• 
• 
• 
• 
by Mike Dorning
PORTSMOUTH, N.H.—While rival Hillary Clinton tries to seed doubts about Barack Obama’s foreign policy qualifications in the final sprint toward the presidential primaries, Obama is brimming with confidence in the area.
During a question and answer session at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth Thursday night, Obama turned to address his foreign policy credentials.
“Let me just suggest this, without patting myself too hard on the back” he told the audience, “Every major foreign policy judgment that we’ve had to make over the last several years, my judgments have been right.”
Obama’s glowing self-assessment came as a digression about four minutes into his response to a question on why he would take 16 months to remove U.S. troops from Iraq rather than pulling them out immediately. (The much shorter answer: because military advice he has received suggests that an orderly withdrawal could proceed no faster than one or two brigades per month.)
Earlier in the day, Clinton warned voters at a town meeting in the rural Grundy Center, Iowa, against electing a president without significant foreign policy experience and suggested her leading rivals had shortcomings in the area similar to the incumbent President Bush despised by many partisan Democrats.
“It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who is up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press.
"Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place," she said
Presumably apprised of her comments, Obama ticked off the major foreign policy judgments that he asserts he got “right.” In each case, his views either conflicted with Clinton or were initially criticized by members of the foreign policy establishment.
He, of course, cited his early opposition to the war in Iraq and his later support of a timetable for withdrawal—both standards of his stump speech that are popular with the huge anti-war constituency in the Democratic party.
He also cited the willingness he has expressed to meet with pariah foreign leaders including Iran’s president—criticized at the time by Clinton as demonstrating “naïveté”—and his opposition to a Senate resolution that urged Iran’s Revolutionary Guard be declared a terrorist organization. He claimed those stands have been vindicated by a recent National Intelligence Estimate concluding Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program several years ago because of international pressure.
And he claimed he also has been vindicated in public criticism he made of Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff as an unreliable ally in fighting Al Qaeda. He argued that the Pakistani leader’s declaration of emergency powers this fall against the opposition of the United States shows his judgment on Musharaff was correct, despite criticism at the time that his comments undercut a U.S. ally who faced a tricky domestic political situation.
A transcript of the relevant portion of Obama’s answer follows:
For those of who are still, you know, shopping and say ‘I like what Obama is saying but I don’t know about this whole foreign policy thing,’ let me just suggest this, without patting myself too hard on the back: Every major foreign policy judgment that we’ve had to make over the last several years, my judgments have been right.
I opposed the war in Iraq. I didn’t just stumble into it. I (said) very clearly what I anticipated would happen and that’s what happened
I suggested that we needed a timetable for withdrawal--I still believe that--because I said that the Iraqi government would not respond without one. It hasn’t.
I said that the saber-rattling against Iran was a mistake. And that Kyl-Lieberman (a Senate resolution urging that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard be declared a terrorist organization) was a mistake. And that we should negotiate directly with them. And I said that six months ago. And at the time I said it, everybody said, ‘Oh, that’s a gaffe. That is a sign that he is a rookie and does not have the experience to be president.’ And they were surprised that the next day I kept on saying it. And a week later I was saying it. A month later I was saying it.
And then, last month, the NIE (the intelligence community’s National Intelligence Estimate) comes out with a report in which it concludes not only that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program but lo and behold the16 top intelligence agencies in this country all come to a consensus that we should talk directly to Iran because they respond carrots and the stick.
I said we shouldn’t put all our eggs in the (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharaff basket in Pakistan. I said he’s undermining civil liberties and he’s not going after Al Qaeda. ‘Oh, no, no, no. You shouldn’t stir up our ally. That’s another sign of inexperience.’ Until we find out he’s imposing martial law and helping to stir extremism in Pakistan because of his clamping down on secular outlets for democratic (inaudible). And he’s not going after Bin-Laden. And now the 9/11 (commission) chairmen Tom Keane and Lee Hamilton write an op-ed in the Washington Post saying exactly what I said.
So, again, I say this not just, you know, to say I told you so. I’m saying this simply to make this argument that there is a conventional thinking that applies to our foreign policy in Washington. And it’s not just the politicians. It’s the pundits as well. And if you start steering outside of it, then it’s perceived as somehow being radical. But the foreign policy I’m arguing for is actually a very traditional foreign policy. It’s the foreign policy of (Cold War containment strategy architect George) Kennan and (John) Kennedy and (Truman Secretary of State Dean) Acheson and (Harry) Truman and (Marshall Plan architect George) Marshall. It’s a bipartisan approach. (former National Security Adviser) Brent Scowcroft in the first Bush Administration understood this. It’s a foreign policy that approaches the world with humility and understanding that we have some constraints and limits to our power, that values diplomacy. There’s nothing radical about it.
