Clinton Says Obama Was MIA on Afghanistan. But Was She, Too?
| Mon Mar. 3, 2008 8:17 AM PST
In the past few days, as Hillary Clinton has intensified her attacks on Barack Obama prior to the all-important primaries in Ohio and Texas, she has claimed that he has been "missing in action" regarding Afghanistan. Clinton has been trying to make the case that she's better prepped than Obama to be commander-in-chief and more qualified to answer the phone at 3:00 a.m. when crisis strikes. To prove her point, she notes that Obama, who chairs a foreign relations subcommittee covering European matters, has held not one hearing on how to bolster NATO in Afghanistan. This weekend she told reporters on her campaign plane that he has failed in a "responsibility that is directly related to Afghanistan." She urged the journos to grill Obama on this. She said that Afghanistan is "one of the two most important challenges internationally." And she added, "I think he was missing in action...because he was running for president."
It's true that Obama has convened no meetings of the subcommittee, but his camp counters that he became chair of the subcommittee early last year, just as he was starting his presidential campaign. Clinton is technically correct that Obama could have used the subcommittee to conduct oversight of actions and policies related to Afghanistan. But the full foreign relations committee, under the guidance of Senator Joe Biden, has held several hearings on Afghanistan that covered NATO's role there. It's not as if the foreign relations committee did nothing on Afghanistan because Obama did not take on the mission. Also, as happens with many committees, the chair of the full committee reserves the right to handle the big issues him- or herself, and Afghanistan counts as a big issue.
Clinton ought to be careful about hurling stones in this area. As she always tells campaign crowds, she is a member of the Senate armed services committee. In February the committee held two hearings on Afghanistan. On February 8, it focused on appropriations for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was a witness. Eight days later, the committee zeroed in on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, holding a two-part hearing examining recent reports on Afghanistan. Key witnesses included senior officials from the State Department and the Pentagon responsible for the administration's Afghanistan policy.
Clinton attended neither of these hearings. She was on the campaign trail.
Many hearings occur on Capitol Hill without all members--or even a majority of members--of the committee in attendance. In fact, that's more common than not. At plenty of hearings, the committee chair is the only senator or representative present. So it's no surprise or scandal that Clinton was not there for these two Afghanistan hearings. (She did participate in two hearings on Afghanistan held by the committee in the first half of 2007.) But in a campaign season, a spinner could easily say that she's guilty of the same charge she tosses at Obama: putting presidential campaigning ahead of Afghanistan. Her neglect, certainly, is not the same as his: he held no hearings for a year; she attended no hearings this year. But as Clinton throws the kitchen sink at Obama, she ought to make sure nuts and bolts don't bounce back at her.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
First of all, you gave us facts about the 2 candidates both of whom have neglected senate duties. Since your interest seems more in the "tit-for-tat" between the candidates, the stresses you put on certain facts are logical.
But let's say we were interested in voting. In that case, a candidate who neglects his position as CHAIRMAN for OVER A YEAR is somewhat less responsible than the other candidate who is merely a member of her committee and who DID go to two meetings.
I love the music, I love the lines from the Obama campaign but voting for a president is a "whole nother thing."
That Senate campaign of Obama's is in charge of NATO, the European countries. Not Afghanistan. And Senate hearings are meant to conduct investigations. What about NATO needed to be investigated? Nothing. That's why there weren't any hearings. Because none were needed. If you and your spouse didn't go to marriage counseling last month, is it because you're not committed to your marriage? No, it's because you didn't NEED counseling. That's exactly what happened here. If there was a reason why there needed to be a hearing, wouldn't we have heard about it well before the day before the election?
Clinton's top strategist last week said Clinton was going to throw the "kitchen sink" at Obama in an attempt to take him down. Please don't believe these last-minute lies.
The Clintons tout MRS Clinton's readiness to be commander-in-chief from day one so that Bill Clinton can return to the WH, despite the Constitution's forbidding another term for him. Hillary is a fearmonger and a proven warmonger, voting to place our nation in peril, leading to the deaths of thousands of American lives and to the economic ruin of our country. She voted for the war in Iraq solely so she can run for the most important office in our nation. Think of her using her tears, her sacarstic theatrics, her mean-spirited lies and smears as commander-in-chief and to push through a universal health care plan which she had miserably failed to do in 1992. Think of the Republicans' ads showing Monica Lewinsky and Bill and cigars and more women coming out now with stories of his sexual assaults, etc, etc. Will the Clinton dynasty be electable? Do we citizens really want them back in the WH for an unconstitutional eight years? Is the Clinton machine going to continue to rule the Democratic Party, ushering in a generation of Republican ascendency and a new independent third party, and instructing the new voters under forty in cynicism and apathy? Turn the page, please, Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Save the nation, save the constitution, and save the party.
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith...
Dear Jacksmith - You probably are an idiot if you think Hillary can get elected president - all else is irrelevant. Please let us know how she is going to bring in the necessary independent voters to overcome the renergized republican base that her candidacy will cause, since the independents will have the choice of another Bush/Iraq enabler with far more "experience" than her, and will have a tough time pulling the lever to put Bill back in the White House - an image that Barack has been polite enough to not bring up but which republicans will hammer home relentlessly. While you may look forward to re-hashing those scandals and arguements of the late 90's, not many others do, and you're dreaming if you think she has a chance.
PS If Bill is home yet, she can pass the phone to him for that 3:00 am call.
"But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?_r=1&scp=26...
Her husband was elected with zero international experience and at least that part of his presidency turned out OK - it's about intelligence and judgement, qualities in which Obama excels.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that quantity of 'experience' counts for anything. Quality is what matters.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that being married to a spouse who has accomplished things provides *you* with experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that fighting a pitched battle and losing proves that you are more capable.
