Battle-Tested
by Joseph C. Wilson IV
With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican
nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential
election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what
promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier
one -- than Democrats anticipated.
Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan
politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has
been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and
ideological fervor.
Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign
policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers
who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George
H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years
fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by
the George W. Bush White House.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the
stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife --
outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as
painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be
driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the
radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize
opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid
confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues.
Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the
past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.
But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives
little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr.
McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain
accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly
replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my
desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable
but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of
McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference
between an RPG and a bong."
Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating
his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter
with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.
What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he
faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national
security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages
does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?
How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about
unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already
difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic
extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan
government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his
distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and
constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged
ally in the war on terror?
How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal
summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries,
from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than
premature capitulation?
Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one
speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal
district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing
impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the
national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization
for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly
blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative
attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther
from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war
voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois
State Senator Obama.
George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he
wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to
go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's
suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that
goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the
run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible
that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's
arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama
himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence
reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also
told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference
between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr.
Obama.
In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the
chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the
congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the
inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach
-- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let
the inspectors complete their work while building an international
coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the
American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused
to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his
party's, not the Democrats.
Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for
transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration
will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And
the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt
Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution,
emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and
our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to
Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute
for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal
appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states
that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid
rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be
correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to
be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our
politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right
wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking
to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float
uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He
is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore,
John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and
all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.
In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we
do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who
understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in
governing.
Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts:
not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the
doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man
who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat
and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again
and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high
achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails
while daring greatly."
If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the
arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is
one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's
Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply
knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the
Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She
has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.
Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be
increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment,
especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that
contest already. It was a TKO.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder