Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

How short our memories must be. Remember the peace marches before the vote and before the war. The neocon discussion of invading pre-9/11. Remember that Sadam Hussein was uncooperative because we tried to assassinate him with a bomb? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29

Remember the weapons inspectors and Hons Blix stating their concerns about the American intelligence.

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Hillary Clinton must not have gotten those briefings. She got Misled.

...and so it continues....

The quote proves that Obama has greater foresight, instict, and understanding of the middle east than the people who failed to question or even read the NIE reports and connect that dots that weren't there in the first place. Lets face Powell had his arm a little more than twisted by Bush.

I think this is a pretty damning indictment of Obama's "judgement." However, I think it's too much to say this translates into lack of substance. Wilson makes it sound as if Barack's subcommittee wielded astounding oversight power, which isn't really the case. Secondly, if we are to interpret Obama's decisions as being about a cynical negotiation of political waters, then it only makes him a typically crafty politician who was angling for a nomination to THEN make "tough decisions" (which he wouldn't be able to shirk). Perhaps it does undermine his rhetoric, and this is not insignificant. But again, this doesn't mean he lacks substance, or that as president he would utterly avoid to act in meaningful ways.

Having read OGM for about 5 years now, I must say how much it saddens me to remove it from my browser's default tabs.

Thanks for the good times ... Maybe I'll give it a read after the elections when everyone becomes sane again and the content improves.

cue the star wars clip with the Emperor: "Everything is going as planned."

Holy shit.

Has this blog turned into an Anti-Obama blog? This is really getting pathetic, Norm.

My respect for Mr. Wilson notwithstanding, several portions of this article are a distortion.

(1.) Above all, Wilson ignores the specifics of Obama's speech, which is revealing, given how he is often accused of being vague. His argument in that speech was not "intuitive" as Wilson suggests. It was well-thoughtout, and Obama specifically and presciently predicted the kinds of sectarian violence that has since gripped the country, and much else, and he did not need a top secret security clearance to do that.
(2.) He ignores that opposition to the war was widely regarded as "unpatriotic," on both sides of the political aisle, at the time Obama made the speech. It is therefore simply a non-sequitur to point out that Obama was running for a national seat in a "very liberal" region of the country. It was the opposite of pandering, at the time. (3.) Obama's stances on Iran notwithstanding--about which more in a moment--it ignores that the gripe with Clinton is not just that she voted for Iraq, but that this has been part of a consistent pattern of putatively "patriotic" saber-rattling on her part: including getting the Iranian military as a "terrorist organization." (Obama's missing this vote does not help her in the least: whatever Obama did, she made a bad decision on Iraq, and she made a bad decision on Iran). (4.) It ignores the fact that there is a press and information beyond the U.S. I know some American's find this idea hard to understand, but the IAEA directly refuted the misleading reporting the NYT and elsewhere--and that is what I based my own opinion on at the time. Surely the international agency in charge of assessing Iraq's nuclear capabilities is good source of evidence? (5.) The Iran point also ignores that our prominant dipolomats with Iran and other Ambassadors have recently written a piece indirectly endorsing the very strategy over which Obama has himself been charged with naivete," of holding negotiations without conditions. Feinstein and Hagel remarkable wrote in to directly endorse this position.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112

Feinstein's and Hagel's responses are here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21114

(6.) >Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

Go read the Constitution, Joe. Congress is the only government body with the authority to declare war. You cannot simply vote that authority away to the president through an "Authorization for the Use of Force".

I don't really give Obama much credit for the correct predictions he made about Iraq in 2003. I'm guessing there or more than a few lackluster college students at lackluster universities who made the same prediction at the time. I do give Obama credit for speaking out when he saw the obvious -- when so many wouldn't while Bush's approval rating was 91 percent. A few minutes on Google in 2003 and anyone was able to lay waste to the Bush administration's march to war. Do people still honestly give credence to democrats who complain about being lied to?

Good post Adam, though I don't know if it will get the response i feel it should...more likely this will just turn into another ad hominem attack fest until the next hit piece is posted.

You know, it's very odd that Ambassador Wilson is the one arguing that the authorization was valid.

Wasn't he the one, then, publishing articles that the evidence linking Iraq to Nuclear weapons was false? Wasn't his the spy who found "no" evidence supporting the claims of Colin Powell, or other Administration officials?

Is Joe hoping (or has been promised) that the new Clinton will re-instate him to a post as he held in the Old Clinton administration?

Hillary prefers president McCain to President Obama!

Olbermann and Maddow weigh in on Hillary preferring McCain to Obama

Wasn't he the one, then, publishing articles that the evidence linking Iraq to Nuclear weapons was false?

Exactly, he and others had already accused bush of Falsifying intelligence when Senator Clinton made that vote.

Now he suggests there is noway Clinton might have known what he had written in the NYT.

Speaking fo th ebalance and conisderation I like to see on blogs I read, here' Budowsky's rebuttal (also on HuffPo):

Joe Wilson is Wrong About Obama

Regarding Hillary Clinton's experience, by far her most important national security experience in her entire life was her five years of all-out support for the Iraq war. Her aggressive and uncompromising support for the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Her stubborn, relentless support for the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Her most recent major experience with national security was her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution, which she falsely portrayed as a vote for diplomacy with Iran, when in truth it was a neocon-inspired push by those who favored war with Iran, as they favored war with Iraq.

I correct myself.

His NYT article was written in 2003, I believe his comments were made public before that b ut I do not see when that occured.

Regardlessm his article was published after the vote although others incluging Greg Theilman came out before the vote.

I will track down that article if I can.

I am not sure anyone should oppose Hillary for her vote, but i do disagree that attacking the war in 2002/ 2003 took no courage or had no political fallout option. I think most of us would conceed that Obama has had big ambitions beyond Illinois in 2002.

2004 NYT interview prior to democratic convention: "He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said."

I'm sorry; this is total crap.

I remember Powell's pathetic UN speech that used (bad) computer generated graphics to show supposed mobile weapons labs and so on.

I also remember what the chief UN weapons inspector (Blix) said right afterwords: that Iraq was complying on destroying rockets, that they did not have evidence supporting Powell's claims, and that they needed a little more time to clarify things.

This idea of "if you had only seen the bogus intelligence that I saw, you would have been duped into supporting an illegal war too" is a total red herring.

So Obama was from an overwhelmingly anti-war district? Good for him for being elected to one of the only sane districts in this country that's, elsewhere, full of follow-the-leader drones.

Joe is a Clinton man and a CIA asset. Nothing wrong with that, but he was appointed Ambassador by Clinton, the man who authorized extraordinary rendition (and by extension secret imprisonment and torture of those who were disappeared). What good might you expect him to say about Barack Obama?

The Clintons are caretakers for the corporate interests who are better served by Republicans, but who approve an interregnum now and again to maintain appearances. This year it doesn't matter to the monopolists and oligarchs whether Clinton or McCain wins. In fact they might prefer Clinton who will be less of a loose cannon than John "the Keating thing was just a mistake" McCain.

Obama represents an unknown factor. If he is elected with a mandate for change with a Democratic majority in both houses we might actually see a return to populist programs and some limits placed on rapacious corporate greed. I don't have any hope of that with Clinton.

Lame. This is indeed the "silly season" in politics. I expected a little better from this blog.

I love that Joe puts "judgement" in quotes as though obama is a five year old and has zero judgement.

Nice salt in the wound, kinda touch.

Sorry Norm, but I have to disagree with you, on all counts. Her Healthcare plan is not better, it's different. Besides, the details that differentiate the two are what's going to be hashed out once either one takes office. I personally believe that Obama's plan has the best chance of being implemented. Not only that, but the negotiations will be broadcast live on cspan.

I have some questions for you. How about the question of integrity? Does it not bother you that Hillary has been the most triangulated, poll tested, and carefully manufactured politician of the last decade? How about every lie that she's pushed out during this campaign that she purposefully uses to mislead the electorate? And how do you prioritize the importance of the general election? Specifically, do you care if a democrat is elected or not? I tell you what, if Hillary is the nominee, we'll all get to enjoy at least 4 years of President McCain. Guaranteed.

And lastly, I just gotta ask. Why all the Obama hate? The "He's gonna be beholden to corporate interests" stuff is getting old. If you think that your golden boy Edwards is the second coming (haha! a Jesus joke between Atheists) and wouldn't comprimise anything to get stuff done, then you are deluding yourself. I really used to like this blog, but the constant incessant Obama bashing has been a huge turn-off.

Since Wilson is so keen on Clinton's Senate floor speech to vote for the invasion of Iraq, and on her experience, it is worth noting that she cites her experience as the reason motiving her vote for the war:

Clip is here

All anti-Obama, all the time. Sad really. I've been coming to this site so long I can't even remember when I started, but it's over now. 1GM has been removed from my Google Reader and this will be my last visit here.

I think it simply doesn't matter. I think all three will be beholden to corporate interests. So I'm looking at how my position on the issues match up with the candidates and like I've said Hillary primarily because of her healthcare plan being better is a better choice than Obama.

Are we to believe you post 5 negative attacks on Obama a day because you think Clinton has a better Healthcare Plan?

Do you believe that?

This is Just sad Norm...

which the Center says includes people who work for lobbying firms at the local, state, and federal level and their relatives who are not otherwise employed, as well as those who are officially registered as Washington lobbyists. Obama received contributions of about just $86,000 from this group.

