Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.
Wilson adds that
On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."
This article has created a perspective for me that I was missing, or at the least had trouble putting into more precise words. The problem is one of substance over image and promise. I have repeatedly tried to point out what Mr. Obama has not done, over what he says he will do. The question then becomes what can he do. I have been maintaining that he can't. I believe that his message of hope is full of hollow promise.
The last time we had a person win the presidency who said that he was going to make great change in Washington and work to alter the "status quo" was a disaster - Jimmy Carter. He had little to no Washington experience.
The establishment has been in place for a very long time; since Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. The change, if it can happen, will be slow and will take more than one person spearheading it and too many years.
On a personal note, I supported Senator Obama when he ran for the Senate from Illinois. I thought that he had a message of action for the people of Illinois. I broke with that support after he fractured his promise that, if elected as the Senator from Illinois, he would not seek any other office but would fulfill his commitment to the state. It wasn't even a full year when he broke that pledge and began running for president. Consequently, I no longer believed that I could trust him.
I remember his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, as he was running for the Senate, and feeling uncomfortable with what was happening. At the time, there was a disguised rumor/fear that he would run for Governor of Illinois, as that position has always been a circus. President was nowhere in the scenario at the time. Quel surprise!
Through all this, I have not been able to describe accurately in words what exactly could have changed my view and opinion of the man. Mr. Wilson, in the last paragraph of his essay, finally gave me the words for which I have been searching"
Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. (emphasis is mine)
My point is that I see a dichotomy between his words and his actions. It raises a red flag on his integrity for me. He's been making larger promises in his presidential bid. I'm not certain that they can be trusted and I'm afraid that we might have anothere embattled presidency where nothing gets done.
I am also concerned what the possible consequences may be, if indeed this is an opportunistic move (whether conscious or unconscious). I have an inherent cynicism when people take the position that their actions are for the good of others. Even Mother Theresa did the things she did to satisfy an inner ego motivation. It's the nature of the human beast...
No comments:
Post a Comment