home

Critiquing Joe Wilson's Critique of Obama

Actually, most of what Joe Wilson says about Obama is right. But his defense of Hillary's vote of Kyl-Lieberman is wrong. First the part that is right:

. . . During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference [in K-L] to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran." . . . Senator Barack Obama was absent when the vote on Kyl-Lieberman was taken, though that has not prevented him from criticizing colleagues who participated in the debate and voted for it. He has also opted not to sign the letter to the president. . . . Senator Obama's criticism of the vote and refusal to join with his Democratic colleagues on the letter to the president appear to be based more on the politics than the substance. The entire Senate was notified a day beforehand about the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. If he truly had a sense of urgency on the issue he should have made a point of participating in the debate and voting, when he would have had the opportunity at the time to air his substantive disagreement with his home state colleague Senator Durbin, rather than waiting to raise the issue afterwards in a purely political context and using it as a campaign tactic.

All very true. But where Wilson is dead wrong is in the belief that there was any positive merit to K-L. The simple fact is the Bush Administration can not be trusted on anything or at any time. These are not normal times where the Congress can work with the President on such issues. The Congress' main job now is to be vigilant and oppose the Bush Administration's belligerent impulses on foreign policy. It needs to make sure no more damage is done. K-L hurt that effort. Clinton was very wrong to vote in its favor.

Geekesque rightly points out that this from Wilson was simply awful:

He has also made clear that for him the paramount enemy is George W. Bush, not an organization that has a history of involvement in terrorism and has been actively targeting American troops in Iraq.

Shame on you Joe Wilson.

< CNN: Torture As The Punchline | US State Dep't: Waterboarding Americans Ok? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    i agree geek. i've read it, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:00:41 AM EST
    and i didn't see that language there either, unless it was in magic, disappearing ink. always possible, i suppose.

    you're right BTD, sen. clinton should never have signed on to this. of course, neither should anyone else. this administration has proven itself time and again unworthy of any kind of trust (a sad commentary all by itself), certainly not when it comes to the military and foreign policy. giving bush any branch, no matter how tenuous his grasp, to hang on to could cost lives and treasure.


    I checked the Congressional Record. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:04:17 AM EST
    Wilson's claim is flat-out false and misleading.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:21:39 AM EST
    I suggest that Obama ask Durbin to call Wilson out then.

    Let's ask Durbin. He can clarify all of this.

    Parent

    Durbin has nothing to do with this. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:31:11 AM EST
    I know Wilson is making a false statement because it's easily fact-checked:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:S12093 (NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008)

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kyl-lieberman.pdf

    My point is not to defend Obama missing that vote--the point is that Joe Wilson is stating a blatant falsehood about Kyl-Lieberman.

    Parent

    Durbin is CITED by Wilson (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:42:04 AM EST
    How can you say he has nothing to do with this?

    Heck, the reality is Obama has nothing to do with the debate on Kyl-Lieberman in REAL TIME.

    Now, to make political hay, he ius trying to make somethig of it.

    Let him explain his silence in REAL TIME please.

    Parent

    The point is that Wilson is blatantly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    misrepresenting would Kyl-Lieberman says.

    You can look up what Kyl-Lieberman actually says.

    I provided you two links.

    Parent

    'would' = 'what' (none / 0) (#14)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    Bottom line, should we believe Joe Wilson or our own lying eyes?

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:S12093

    Parent

    I would believe Durbin (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:19:00 AM EST
    Do you think the text of what (none / 0) (#24)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:24:30 AM EST
    the Senate voted upon is a matter of opinion or a matter of fact?

    Because the idea that Dick Durbin can say "this clause is part of the legislation" when the Congressional Record CLEARLY shows that not to be the case is nonsense.

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:25:23 AM EST
    Durbin could straighten that out.

    Parent
    Not really. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:35:44 AM EST
    The text is what the Congressional Record says it is, not what Dick Durbin says it is.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:18:42 AM EST
    I think you are not proving your case on that point. The links are helpful to a point but it is not at all clear that Wilson is wrong on whether that line was added.

    More importantly to me, as I deplored the K-L resolution at the time, EVEN IF that line was added, voting AY was terrible.

