Joe Wilson's Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Deserves a Hearing

[bigtree]

Battle-tested
Hillary Clinton fought the Republican attack machine, and emerged stronger

By Joseph C. Wilson IV
February 12, 2008


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 to 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 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. Mrs. Clinton knew 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."

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one known face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence that 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?

Contrary to the myth of the Obama 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.

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 said, "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, Roosevelt 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.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.hillary12feb12,0,94551.story

[MADem]

1. Uh, oh...!

How long before we hear "He was just a blowhard anyway?" or "I'll bet his WIFE doesn't agree with him!!!"

"Shaddup, Joe, who CARES what YOU think!!!"

"Maybe Bob Novak was RIGHT about him!!!"

:rofl:

The Cognitive Dissonance Express is arriving on Track 44!!!

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.

[bigtree]

4. an authentic DU hero

if there ever was one . . .

[truebrit71]

2. Ambassador Wilson is a voice to be listened to...but he himself is not enough of a fighter...

...so I take it with a pinch of salt...

If Darrel Issa had said the same things about my wife that he did about Joe's I would be punched his fucking lights out...

[bigtree]

5. wow. that's new here.

[truebrit71]

8. I'm sorry? I don't understand?

What's your point?

[bigtree]

13. your point that "he's not a fighter"

I hadn't seen that point before, here at DU, in reference to Joe Wilson.

[truebrit71]

27. Did you see the congressional hearings with Joe Wilson..it was like he was drugged or something...

...no fire no spark...he just sat there and took all of Darrel Issa's lies, slime and trash without uttering a word...

If that were MY wife he was talking about, he would need new teeth...

[bigtree]

30. I did see them. He did fine.

from his June 16 congressional testimony:

In January, 2003, the President in his State of the Union address, uttered the now infamous sixteen words: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' At the time, I was mildly curious about the assertion but, given that three other countries produce uranium ' South Africa, Namibia, and Gabon ' I did not immediately conclude that the President had been speaking about Niger. I did take the initiative to call the State Department Bureau of African Affairs to remind them of my trip and to suggest that if the President had been speaking about Niger, either he had information about which I was not aware or else the record needed to be corrected. I was told that perhaps he had been speaking about another country. Unbeknownst to me, the State Department, in December, 2002, had published a paper in which it claimed that Saddam had failed to come clean on his efforts to purchase uranium from Africa in the declaration submitted to the United Nations as required by UN Security resolution 1441. However, the Niger claim was quickly removed from subsequent iterations of the US bill of particulars against Iraq, because it was not credible.

After the publication of the State Department paper, and again after the President's State of the Union address, it has been reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) asked the US government for information related to the charges made. After the second request, documents purporting to be the memorandum of sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq were delivered to the IAEA.

In March, 2003, Dr. Mohamed El Baradai, the Director General of the IAEA testified to the UN Security Council that the documents had been deemed by that agency to be forgeries. His Deputy, Jaques Baute, had been even more candid, commenting that they were so replete with errors that a two hour search on Google would have sufficed to discredit them. The US government, in response, was a statement that 'We fell for it.'

It was at that point that I became aware that the President's State of the Union assertion was based on the Niger claim.

For the next three months, I privately urged the administration through contacts and third parties to correct the record. I also shared what I knew with Nick Kristof of The New York Times and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, as well as with several Democratic Senators and I met with the staffs of the House and Senate Intelligence committees. I took the initiative for one simple reason. It is my firm belief that the most solemn decision a government in our democracy has to make is that decision to send our soldiers to die and to kill in the name of our country. In making that decision we deserve a debate based on facts, not on information that is thrown into the debate, not because it is true but because it supports a political decision that has already been made.

In mid-June, Condoleeza Rice, in response to a question from Tim Russert asserted with respect to what the White House knew about the Niger matter that maybe somebody in the bowels of the Agency knew something about it but nobody in her circle.

It was clear to me then, and later confirmed by a senior State Department official, that if the truth were to come out, I would have to write it myself. I did so in an article published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, entitled 'What I Did Not Find in Africa.' In it, I wrote 'The question now is how that answer (to the question of Niger uranium sales to Iraq) was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (thought I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses' At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.'

I further wrote in the same article: 'America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor 'revisionist history,' as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.'

