Ready vs. Right

Being one of the 8.3 million people who tuned into the Clinton/Obama lovefest last night, I came away with one overwhelming thought. In their discussion/positions on Iraq, Obama makes the point that he was against the war from the start and, consequently, this has translated into a recent campaign theme where, to borrow on Clinton's mantra of being "ready on day one" to lead the country, Obama will be "right" on day one, even if he's less experienced.

No wonder his memoir is entitled "The Audacity of Hope". Obama is certainly audacious to throw out there that his judgement will lead him to be right, therefore, we should surmise this to be so, regardless of the issue. After all, he was right on Iraq. As was I. As were millions of others who were opposed to this war for a wide variety of reasons.

In last night's debate, Obama mentioned Republican Senators Lugar and Hagel as persons he would consider for spots in his administration, yet both of them voted for the same 2002 war resolution that Clinton did. Since then, Hagel has been the most vocal republican critic against the Iraq war in the Senate. Lugar, while seemingly displeased with the execution of the war, still backs it.

What does this really say about Obama's judgement? Both of them were as "wrong" in their estimation as Clinton yet they are suitable to bring into an administration that campaigned on being right?

Is there any person out there, knowledgeable on military matters, who doubts the expertise of Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel? I can't imagine that Lugar would have voted for the authorization of this war had the administration not told him and Hagel, Clinton and everyone else on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that inspectors would be sent into Iraq and all necessary avenues would be exhausted before launching a pre-emptive war.

I don't know that combing over the NIE at that time truly would have made a difference. The Bush administration was continually linking Iraq to 9/11 and Al Queda, and Bush stood in front of the United States and the World in his State of the Union address and lied about WMDs. He sent Colin Powell to the UN to do the same. Cheney was dispensed to the news shows repeatedly to provide Darth Vaderesque doom scenarios.

My opposition to the war was based solely on my gut belief that Bush is a liar. That he was capable of stealing the votes in Florida by way of the Supreme Court when it was obvious Gore had won the state (does anyone STILL believe 17000 Jews in Palm Beach condos voted for Pat Buchanan?) meant to me that he was capable of anything and I have never believed anything he's said in the 7+ years he's lived in the White House.

However, I'm not a lawmaker. I'm a private citizen who has the luxury of not giving anyone a fair shake or being cynical of anyone and everyone. Our elected officials, we would hope work together with some level of trust. After all, if there is no trust, our government is broken. And that's precisely why nothing is getting done. Lying on matters of war is not forgiveable, nor is the breach repairable.

Like Hagel, John Kerry, John Edwards and many others in the Senate, Clinton took the administration's assurances to mean something. And unlike John Kerry, who probably lost the 2004 election by saying his 2002 vote was a mistake, and Edwards, who never picked up steam in the 2008 race, in part, because of the same, Clinton is not backing down because, based on what she was told, by a President of the United States, she made a reasoned decision.

It's easy to be right when you have nothing to lose and weren't there. Most of those who were there, and voted for the authorization, believed this President, like those who proceeded him, would not send our soldiers into harm's way without keeping his word. Bush broke that trust and Senator Clinton has been doing everything in her abilities since to put an end to this fiasco, aside from her unwavering support for the troops.

The years since have been an incredible learning experience for Clinton to the point that I'm confident she's ready to lead, has been doing so ever since, and will never allow such a debacle to occur in her administration.

Unfortunately, I can't say that for Obama, who was right from afar then, yet looks to those now who were wrong, in his estimation, to potentially provide the experience he lacks.