    But Obama is being blatantly dishonest about his actions and what the K-L does. And his actions now are utterly bereft of merit.

    Wilson's critique of Obama is DEAD ON.

    His critque of K-L is not.

    I said so in my post.

    Parent

    The Congressional Record (none / 0) (#22)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:23:03 AM EST
    is the ultimate authority on the text of legislation.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S12094&position= all

    Hearsay, ex post declarations from Senators do not change the text of legislation as it is voted upon.  The text of Kyl-Lieberman is a factual matter that is easily resolved by consulting the Congressional Record.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    Why didn't Obama vote against it?

    Don't you see the problem? Obama SCREWED UP and is dishonestly pretending he did not.

    Parent

    I was not happy with Obama (none / 0) (#28)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    for missing that vote.

    As we have seen, the Obama campaign is not a model of organization and efficiency.  

    Parent

    I've read Kyl-Lieberman at least a dozen times and (none / 0) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 08:42:38 AM EST
    this
    During the debate, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois deleted reference [in K-L] to "military instrumentalities" and added: "Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran." .
    is something that I have never seen when reading it.

    Does Ambassador Wilson have a secret copy of Kyl-Lieberman that includes this language, because I have never seen it.

    Not gonna get into the Obama stuff, but the inclusion of that language would dramatically affect the impact of Kyl-Lieberman.  

    Do you? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    As you know, the voted upon version was FILLED with written in comments and strikeouts.

    I have an idea, why doesn't Obama ask his fellow Illinois Senator and supporter of his candidacy if he did it or not?

    Should be a simple exercise. Just like Obama could clear up whether he was notificed of the pendency of the K-L vote?

    Here's your problem Geek, Obama did a PITIFUL job on this and now is trying to pretend he is a leader on the issue.

    DODD is the one who did the right thing here. He voted against K-L. And then he signed the letter.

    Proposing legislation sure to fail is only good for politics, Obama's politics, not policy.

    Wilson's critique of Obama rings very true.

    Parent

    The point I'm raising is not to defend (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    Obama for missing this vote.

    The issue is that Joe Wilson is not telling the truth about Kyl-Lieberman.  

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kyl-lieberman.pdf

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:S12093 (#3)

    Parent

    He cites Dick Durbin (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:44:03 AM EST
    Durbin is an Obama supporter.

    Durbin can easily clear this up.

    Why doesn't he?

    This is very simple.

    Wilson can be proven incorrect by one Dick Durbin, Obama supporter.

    That he does not is the most clear evidence that Wilson is in the right here.

    Parent

    The Congressional Record speaks for itself. n/t (none / 0) (#12)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    Congressional Record PDF: (none / 0) (#16)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    Durbin speaks for himself (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    Hard to justify not voting against it.

    What's Obama's explanation for that?

    Parent

    As I noted in an earlier comment from (none / 0) (#27)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:25:41 AM EST
    another thread, I'm not going to debate candidates and the primary with you.  You'll call me a cultist, I'll call you an irrational hater, lots of heat, no light.

    Parent
    2 points (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:19:55 AM EST
    Joe Wilson is essentially working as a campaign spokes person for Hillary, since he clearly has talking points.  Also here is another example of the echo chamber, there is no evidence that Obama new of the vote.  Senate sources is crap. If everybody had been informed the day before you could easily find one of hundred senators to go on record. Its funny that CNN who originally reported this has yet to bring it up again.   But its a Clintonista talking point.  So people like BTD and those who work n behalf of Clinton will just repeat it.  

    secondly i think this offers a clear example of the way this websites treats criticism of Hillary as compared to criticism of any of the other presidential front runners.
    Joe Wilson criticism of Obamaa is cited and BTD goes through what he considers the merit of it.  
    Maureen Down criticizes Hillary, BTD refuses to address anything in her column, rights it of as substance less(ofcourse citing no examples).

    There is an unrefuted news report by CNN (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:24:53 AM EST
    that says Obama did know.

    There is no refutation of that report AT ALL from Obama.

    As for MoDo, as there was NOTHING to refute, there was no substance at all, how could I address it?

    Furthermore, I just ripped Hillary in THIS POST.