The next day the White House acknowledged to The Washington Post reporter, Walter Pincus, that 'The sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address.' Within days it became clear that the Director of Central Intelligence had warned the administration nearly four months before the State of the Union not to use the Niger claim and that the President not be a witness of fact because, as he subsequently testified, the case was weak and the American intelligence community believed the British had exaggerated the claim. Indeed, at roughly the same time Mr. Tenet was sending faxes and telephoning the White House, in early October, 2002, his Deputy was telling the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the American Intelligence community believed the British had stretched the case on African uranium sales to Iraq. Steven Hadley, then the Deputy National Security Adviser offered to resign when the evidence of the phone calls and faxes from the DCI became public and Rice even offered an apology to Gwen Ifill of PBS.

At the same time, of course, the administration launched a campaign to defame and discredit me by compromising the identity of my wife as a CIA operative. Whatever damage the administration and its allies in the Republican National Committee and the right wing echo chamber have done to my family and me, however, it is nothing compared to what has been done to our soldiers and their families with this war. Now with the publication of the so-called Downing Street memo, as well as the subsequent documents that have appeared in the British press, it is increasingly clear that 'the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy' and that we sent our troops to war under dubious pretenses.

We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago, in the run up to the war. It would appear from the information that has been made public over that past two years, including the Downing Street memo, that the administration may have been less that candid with Congress as it considered that most important of decisions ' voting to go to war. Even today, however belatedly, it is an important dialogue as it touches on everything a democracy stands for. It used to be said that democracies are difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the nature of debate required in the run up to such a decision. Indeed that is one of the reasons often put forward for championing progress towards democratic governance. If the administratoin circumvented that requirement for open debate before going to war with Iraq, then the American public needs to understand why if we hope to avoid making the same mistake again.

At the same time we must not take our eye off the ball in Iraq. The situation is a mess, and by all accounts not soon to improve. We were told in the run up to the war that there would be fewer than 30,000 troops in Iraq within a year of the invasion. There are four times that many there now. We are now told that we must stay lest the country fall into sectarian violence. But it is in the midst of sectarian strife as we speak and there is no reason to believe that our departure now or five years from now will change the nature of that violence. Our continued presence will, however, guarantee more American deaths and more people who hate us for what we have done and from whose ranks increasing numbers of terrorists will be drawn. I don't have the answers but I do believe that the time has come for us to ask the question: Is our presence in Iraq part of the solution or part of the problem? And in answering that question, I believe we should elicit the views of Iraq's neighbors, our allies, the international community at large and experts in this country and not just the same cabal of ideologues whose policy prescriptions foisted upon a frightened nation in the aftermath of the terrible tragedy of 9/11 have been shown to be terribly flawed. Thank you.

[MADem]

29. It's actually JOE WILSON's point. Plainly stated, too. NT

[MethuenProgressive]

3. "Theodore Roosevelt once said,"

From Wilson's endorsement:

Theodore Roosevelt once said, "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."

I'll take *that* Teddy's words over the other Teddy's anyday.

[bigtree]

18. ". . . a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign"

the context . . .

I liken the choice of Obama in the matchup against McCain to retiring the seasoned, battle-hardened contender and replacing her with a younger, untested fighter who promises to pull his punches.

[Rock_Garden]

6. Excellent article. K&R!

[katty]

7. joe and valerie plame are credible, tested fighters-good piece

[debatepro]

9. Partial quote... in the McCain point..

Obama chose the high road in his own response -- albeit with a hard rhetorical edge. "I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response," Obama wrote. "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 nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem."

Interesting he is leaving the that part out. It's not a meek response either...


Besides who is on the offensive against John McCain now? Hillary? Nope. Obama is... "...the wheels are comeing off the straight talk express" when refering to McCain's changing position on tax cuts.

Hillary has to play catch up against Obama... meanwhile Obama is on the offensive against her.

[debatepro]

10. Partial quote... in the McCain point..

Obama chose the high road in his own response -- albeit with a hard rhetorical edge. "I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response," Obama wrote. "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 nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem."

Interesting he is leaving the that part out. It's not a meek response either...


Besides who is on the offensive against John McCain now? Hillary? Nope. Obama is... "...the wheels are comeing off the straight talk express" when refering to McCain's changing position on tax cuts.

