary's base vote" about which the networks were so breathless last night is more people deciding that Obama is ahead, and the sooner the party settles the issue, the better off everyone is.

Well said Mister Tee! I completely agree with all of it!

[Mister Tee]

Lisa Schiffren was an assistant to Dan Quayle, and is one of those who's always preaching the GOP has to go FURTHER right to win elections. In short, she's part of the group leading the GOP off the cliff. I assume we'll see stuff like this throughout the campaign -- most of it in whispering campaigns, not as out-front as this -- because what else does the GOP have to run on?

I think last night made it clear Obama's the nominee-presumptive. And, though I know many in the press (and some here) want to see that as stinging repudiation of all things Clinton, I think it's more that 1) Obama is a unique political talent, fit to join the two Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton among charismatic presidential candidates this century; 2) however she's tried to twist out of it, Hillary's vote for the Iraq war was in the end disqualifying for a party that mostly opposed it before the fact; and 3) there comes a point in primary campaigns where voters just want to resolve things -- the "making inroads into Hillary's base vote" about which the networks were so breathless last night is more people deciding that Obama is ahead, and the sooner the party settles the issue, the better off everyone is.

[Damien]

This is one of the damnedest things I've ever seen in all my years of following politics. It's from The National Review website (which isn't even lunatic fringe as far as the reicht wing goes) and indicates that McCarthy-ism -- innuendo and stupid smears -- is alive and well. (Specifically, that as the offspring of a mixed-marriage back in the day, there must be some Communism in Obama's background:


OBAMA'S POLITICAL ORIGINS
by Lisa Schiffren

Until I came across this article by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, which I regard as factual — with all that that implies — the questions about Obama's background that should have come naturally never quite rose to the surface of my mind. Barack Obama is the new man, of course. His mixed race is a symbol of that. Just like Tiger Woods — as we have read, endlessly. What's to wonder about?

But maybe it's not so simple. Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)

I don't know how Barak Obama's parents met. But the Kincaid article referenced above makes a very convincing case that Obama's family, later, (mid 1970s) in Hawaii, had close relations with a known black Communist intellectual. And, according to what Obama wrote in his first autobiography, the man in question — Frank Marshall Davis — appears to have been Barack's own mentor, and even a father figure. Of course, since the Soviet Union itself no longer exists, it's an open question what it means practically to have been politically mentored by an official Communist. Ideologically, the implications are clearer.

Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama's mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible? Before readers level cheap accusations of racism — let's recall that the very question of interracial marriage only became a big issue later in the 1960s. The notion of a large group of mixed race Americans became an issue during and after the Vietnam War. Even the civil-rights movement kept this culturally explosive matter at arm's distance.

It was, of course, an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution. To be sure, there was much to be discontented about, for black Americans, prior to the civil-rights revolution. To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn't buy the commie line — and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow.

Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.

[Heksagon]

Well, if the article below is true, it would certainly make me sympathetic towards Obama, even if I have no intention of taking any sides in this election, even less in the primary.

[Akash]

Just in case it was unclear -- as it seems to be with a few people on this board.

The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin)
February 18th, 2008
Clinton Bought Bush’s War Talk, Obama Didn’t

by Stephen Zunes

In determining which of the two leading Democratic candidates would make the most competent and credible commander in chief, it is revealing to compare the public statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during October 2002, when Congress voted to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Former President Bill Clinton insisted recently that Clinton and Obama had had virtually identical records on the Iraq war and that Obama’s claim that he “had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning” was “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

The record from that month, however, shows that there were indeed major differences between the two future presidential contenders, with Clinton supporting the Bush administration’s push for war and its exaggerated claims about Iraq’s alleged military prowess while Obama was opposing a U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country and openly challenging the administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat so urgent it required a march to war.

Though under no obligation as an Illinois state senator to make any public statements on foreign policy, Obama spoke out against the prospects of war at an anti-war rally in Chicago.

Obama certainly carried no pretense about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime, referring to the late Iraqi dictator as “brutal” and “ruthless” and acknowledging that “the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.” At the same time, he recognized that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.” Furthermore, Obama recognized “that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained.”

That same month in Washington, Clinton was insisting incorrectly that Iraq had ties to al-Qaida, was “trying to develop nuclear weapons,” and that Iraq’s possession of biological and chemical weapons was “not in doubt.”

Clinton then went on record insisting that the risk that Saddam would “employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States” was enough to “justify action by the United States to defend itself,” specifically by authorizing President Bush to launch an invasion of Iraq at the time and circumstances of his choosing.

Whether Iraq constituted such a threat to U.S. national security was not the only thing that separated Clinton and Obama back in October 2002. In the months leading up to the Senate vote, former State Department and intelligence officials, representatives of European and Mideast allies, scholars specializing in the region, and other experts advised Clinton that a U.S. invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems. So did thousands of ordinary citizens.

Despite this, Clinton insisted that her voting to authorize the invasion was “in the best interests of our nation.”

Meanwhile, back in Chicago, Obama was observing how “even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He also recognized that “an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida.”

On one of the most critical policy questions of a generation, a state senator from Illinois was able to figure out what an experienced member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee could not — that Saddam was no longer a threat and that an invasion of Iraq would harm America’s national security interests.

That kind of judgment shows itself today in their respective choices as senior foreign policy advisers, many of whom would likely take top policy-making positions if the candidate does become president. Obama has assembled a foreign policy team whose members overwhelmingly opposed the war, in contrast to Clinton’s, whose members overwhelmingly supported it.

Wisconsin voters should keep this in mind in choosing which of these two Democratic candidates has the best judgment to lead this country during this next critical period.

Stephen Zunes, of Santa Cruz, Calif., is a former Madison resident and a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author of “Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism.”

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/273007



Edited By Akash on 1203440759