We should vote for Clinton because she takes 800K directly from Lobbyists, and vote against Obama because he fails to return money from the family members of lobbyists and non lobbyist employees of firms that do lobbying, to the grand total of 86K out of what must be 2-3 hundred million raised largely from individual contributions?

Do you have some logical argument why this should even be a real factor against Obama rather then against Clinton?

I'd like to register my dismay too, Norm.

No idea why or where it comes from, but it seems your overwhelming attempts to hurt Obama are more personal than logical, all without managing anything but some luke-warm praise for Clinton.

It's ugly, counter-productive and reflects poorly on this blog.

A discussion on Campaign Financing with Lawrence Lessig about Obama's Financing

(just scan through, i don't recall when the interview starts)

Thanks RedSeven and bugjah for reminding us what we should never forget. Whether privy to inside briefings or not, it didn't take a genius to realize that the intelligence was bogus, that Bush had an agenda and was looking for an excuse to invade. Hell, right after the 2000 election, the Onion ran the headline, "Bush elected president; nation goes to war."

Powell's testimony was unconvincing. Go back and look at the language used to describe alleged links to terrorism and supposed nuclear ambitions. They just dance around the real truth: that we had bupkis to justify invasion. Politicians who bought the story that the administration was selling them were either blind or simply unwilling to go against the strong tide of nationalism after 9/11.

I marched in those peace rallies, along with most of my college professors at the time. On the local news, we were all smeared as unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers. My good friend at the time was an Iraqi living in Europe. Although he loathed Saddam and his regime, he knew the intelligence claims were crap, and he correctly predicted that we would oust Saddam only to see the country erupt in civil war.

Joe Wilson's playing revisionist here, and it's insulting.

His argument reminds me of Cheney's rebuttal of Dick Clarke's "Against all enemies" (I hope you read it): that Clarke was not privy to terror briefings and therefore "out of the loop." As Condoleeza later pointed out, Richard Clarke "was the loop."

Joe Wilson's just the latest to dust off this hollow argument. In the loop or out of the loop, any moron capable of minimal critical thought should have recognized those briefings for the crap they were. But maybe I'm asking too much of our elected officials.

If this article makes it easier for you to rationalize Clinton's support for the war, then maybe, just maybe, that's why Joe Wilson wrote it.

By the way: I've been lurking here for years. If suddenly this blog is going to pretend that anything about the Bush argument for invasion was pursuasive, well, then I'm following JoAnn.

I think we can rightfully call Obama both brave for his stance, as well as triangulating when necessary subsequently. That said, compare his actions to Wilson and Clinton:

The only reason we know who Wilson is is because he staked his reputation on refuting the Nigerian yellowcake forgery, and has since adamantly stated that the Bush Administration lied. Yet he praises Clinton and derides Obama based on the faulty intelligence that the Senate was supplied with, which he thought was faulty at the time? Huh?

Also, I agree with most comments here: it didn't take a genius to see that whether or not the intelligence was spot on it was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that Bush was going to go to war if he got that mandate from Congress--getting the authorization was a mere fait accompli. Lots of people could see clearly that a vote to authorize force was a vote for force, period. All of Clinton's handwringing about Bush going to war makes her either a fool or a liar.

This doesn't mean Obama's perfect, but given their respective positions, Obama still comes out on top on this one.

i absolutely oppose Clinton due to her pro war vote. i stand by that. she should stand by her vote. she's a hawk. hawks vote for war.

Obama for president. i have yet to see one argument against his qualifications that has any real merit. 3 AM phone call? oh we're soooo scared! that is rove, that is insulting, that is pathetic, and i stand by my vote against her.

and in an unprecedented experience for me, i voted for a candidate i want to see in office, and not for the lesser of two evils, as i perceive it. inexperienced my foot. Obama's a US senator and his voting record is solid liberal intellectual.

so critics go after him for his religion, his charisma as if it is a bad thing, his name for goodness sake, and speculate and pontificate about how it's not about speeches but about.. about what? it all adds up to nothing. people are tired of all the BS coming from the old guard. and i dismiss the notion that Clinton is a more effective administrator who can fix what's broken. she helped break it.

One thing is for sure... this is no argument for Hillary (or McCain for that matter).

I'm done, Norm. So sad to see your blog evolve into this. Goodbye.

Norm, I agree with you that her healthcare plan is better and I generally trust her domestic policies more than I trust his.

That said, you picked the single weakest point of her record: her vote for the war. And the single strongest point of Obama's record: his critique of the war - during a time of tremendous jingoism as you may remember.

So, Wilson being the source notwithstanding, but Obama's forein "judgement" is pretty impressive. This certainly wouldn't be a reason to choose her over him.