    Are you going to refute that part of my post?

    OF course not. I support Chris Dodd.

    I can see the flaws i his actions, such as on drivers license for undocumented aliens. I PRAISED Obama's stance. I stated that Hillary doubletalked her answer in the debate.

    You are a member of the Obama Cult. It is pretty obvious.

    Parent

    MoDo (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:14:08 AM EST
    i pointed out some of the substance brought up by MoDo, you ignored it.  
    This Dodd thing is weak.
    yeah i guess i could say i support Kucinich, that would give me cover to as biased as  want.
    You have said Clinton was wrong to vote for K-L but claim that every one who calls her on it is being unfair, and claim that every one of her talking points about it is correct.

    I think Clinton, may be a logical place for you to go when Dodd drops out.  She tries to have it both ways, so do you! She plays Fox News with the facts and so do you!

    Parent

    You pointed out nothing of substance (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:22:24 AM EST
    Because there was no substance to point out.

    Parent
    On MoDo (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jgarza on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    So when she criticizes Clinton, for claiming that the is the victim of men, when they point out that her positions are inconsistent on immigration and records release. In your opinion no need to address, no substance.
    When she points out the conflicting statements of her campaign.  Video claiming her gender is the cause of criticism, and conference call, and contrast that with Hillarys staying above the frey line about being  attacked for being the front runner... also in your opinion this conflict is not substance.
    When MoDo claims and cites examples of Hillary using her opponents gender(weather it be the other presidential candidates or Tim Russert) to try and get out of tough questions about real issues.  again no need to address, no substance.

    And all this lack of substance is so apparent all you have to do is have a couple sentence post that says "girlfriend you have no substance," and through your will, the one of the most respected columnists  from one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world is substance free.

    You must really be full of yourself if you think you made your case.

    Parent

    MoDo did what? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:14:03 AM EST
    Attacked her by calling her girlfried I remember.

    But MoDo did not even touch in a substantive way ANY ISSUE. None. Zero.

    May the Cult be with you.

    Parent

    Girl friend (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jgarza on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 11:56:17 AM EST
    I dunno no if starting a column off "Girlfriend had a rough week" is an attack.  I guess if you are a Clintonista though it would elicit some faux offense.
    I love this wack job Joe Wilson has merit and good points when attacking Obama... but NYT's if you attack Hill you are substance free.

    You attack Edwards or Obama if they criticize Hillary. If either one does it you call them unfair. And if any one criticizes them you you are ready to back them up.
    GO read your own posts.


    Parent

    Oy vey (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    You really are not worth talking to.

    I will not do it anymore.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    How could I think everyone who calls her on it is being unfair when I call her on it?

    you object to my criticizing OBAMA. Notice I did not object to Biden's actions. Or Dodd's.

    You are truly a first rate Obama cultist.

    Parent

    BTD: What do you think of this statement:: (none / 0) (#30)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:36:39 AM EST
    He has also made clear that for him the paramount enemy is George W. Bush, not an organization that has a history of involvement in terrorism and has been actively targeting American troops in Iraq.

    This seems like something Glenn Reynolds would write.

    That was awful (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    I need to add that to my post.

    Terrible from Wilson.

    Parent

    The politics of CYA (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donna Z on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 09:29:58 PM EST
    First up Durbin: you know Durbin may be going along with that statement, one I've never read before either, because lots of Dems are trying to spin their recent bout of stupidity. I say may...because I've have no way of knowing anything beyond the dots.

    Second, for Hillary Clinton (who btw is a hawk, and obviously feels that women must be hawks to be elected, a position with which I disagree) this is her second chance at a major vote and she has once again failed the test. And so we are left to scratch our heads while pondering the illogical: in order to advocate for meanlngful diplomacy the best thing to do is empower the Iranian hardliners. Fancy that. 73% of the IRCG voted for the moderates when that faction won the election. A greater percentage than the general population. Even if cheney never uses and abuses this resolution, the intent as stated by Clinton makes no sense.

    Now Senator Clinton has called out the dogs: Clark and Wilson. Because the logic doesn't hang, she has only succeeded in making them look like shills. Very sad.