All right, that was kind of a long answer.
Comments
Meanwhile today's Times of London reports:
"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America.
"Supporters of Hillary Clinton, who has seen Mr Obama tighten the Democratic presidential race over recent weeks, say that his relative inexperience contrasts with her extensive overseas travel and personal relationship with many world leaders.
"Yesterday they underlined this message by pointing to reports showing that Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman. There was also strikingly robust criticism from an independent Washington think-tank about a 'disconcerting void' over transatlantic relations in Mr Obama’s foreign policy, as well as from a former British Minister for Europe.
"Mr Obama’s advisers say that he has an 'intuitive grasp' of world affairs because he spent part of his childhood abroad. 'The benefit of my life of having both lived overseas and travelled overseas is, I have a better sense of how they’re thinking and what their society is really like,' Mr Obama said last month [He can say that. Bob Kerry Can't]...
"Denis MacShane, a Minister for Europe in Mr Blair’s Government, said he had been troubled by comments Mr Obama had made on the Middle East peace process and the prospect of military action in Pakistan. He added: 'A lot of people are concerned that international policy is not his strongest suit, just as it was not with George Bush in 2000.
"Mr Obama also met Mr Blair twice in Washington, and Nicolas Sarkozy, then the French Interior Minister. But anecdotes are circulating in Washington about how he has turned down requests from other visiting foreign dignitaries, such as an Italian opposition leader who was told that the senator was in 'presidential mode' and only seeing leaders of countries."
Posted by: Biggdawg | December 21, 2007 1:18 PM
Mike Dorning,
I smell HRC in that report.What has HRC done as far as foreign policy is concerned? Can you get back to me on that front?
Where were you for the past two elections when the Bushies were scaring the hell of the american people and the whole world?
Remember this line:"If you're not with us, you're against us".
Guess who backed this idiotic posture? HRC
Posted by: joseph pierre | December 21, 2007 1:35 PM
I thought the role of the press was to report the news, not slant it, no?
"Obama shows no modesty..."
That's a little negative, don't you think?
Stop being HRC's megaphone.
Posted by: joseph pierre | December 21, 2007 1:38 PM
Does she think we have all forgotten how poorly she has handled foreign affairs?
She's one of the people responsible for the Iraq war, and supported it up until she realized it wouldn't fly in the primary election. And she was all for the saber rattling against Iran.
Don't vote for Obama if you don't think we need change, but for godsake, at least vote for Biden or Dodd - NOT HILLARY.
All Hillary has on her short resume is FAILURE.
Posted by: jds | December 21, 2007 1:43 PM
"But anecdotes are circulating in Washington about..."
In other words, staff you made up.
Besides, where were the Europeans when Rumsfeld was chewing up Germany, France,etc.,.All they do walk in lock-step fashion with the U.S. They have no guts to do anything on their own.They need to grow up, get rid of the stupid royal families instead of trying to influence American elections.
Posted by: joseph pierre | December 21, 2007 1:50 PM
All of my judgements during last weeks football game were right also. Those passes should have been caught and the penalties, well let me tell you, I wouldn't have made them. Yep, everything I plan goes exactly as I plan it.
Posted by: whatnow | December 21, 2007 2:32 PM
I like your way of addressing issues,I would like to see such a fair president that rules Amercia
Posted by: Naira Haggag | December 21, 2007 2:58 PM
Why should he be modest? He knows what he's talking about and he's continually berated by HRC and the press for his "inexperience," while HRC acts as if she has more than her travel resume. Garbage. She's got lots of experience for sure; it's not the kind we need.
Posted by: Amy | December 21, 2007 3:08 PM
What can not be denied is the fact that Obama has as much foreign policy experience as me. I understand if you want to praise him on anyting and everything as one of his sheep but he really has no experience in this area. It has been proven by his stupid comments about Pakistan. That is all we need is another President who has NO foreign policy and just relies on those arond him to make the decisions. I have a question for Obama supporters. He always claims that he will offset hie inexperience with great advisors around him, but if they are so great then why dont we vote for them instead of him?
Posted by: Vinny | December 21, 2007 3:21 PM
Meanwhile CNN reports today:
"(CNN) – Angry Chinese officials are taking aim at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over his statement that he would 'stop the import of all toys from China.'
"The Illinois senator’s remarks, which came at an Iowa campaign stop Wednesday, were 'unobjective, unreasonable and unfair,' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters at a Thursday briefing. 'Imagine if the quality of American products was not 100 percent up to standard. Could we take that as a reason to totally ban U.S. products?'