Hillary has to play catch up against Obama... meanwhile Obama is on the offensive against her.

[debatepro]

11. Partial quote... in the McCain point..

Obama chose the high road in his own response -- albeit with a hard rhetorical edge. "I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response," Obama wrote. "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 nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem."

Interesting he is leaving the that part out. It's not a meek response either...


Besides who is on the offensive against John McCain now? Hillary? Nope. Obama is... "...the wheels are comeing off the straight talk express" when refering to McCain's changing position on tax cuts.

Hillary has to play catch up against Obama... meanwhile Obama is on the offensive against her.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. they will trash Joe like they are beginning to trash Edwards.

[bigtree]

14. that would be interesting

I was here almost daily throughout the all the advocacy on his (and his wife's) behalf.

[yellowcanine]

21. Who is "they"? Got much persecution complex? If Joe is going to write provocative articles

talking about mano y mano interactions implying that Hillary Clinton is more of a fighter than Barak Obama I think he can take care of himself.

[DURHAM D]

15. I am surprised the video from when McCain played Obama for a fool

on the ethics reform bill has not shown up already. It definitely will. I think it was on Hardball that they were both interviewed from the senate halls.

Obama looked really foolish in that exchange and McCain openly laughed at him. I guess Tweety will hold it until the general.

[tishaLA]

16. Nobody doubts Sen Clinton is a fighter

her entire public life attests to that. But I think Amb Wilson is wrong in his assertion that this is not a time for a transformative election: he is correct that we need to overturn 8 years of radfical republicanism, but the way to do that isn't simply to roll up our sleeves and get to work. It also requires a transformation of the electorate and the ethos of American government. It requires someone who calls Americans to take back their nation--who speaks the language of, and is steeped in the importance of--grassroots change. In short, it is not enough that the executive branch roll up its sleeves: the American people must, also, and they must feel that they have a stake in getting the nation back on track.

[yellowcanine]

17. I heard it. I also heard Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.

Endorsements only get you so far. Each voter has to judge for him/herself. Actually I would prefer that all public figures hold off on the endorsements during the primaries.

I also disagree with Wilson's assessment of the McCain/Obama letter exchange. It seems to me that Obama got the best of that one, not McCain. I fail to see how Obama did not "stand his ground." I have a lot of respect for Joe Wilson, but his analysis of the McCain/Obama interchange is very shallow. Machismo may make great copy but it is not what I want in the next President. I have had just about all the machismo I can stand with the current resident of the WH.

[Bread and Circus]

19. Earth to Bigtree, he's one of her foreign policy advisors.

www.fpif.org

The more you know.

It's not an endorsement when you are part of the campaign.

[bigtree]

25. That's some spin there . . .

Read the words B&C. Read his words.

He's still Joe Wilson, isn't he?

[NYCGirl]

20. I love Joe Wilson. He's a great American patriot. But on matters Clinton,

I'll have to go my own way, thank you.

[robbedvoter]

22. Before they burn/hang Wilson in efigy, H20 post on this endorsement

"I can say

that Senator Clinton was, in my opinion, one of the first people in Congress to understand what the implications of the Plame scandal really were. And she was a supporter of the Wilsons from the beginning. I think that Joseph Wilson's endorsing Senator Clinton is the result of this, and I consider it one of the more significant endorsements of the season."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4227814&mesg_id=4243925

I knew it will come in handy one day - this is the second time I get to defend Wilson on DU!

[bigtree]

24. ooh

nice catch

[yellowcanine]

26. Who is "they"?

[Straight Shooter]

23. Joe Wilson's endorsement of Hillary is the reason I gave Hillary serious consideration.

The fact that he is her foreign policy advisor, as someone has noted, underscores her ability to choose people who have experience in issues of vital importance to the United States.

McCain as the Repub nominee means only one thing. Iran will be at the forefront when the GE rolls around. The media is already beating the drums, and the tune is not Kumbaya.

[mmonk]

28. There, it's aired. Waiting for Larry Johnson next I suppose.

Where will he land? The last line makes no sense whatsoever.

All show and no substance.

http://www.counterpunch.org/edmonds08282006.html

Good endorsement though, to be concilatory.

[bigtree]

31. kick

:kick: