Activist William M. Arkin: Clinton 1, Obama 0

[wyldwolf]

Hillary won. Beyond the political and entertainment value of the spat between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Clinton is right on the substance and Obama is wrong about the Iraq war.

I've argued before that it makes no difference whether Obama has "experience" in national security -- as the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Powell dream team made abundantly clear, experience is no guarantee of security. But beyond the spat, this is no fabricated controversy. National security is the most important issue of the campaign.

Obama faltered in his answer and in his damage control because he failed the first test of diplomacy: Words matter. The question was whether he would meet with rogues and despots "without precondition." He responded by describing a more general "notion" as "ridiculous."

That notion is ridiculous. But the question was more specific. What he should have said was this: Look, any meeting with the president of the United States is by definition substantive and symbolic, and any decision to meet with anyone should be weighed on its merits. But the notion that one doesn't meet with any person or group, as a matter of principle -- it cuts off options that as president I'd like to have.

Obama's style, and I like it, is to be direct. But in this case he was bested by Clinton.

And his counter-strike, that Clinton was naïve for supporting the Iraq war when it was clear that there was no exit plan, is equally wrong. One can't make decisions about war and peace based upon prospects of success; they are about national security and American interests. I hope in the future Obama won't argue that he'll only support military action when the experts or his advisers can assure him of either success or an exit strategy. That would be naïve. And military force can be very seductive when the briefing is really good: Look at Desert One, the Iranian hostage rescue in the last year of the Carter administration. Or all those cruise missiles Sen. Clinton's husband fired.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/07/clinton_1_obama_0.html?nav=rss_blog

[grasswire]

1. "activist"

William Arkin is a well-known expert speaker and writer and consultant on national defense issues, professionally persecuted by this administration for his criticisms. I'm not sure why you are labeling him an "activist."

?

[wyldwolf]

3. You're not sure why I'm "labeling" him an "activist?" Because he IS an activist

[beastieboy]

2. Yep, he should have come out and agreed with her afterwards

All he had to say , like Edwards did, is that she is right about putting certain conditions. He looks silly now.