"Members of Congress have demanded stricter enforcement of U.S. imports of Chinese goods over the past year following several recalls of potentially dangerous products, including toys tainted with lead. But Obama’s comments are the harshest to date from a major presidential candidate.
"This is not the first time Obama has drawn criticism from foreign officials. Shortly after the senator officially entered the presidential race, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard slammed him over his opposition to the war in Iraq, and his calls to withdraw U.S. troops by spring 2008."
Posted by: Biggdawg | December 21, 2007 3:26 PM
When will the swamp start reporting on all the polls that show Hillary the least electable democrat in the general election?
I am scared for 2008 if she's nominated. The latest zogby poll shows Hillary even loses to HUCKABEE for cryin' our loud!
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404&loc=interstitialskip
Posted by: jds | December 21, 2007 3:28 PM
Maybe Obama was "present" at all of the sub-committee meetings that he didn't call.
Posted by: jmariotti | December 21, 2007 3:31 PM
Did you READ what Obama said? He has great Foreign Policy judgement and has been right on all of the issues as well as the "stupid pakistan" comment as you said.
Posted by: Cdub | December 21, 2007 3:38 PM
First, as a junior senator, Obama was not expected to parade himself as a self-proclaimed expert on foreign diplomacy. The Washington group has very thin skins and don't appreciate an upstart coming in and showing anyone up.
In terms of prior foreign policy experience, I don't believe that should be a prerequisite for becoming President. I do agree with Obama that a person needs an awareness and appreciation of the differences in other cultures: however, I don't agree with him that an offensive posture toward Pakistan is needed to meet the goals of defeating Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's greatest PR these past seven years and prior have been the Bush legacy (father and son) of interference in the affairs of the Middle East for the sake of oil for their comrades. The other sticking point for discontent in the Middle East is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which needs final resolution because the current bias policy in favor of Israel more than any issue in the Middle East and in the Muslim world has sparked the rise in the recruitment of Islamic fundamentalists. Once Palestine becomes a state and joins the global community, it will serve as a springboard and model of democratic success which, thus far, has not taken hold in Iraq. The pursuit of democracy in Iraq was in many ways hypocritical because it was never really about democracy, but about oil and Halliburton and the Bush/Cheney families' cronies.
If Hillary and/or Obama can forego the political maneuverings of interest groups and concentrate on America and global human dignity, we will again be the most beloved nation in the world.
The prerequisites for President of the U.S. -
1. Honesty and integrity
in all dealings both foreign and docmestic
2. Understanding and appreciation of global cultures
3. Open-minded and secure in one's convictions
4. Strong, resolute, yet compassionate in all affairs.
5. Have the judgment of a Solomon, but the compassion/spiritual strength of a Ghandi
Posted by: the truth | December 21, 2007 3:40 PM
I would like to know what Obama's definition of "terrorist group". Under any rational definition, Iran's Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist group. They are not Iran's entire military, but instead the branch whose mission is to "spread the revolution" into other countries besides Iran, which they do by terrorist means, openly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and providing weapons killing our troops in Iraq. Is it naive to be so blinded by hatred of president Bush that you feel forced to reject anything he could possibly agree with? Nah, I think it's just hopelessly self-interested politics.
Posted by: SolomonT | December 21, 2007 3:41 PM
That's a silly question, Vinny. Every good President surrounds himself with strong advisors (e.g.- Lincoln). We don't vote for them because they're advisors. Obama is the person people should vote for because he has what it takes to lead.
Posted by: Robyn | December 21, 2007 3:44 PM
I think this label of inexperience actually is good. Because the experience they are talking about is the experience of sleaziness and saying amen to all special interest groups, for short, business as usual in the white house. so, I think what we need someone without these experiences. Hillary, we don't need your experience!
Posted by: peter | December 21, 2007 4:02 PM
Let's compare Obama and Bill Clinton. When Clinton ran for the office of the president, he never even had a month in national leadership. He was a Governor of a small poor state of Kansas (no offence plse), a position which sound significant but not as challenging as being a politician in big states like Illinois, NY, Callifornia, Texas etc, or even a city like NYC. But he was smatter than Bush I and even Bush II, and therefore made a good prez. Bill Clinton never had any significant foreign experience (comparing to Obama or for that time his opponent then a prez, who had been a vice, UN amb, CIA boss etc). Moreoever, Bill never had made any significant foreign policy preposition to the nation that turned out to be significant important like what Obama did.
Then here comes a guy, Barack Obama, who predicted exactly what we should have or have not done in the biggest foreign policy of our time. He got it factualy right. His judgement has been correct in several other important foreign policies since he became a national leader. This include on Iran, Pakistan, Cuba etc.
