Kerry: Obama More Experienced Than Bush, Reagan Or Bill Clinton
Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 04:56PM Speaking about Hillary Clinton’s “red phone” commerical, John Kerry, who is endorsing and campaigning for Barack Obama, said today on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
“The fact is that Barack Obama comes to this race with more experience than George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton had in foreign policy at the national level. And the fact is that he has proven that it is his judgment that is correct.”
How can that possibly be? Barack Obama has 2 years of national Senatorial experience n (sworn into office January 4, 2005, announced presidential candidacy February 2007) and gave a really good speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. That’s it.
Here’s the Senator’s illustrious voting record. (follow the column that reads “Not Voting”, “Not Voting”, “Not Voting”…..)
Meanwhile, Bush, Reagan and Clinton were all multiple term GOVERNORS.
Anyone who thinks Iraq having Saddam and his evil heirs to the throne still in power while ignoring the world wide al-Qaeda threat is good foreign policy judgment is incredibly misguided.
Obama’s foreign policy judgment on Iraq consists of these blunders:
The reality is:
There is no civil war in Iraq.
The Iraqi Parliament has made more progress than the U.S. Congress.
Obama is in denial or naive about al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq. After pulling the troops out and allowing an al-Qaeda resurgence to take back ground they lost under the surge, Obama will order targeted strikes on al-Qaeda. Civilian casualties, anyone?
Convincing Iraqis that we are “reliable partners” is an already proven strategy that brings victory and threats to leave alienates Iraqis. The National Intelligence Estimate also reported that the Withdrawal Discussion Frustrates Iraqi Political Progress.
Obama should remind himself that the U.S. is in Iraq now at the request of Iraq via a United Nations Mandate and threatening Iraq with withdrawal, and surely making good on the threat, could make Iraq look elsewhere for allies…. like Iran. Wouldn’t that be the result of good foreign policy judgment?
In fairness, Barack does have some experience… alienating and upsetting our allies.
Good work!
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1632277
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (28)
Another homerun. Excellent analysis, Amy. I hope the GOP nominee has half the wit and wisdom that you share on your blog. Powerful points, all.
Why is Kerry important? He is on Congressional audio tape calling the US military "Ghingis Khan" Mongolians. What does he know about foreign policy?
Well he did not claim McCain had less, so illegal immigration aside, I'll take McCain over Messiah Obama
Jon Cary...doofus. A Winter Soldier fraud.
Sorry...I forgot...EXCELLENT commentary, once again!
That John Kerry, he really is a shrewd politican. What's next he plans to vote for Obama before he votes against him?
Excellent post, Amy, as usual. You ought to take a look at Gayle's blog, because she posted a video of Barrack Hussein Obama saying that he would basically strip our military and basically leave us at the mercy of our enemies.
It's official... I'd actually vote for Hillary before I'd vote for him.
Things like that Amy are said in the hopes that people like yourself won't actually go look for yourself to see the rhetoric for what it is.
Obama has no accomplishments..thats the fact.Kerry simply never learns that the best thing he can do is to never speak publicly again.
Oh for god's sake, you Amy, don't even know how our government works! It tragic, really.
Governors don't deal with foreign policy issues - Senators and Administrators do. So technically, Kerry is correct.
Sad, sad, sad.
Amazing how stridently Obama touts his "the Iraq war was wrong" and so few people ever call him on how he would be managing Saddam's reign of terror, two nasty, dangerous UN-mandated No-Fly Zones in Iraq, Uday and Qusay's ascent to power after Saddam, the messy Oil-for-Food UN scam, and the terror pipleline running in/out of Iraq.
I for one, won't give him a pass. Just how WOULD you manage a still-in-power Saddam Hussein, Mr. Obama?
Um, please, do tell, mud. What foreign policy experience does Obama have and how do Senators have the same foreign policy experience as a Governor, which is a microcosm of the presidency?
Don't tell me to go look it up myself. You made a statement saying the two are equal and I'm asking for the facts you use to back this up.
Amy, mudkitty will NEVER give a reference. The Libs always ask "where's the link, where's the link". But they hardly ever provide one of their own. And when you do provide a link, they either ignore it or don't understand it. So stop wasting your time with mudkitty.
Roger that, Jay.2
Stop funding the terrorists!
No more Oil Wars!
Energy Independence Now!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.
Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.
Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.
