Where Have You Been?
On December 21, the Huffington Post published an article by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson entitled "The Real Hillary I Know - and the Unreal Obama". In the article, which promoted Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Wilson associated himself with Wes Clark and Dick Holbrooke as early opponents of the Iraq War. He also made denigrating comments about Senator Barack Obama.
One can only guess why Joe Wilson would write such a provocative article. And while they also back Hillary Clinton, why have Clark and Holbrooke not publicly distanced themselves from Joe's characterization of Obama?
Joe admits he never heard of Obama before 2006, so we assume that he missed the Senator's famous Red State/Blue State speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Wilson described Obama as "an obscure but safe provincial political figure", presumably intended to diminish his very public anti-Iraq War speech to thousands of people at a Chicago rally in 2002. If this condescension sounds like what one might have heard from a European diplomat in post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa, it may not be a coincidence. That is exactly where Joe made his State Department reputation. It is also reflects a very common inside-the-Beltway attitude, where political achievement outside Washington DC is often belittled.
Wilson suggested Obama was "cowardly" for voting "present" in the Illinois Senate, apparently unaware that this was a common tactic there and supported by progressives, such as the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. He also failed to mention Obama's extensive and impressive list of legislative accomplishments. But Joe must be forgiven for the undiplomatic characterization or lack of appreciation for Barack Obama's achievements. For as he himself has pointed out, Joe Wilson's stellar career and reputation were built on his skills as an Administrative Officer working to overcome the hardships faced by diplomats in Africa. So he can be excused if undervalues protocol or the accuracy of political reporting and analysis. Finally, Joe repeatedly ascribed to Obama a claim of "intuition" in foreign affairs, a put-down actually based on the positive statements in the Boston Globe's recent endorsement of Obama.
Joe Wilson attacked the character of Barack Obama, a candidate many Americans support and recognize as the best hope of breaking the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynastic cycle of American politics. Joe also posed as the arbiter of foreign policy expertise in the current election campaign. So, I feel compelled to offer this reply.
So Much Left Unsaid
Like Joe Wilson, I was a professional diplomat for 23 years. I served every President from Jerry Ford to Bill Clinton. Like Joe, I recognize the importance of this election, probably the most important American election since 1932. Joe endorsed Hillary for President, while I signaled my support by volunteering in Barack Obama's grass roots campaign starting in May. Our paths never crossed at the State Department, but Joe and I did work on some of the same issues. For example, I was desk officer for Iraq at the start of the Iraq-Iran War, when Saddam Hussein was our "friend"; Joe was our Charge d'Affaires in Baghdad during the Gulf War. When I worked on Iraq, the intelligence about yellow cake uranium purchases was authentic; Joe's trip to Niger determined that the more recent classified reports were not reliable.
Unfortunately, Joe's discovery that the intel did not support the Administration's claim of an imminent WMD threat from Saddam Hussein did not prevent the U.S. from going to war with Iraq. But his Niger trip did serve to propel Joe Wilson to national prominence. Like most Americans, I share the outrage over the Bush Administration's outing of Valerie Plame Wilson - with its serious damage to American national security interests -- in retaliation for Joe's op-ed piece challenging the "evidence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq. But in writing an article that burns his bridges to an Obama Administration, I can only assume that Joe was prompted to produce this hit piece by a desperate campaign. It is a campaign whose surrogates had already established a track record of dirty political attacks on the one person emerging as the main opponent for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
Wilson based his first-person appraisal of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials on her performance during his time as Senior Director for African Affairs in Bill Clinton's NSC and the planning for a Presidential visit to Africa. He described this as an "historic trip... that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa... (and) the key role Hillary played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world." This is typical State Department puffery, but it is not clear from Joe's assertion how this "historic" trip has changed the way the Bush Administration thinks about Africa, when it thinks about Africa at all. He described Senator Clinton's role in that trip as a "key adviser". No specific policy achievements were cited, but Joe does mention that she succeeded in persuading her husband to travel. What is clear is that Hillary Clinton did not exercise duties as a USG official, and she was not accountable for any policy advice she may have given. In fact, this is the main problem with her claim to White House experience.
Missing from the entire discussion is any mention of Joe Wilson's supervisor at the NSC. There is a good reason for not mentioning National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. He was subsequently debarred in connection with the removal of classified documents from the National Archives. Berger is reportedly a foreign policy advisor to Hillary Clinton. But he has not campaigned publicly like his predecessor Tony Lake, who tours and speaks extensively for Barack Obama. Also missing from Joe's tale is the fact that, while the NSC was planning this "historic" six-country trip that involved a lot of USG resources, al-Qaeda was planning and preparing its August 1998 attacks on our embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Now that was an event that immediately and drastically affected us globally, as any American diplomat serving abroad at that time will testify.
Joe Got It Wrong
Most importantly, Joe conveniently avoided discussing Clinton's vote authorizing the Iraq War, a serious omission as it is probably the most significant foreign policy decision she was ever asked to make. If Obama's present votes are cowardly, was Clinton's Iraq vote "courageous"? Or was she merely guided by public opinion polls instead of the classified analysis available to her on the threat from Saddam Hussein? The fact is, except for vague generalities, Joe Wilson has provided little in the way of detailed examples of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy accomplishments, and certainly no convincing argument for her election as President.
Ultimately, we are left with the fundamental question in the current campaign: what kind of experience counts? After all, Joe's nemesis, Dick Cheney, had one of the longest resumes in Washington, but nonetheless exercised fatal judgment in pursing and ill-conceived war. But Joe Wilson is embedded in the same Washington conventional thinking and divisive politics. So, one hardly expects him to recognize Obama's claim to the Presidency. Like Lincoln, Obama's claim is based on his strong commitment to fundamental American principles, and his understanding of self and country, rather than a catalog of places visited and foreign leaders met. That is why Barack Obama has overcome extraordinary odds on the road to the White House. That is also why he is best prepared to meet the challenges facing our nation at this critical moment in time. When it comes to comparing judgment on the most important strategic decision in our recent history, Iraq, Barack Obama got it right and Hillary Clinton didn't.