Listen to Obama's predictions in 2002/2003 about what would happen in Iraq if we were to topple Saddam. Compare them to Hillary's (if she made any). Obama was able to accurately predict the chaos that would ensue once the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis began fighting each other. Maybe Hillary was aware of this, but I am unaware of any statements she made warning about it. Could you provide one?

He made the right call on Iraq and he has actually LIVED overseas amongst the native citizenry (not in an embassy or on a military base -- or prison cell for that matter). So in that sense, he has more foreign relations experience than either McCain or Clinton

You, sir, are a blithering idiot. And I mean no disrespect to the blithering idiots of the world by the comparison.

Begone, troll...

Someone elsewhere suggests that maybe Obama stays at a Holiday Inn Express, giving him is expertise in foreign policy.

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

Thank you. No further questions.

Gotalife?

I've tried to respond to each comment to my post here this morning but have to now get on to some work. I appreciate those responses that have not been based insulting and offensive statements and accusations. For those that simply prefer to respond with name calling and insults, consider how you reflect upon the candidate you claim to support.

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

Okay, so we know Matt is not so much pro-Hillary as anti-Obama because there's a small chance Obama might make some, you know, actual changes. Truth in labelling is always good. Matthew basically just wants a (perhaps) somewhat less idiotic version of the neoconservative foreign policy we already have. I can understand that. I think it's utterly, utterly wrong in more ways than I have time describe, but I understand that.

Here's what I don't get -- Obama claimed more knowledge and understanding on foreign policy, not more experience. Note, by the way, that the fact he's had a chance to actually spend time in other parts of the world and see how ordinary people do in those countries in places like Pakistan is actually being used against him by rightwingers.

So, why did Matt feel the need to distort the distinction between knowledge/understand and experience? Simple, because the neoconservative does not want someone in power who understands other countries. Neoconservatives want someone in power who'll bomb other countries. It's better if they have lots of experience...in bombing other countries.

Oh, and btw, it's not Obama's pigmentation that will send a message so much as his name. The day that intelligent people in places like Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and even in Europe who now assume we are a nation of narrow-minded ignoramuses and warmongers, hear that, for all our insanity over the last eight years and for all the worldwide damage we've done since Bush came into office, we've actually been able to get past our inherent prejudices enough to elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama because we actually believed he was the best person for the job, they'll scratch their heads and ask themselves, "Has the United States gone sane?"

These people might actually give us the benefit of a doubt for awhile and, if Obama follows it up with the sensible but tough, when needed, foreign policy I think he has in mind, there's a chance for this world to actually improve.

and further, a question for the gentle Mr. Weaver ...

if it were Senator Obama fudging up the difference between sunni and shi'ite repeatedly in speeches in the Middle East and elsewhere, if Senator Obama opined that the solution to turmoil between the sects is to tell them to 'stop the bullshit', you would consider those simplistic or plainly erroneous utterances to be a harsh indictment of the junior Senator's foreign policy expertise.

... wouldn't you?

My guess is that whatever argument Senator Clinton advanced as evidence of her experience, Weaver would parrot. The reality of the situation is, and should be apparent, is that Mr. Weaver hates Senator Obama. It's an irrational hate, that he tries, ever so poorly, to rationalize. Hence his argument that he's a progressive that would vote for a non-progressive if Senator Clinton is not the nominee (which, he knows she will not be). Why? Well you can read his tortured explanation above, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

The fact of the matter is, foreign policy, like all things should be judged by the invididuals actions related thereto. Since NONE of the candidates have ever been president and thus NEVER directed foreign policy decisions, the best proxy at this point would be their judgment on matters touching on foreign policy. Not years in office. Not countries travelled. But their judgments on matters on touching foreign policy.

In that regard, I don't think there is a question that Senator Obama's foreign policy chops stand up to Senator Clinton and McCain's scorecard. And that's the rub for Mr. Weaver and Senator Clinton. She wants it to be about ANYTHING but the judgments she's made. How many trips she's been on. Whether there was sniper fire while she was there. No mention of her involvement in national security meetings, or the role she played in addressing crises (well that hasn't been shown to be exaggerated). Nope, just claims to strength, experience and some comments about her trips to 80 countries. Never anything about her judgment.

It’s worth reiterating: the Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn’t have primary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The Armed Services Committee (on which Senator Clinton serves) does.

The Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn’t have secondary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The full Foreign Relations Committee (which has held hearings on Afghanistan) does.

The Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn’t even have tertiary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs does.

Is that a real photo of Obama with a cigarette in his mouth? That is an attack-ready photo, just like the one of Obama in African garb.

I fear this debate as an Obama supporter. I think he will suffer harshly in a negative campaign. He has to Hope his message of a new politics is enough to carry him over this sizeable hurdle.

I really don't buy the wait until the GOP gets a chance to attack Obama meme. In reality, this campaign against Hillary is much tougher than the GOP.

McCain's intelligence is underwhelming. Hillary is far smarter than McCain. His early-life education history is similar to GW Bush, who got into Yale due to family connections. McCain graduated from the Naval Academy ranked 894/899, then lost 5 jets while a pilot. Had his father and grand father not been admirals, would he still have been a pilot after losing the 3rd?

While his time spent as a POW is admirable, he doesn't appear to be the best pilot in the world. Or academic for that matter. Now he's confusing Sunni's and Shite time and time again, can't give a speech to save his life, and isn't the best looking guy at 72 either.

He left his wife who stood by him during his POW days for a bimbo; he called his current wife a c*nt; well known hot-head (probably has a mild post-traumatic stress disorder); and we're not even getting into his Keeting Five days, recent flip-flopping on many issues, etc.

He may be polling fairly well now, but mark my words, he's peaking. Once the GE starts he's done.

Hillary knows this too, she's using the "GOP is going to beat him" line to scare up votes. Not this time.