Oh do tell Amy, what foreign policy experience Shrub had when he was selected? That's the point...governors don't do foreign policy. So your examples are moot. Do tell...oh do, do tell, Amy, what Saint Reagan's foreign policy experience was when he was elected (hint, zip, zilch, nada.) Please. Do tell.
If you want to know what Senator Obama's foreign policy experience record is, you have but to go to his site. If you want to know the foreign policy experience of any senator is, go look it up.
If you want to know how the branches of government work, read the US Constitution.
"governors don't do foreign policy. "
"Please. Do tell. "
Well Bill Clinton may get another chance.
jay d,
nice call on mudkitty. lolol
Another example of mud not being able to back her claim. Governors entertain foreign dignitaries. They act as the host, as a president would act as the national host. They are part of envoys to various parts of the world. Governors are a microcosm of the presidency.
Constitutionally speaking, beyond the ratification of a treaty, senators have zero to do with US foreign policy as the Constitution puts that squarely in the executive branch.Some in the legislative branch have taken it upon themselves to engage in "negotiations", but the State Department is not bound by anything that comes out of such.
BS Rob. You really need to refer to the Constitution and learn history. There can be no foreign policy without the power of the purse which belongs squarely in the hands of the senate and congress. Good grief Charlie Brown. Are you always this off the mark?
As for Governors being hosts to dignitaries? Come on, throwing a party is hardly foreign policy.
CalPat - name one time as a governor that Bill Clinton "did foreign policy?" Just one. Now, as president, that's a different story.
My goodness, you people, I really do have to explain everything to you.
And do tell, what was St. Reagan's foreign policy experience as Governor? And btw - you all still haven't acknowledged the fact that Patraeus has never seen a single day of combat. You all let that one drop like a stone.
mud, it's up to John Kerry to prove that Obama has more foreign policy experience as a SENATOR than those governors.
Since you agree with Kerry, can't you point out what foreign policy experience Obama has and how it out-experiences Reagan, Bush and Kerry?
This ought to be good.
mud, your insistence that Petraeus has no combat experience is embarrassing. I already addressed this in another thread. This is his 3rd tour to Iraq. He's led U.S. troops in combat and trained Iraqi forces in combat. He also was in Kosovo under the Clinton admin when it was a combat zone. Oh, and in Kuwait in the 1st Gulf war.
Why do you pretend to support the troops? Do you know what "combat experience" is? Why are you trying to discredit Petraeus? That seems odd for someone who says she supports the troops. Too bad the troops don't know it.
What's your point about Petraeus, anyway? It doesn't make any sense.
Mud,
There is a huge target on the generals head courtesy of Al Qaeda. For the rest of his life the General knows he helped orchestrate the campaign that destroyed and discredited the Jihadist movement. You don't consider that dangerous enough?
Amy, he did NOT see any combat. He's leading, and has led, troops, throughout his career, without ever seeing a single day of combat in his entire career. He's strictly "officer's club." Look it up. I'm begging you.
Training troops for combat is not the same as engaging in combat. Hillary Clinton has been in Iraq more than 3 times, that doesn't mean she's engaged in combat. Being in a combat zone is not the same as having engaged in combat.
RV seems to get it, although he's making excuses. By his standard, the "target on the back" standard, every politician who voted for the war, including Hillary Clinton, has engaged in combat.
Sorry, mud, but the following is from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" which is what I said. Looking at Article I there is NO mention of the legislative branch having the authority to initiate foreign policy.
Excuse me, are you saying the legislative branch can't introduce foreign policy bills? Are you seriously saying that?
And what the heck does "advise" mean to you, and waaaay more importantly what the heck does CONSENT mean to you?
Sorry Jrong.
They cannot negotiate a treaty. they can refuse to ratify it or fund provisions but they cannot negotiate it.
Yeah they can introduce legislation, and they can pass it, but unless they pass it with a two-thirds majority guess who holds the trump card. If it conflicts with the executive branch's policy it will be vetoed, and sustained unless the opposition holds the aforementioned extraordinary majority the veto is sustained. Which is as it should be so that people like Harry Reid, Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama,Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucynich can't run this country's foreign policy by grandstanding for the DU crowd.
This is exactly why we Democrats are going for a 63 plus in the senate. So don't pretend it doesn't matter. Mr.FullofJRob.
Or are you going to pretend you didn't know that?