Where did this you might be an idiot talking point come from? I've seen it used by Clinton trolls all over the place.
Insulting people who dare not to kiss the ring of the Clinton Dynasty, is a distasteful extension of the 'Insult 40 States Strategy'.
Hillary's campaign presently combines the worst qualities of Giuliani's and Huckabee's.
She's running to be McCain's VP. Out all the DLC trolls from the Lieberman/Clinton wing of the party.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Tue Mar. 4, 2008 10:12 AM PST.
"Bottom line, a chair is responsible for the committee."
You understand, of course, the only way to run the committee is if he didn't run for president?
So, he just should have not run in the first place?
That sounds reasonable to you?
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Tue Mar. 4, 2008 10:13 AM PST.
Desperation from the obvious side of town, eh?
Responsibility: He understood this position and he also knew he would be running for president. Knowing that he should have considered being a member instead of being in charge of a committee and not attending the meetings. Maybe he was thinking of Hope, I don't know, however being a chair of a committee and then failing to attend the meetings and failing to meet the responsibility of those duties shows another side of Obama.
"Where did this you might be an idiot talking point come from? I've seen it used by Clinton trolls all over the place."
_________________
Actually, this is the exact same post you've seen. Apparently Jack C&P's this to every political blog he can find, believing that it somehow helps Hillary. Or maybe not. Maybe Jack is really the Obama campaigns version of those annoying robocalls that turn people off from a candidate.
And really Alexander, how can you not see that Obama is far more DLC-oriented than Hillary? Even though he carefully distances himself from them, his policies and statements about his mixed cabinet - Hagel, Lugar, Ahnold - belie his supposed progressive creds.
BTW - I also find it interesting that supporters of the so-called Unity candidate refer to supporters of his DEMOCRATIC opposition as trolls. I guess that unity thing only refers to playing nice with Republicans, not fellow Democrats.
I see this Jack Smith "You might be a..." posting just about everywhere. He's the true example of a troll. I've challenged him and refuted his posting, which he obviously thinks is very clever, yet he never replies to me refutations. I've asked him to list for me the substantive nills Hillary has AUTHORED and passed in eight years in the senate. Crickets. I've asked him to quantify Hillary's experience, to give me concrete examples of her deeds that warrants all this experience she claims. Crickets. He can't or he won't. Sad. But that's typical of Hillary's sock puppets.
YOU might be an idiot if you think that your spouse accomplishing something is the same as YOU accomplishing something! By that yardstick, everything that Bill did wrong, Hillary also did wrong. Do you really want to go there?
The fact is, unlike Obama, Hillary actually attended meetings for the committees she was a part of. You can't become the CHAIR of a committee and not attend. It looks like Joe Biden and others did the work Obama was supposed to do. He's running to be the leader of America but he doesn't have the time to lead on a committee. I guess when he's president other people will do his job too. He can call Joe Biden to bail him out of his responsibilities again, I guess. This is ridiculous.
Submitted by Peter O'Driscoll (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 12:15 PM PST.
"If there was a reason why there needed to be a hearing, wouldn't we have heard about it well before the day before the election?"
The government of Afghanistan controls 30% of the country, so why worry about NATO? Do you have a job? Do you have a family? Do you have time to think about committee meetings that have not taken place?
I really respect what Bill
Clinton did for our country, but I totally lost respect for him as a person for his morals. Now, my very young sons will have to learn through the history
books how it is alright for a leader of the greatest country on Earth can commit adultery and his wife will stand up for him. I have a tough job ahead of me in explaining to my sons that it is not alright to have a bad moral character even if one of our past presidents does. I am not a perfect person, and have made my share of mistakes in life, and no doubt more will be made. However, I can proudly and honestly say, my morals are far better than our 42nd
President. Also, I can't believe that people can be so intent on having Senator Clinton represent the Democratic party, much less the United States of
America after she boasts 35 years experience and didn't have a plan beyond super Tuesday. She further displays bad judgement, not only for backing up Bush on war with Iraq, but bad judgement on her campaign managers. In my opinion, it is safe to assume that these are the things that she would bring along with her to the Whitehouse if she was to whine her way into it. I am strongly, and always have been, against the war in Iraq. Doesn't any one who supports
Senator Clinton notice that before Super Tuesday, she didn't have a timetable when she would get our troops out of Iraq? Then shortly after she realized she had some competition, she said she would get us out in 90 days. Then after she lost 11 in a row, she reduced it to 60 days. Come on, get real! Once again, I am strongly against the war, but there is no sensible way to pull out of Iraq 60 days after inauguration without various repercussions. Not unless she plans on re-deploying the troops shortly after pulling them out. 60 days is like turning our backs on those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for a war that she agreed to, and to the family's of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. How can she even face the children of those who gave their lives even now to suggest such a thing. One more thing, I have noticed too, that there is only one country, other than our own, that wants Mrs. Rodham-Clinton
to win the presidency. That country is the oil rich Saudi Arabia, and their reason for wanting Senator Clinton in the Whithouse is because: "They had good relations with Bill Clinton." It must be because they know that all that they have to do is dangle some money in front of her to get her to forget about her "promises" about using our money to combat global warming which would in turn reduce our oil consumption. It is hard to believe, I USED to have a
little compassion for Hillary Clinton, especially after the scandals that happened during her husbands administration. However, now my eyes have been
opened up by her and I have no sympothy what-so-ever for her. The only reason that she stayed with him after he humiliated her in front of the entire world, was for personal gain and to get back into the Whitehouse on his positive accomplishments. Even if it means destroying the Democratic Party.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