Again, unlike Bill Clinton, Obama contests for the office of the prez against people who have all blundered on important foreign policies, especially Hillary Clinton. Her recent vote on Iran is another examaple of lucking judgement.
Obama, as inteligent as he is (graduate of Columbia and Havard), he doesnt need many years to learn how the politics of Washington works, the 3-4 years are quite enough for him. His ability to form a winning campaign team to challenge the Clintons, is a good example of his fast learning ability. Therefore his knowledge of washington politics puts him ahead of Bill at the time when he ran for the office. He clearly will know how to deal with the legislators better than Bill, as he was one of them.
Moreover, he also have a good knowledge of local needs and local politics due to his experience as a community organiser and his senatorial practice in Illinois.
His close blood connection to other parts of the world makes him more imformed on daily basis about foreign affairs as they directly affect some of his relatives. This gives him a good and fair judgement on issues concerning other parts of the world.
If you add to all this his personal experience abroad as a child and with his intelect and judgement, Obama comes out as the best candidate we had ever had for so long, a unique gift of God to the our country. His time is now based on the challenges we are facing. Obama is exactly what we need to solve them. Good judgement and natural intelect is lucking in most of the candidates especialy Hillary's judgement. Barack is untanished by the washington politics and therefore it will be easy for him to clean the foul acts of the washington. We need Obama and Obama is willing to serve his country, what are we waiting for.....Vote Obama pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease.
Posted by: baba | December 21, 2007 4:06 PM
why is obama even talking about the iran resolution? he was too busy campaigning to show up to cast a vote.
Posted by: jose | December 21, 2007 4:13 PM
What can not be denied is the fact that Obama has as much foreign policy experience as me.
-----------
Yeah but it can't be denied tha Obama is about 10x smarter than you
Posted by: Mike Phillips | December 21, 2007 4:25 PM
True, Obama is very smart. Smart enough to get a sweet-heart deal from every one's favorite bag man, Tony Rezko.
Posted by: jmariotti | December 21, 2007 5:08 PM
This whole thing about Hillary being "experianced" is a load of hooey.
She doesn't have any experiance. The Clinton Campaign is trying to dishonestly paint the fact that she is older than Obama as being more experianced.
It's a crock.
John Edwards is not Viable because he has accepted matching federal funds for his presidential election, which means if he wins Iowa, Hillary can outspend him 4:1 in the Feb 5th states.
If people want to stop Hillary, they have to move their support from Edwards to Obama.
Edwards is a one state wonder at best. His "message" may be populist in tone, but it is unrealistic and the worst type of pandering.
Obama is what America needs. Hillary won't even win the white house, and if she does, the DLC will have their boots on the throats of the Progressive Caucus for the next 4 years.
Posted by: Irishamerican | December 21, 2007 6:45 PM
True, Obama is very smart. Smart enough to get a sweet-heart deal from every one's favorite bag man, Tony Rezko.
________________________
It wasn't a sweet-heart deal, all reports say that it was a legitimate deal and there was no wrong-doing... as Obama has said himself, it was just a bone-headed thing to do because Rezko was under investigation at the time for unrelated things.
Posted by: phi | December 21, 2007 7:15 PM
Sorry if this sounds lame, but I gotta ask: just who says that more experience is better experience?
How many times has HRC visited the Middle East? How many times has she even proposed that she be the one to go?
Posted by: Ray | December 21, 2007 8:58 PM
Yesterday the London Times reported central questions about Senator Obama's shocking dearth of international experience: "Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London - and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America." It also reported: "Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."These basic facts, coming from a major foreign newspaper, are a sobering counterpoint to a gushing Boston Globe editorial that endorsed Obama for having "an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities." Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American diplomat like myself, who have spent a career toiling in the vineyards of national security, it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama's supposed "intuitive sense" is no different from George W. Bush's "instincts" and "gut feeling" describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.Barack Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia before the age of 10, his chief period of time abroad. I, too, spent years overseas in my formative school years. While the experience certainly whetted my appetite for international relations, it did not provide me either with "intuition" or expertise in the conduct of my nation's foreign policy. My understanding of international affairs came from twenty-three years of professional diplomacy, much of it spent overseas dealing at senior levels on crises such as serving as the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq stationed in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for "on the ground experience." Acting on his superior "intuition" he has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions. After he came to Washington, Obama's views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama's record identically matches Senator Clinton's–with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama's vote was typically passive.Senator Clinton for President, because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life–and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests.
Posted by: Darren | December 22, 2007 7:57 AM