Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country
By Joseph Wilson on March 20, 2008 at 10:38 PM in Barack Obama, Foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Tony Rezko
Originally posted today at Huffington Post. Reprinted with express permission.
The Clinton campaign ad featuring a 3 a.m. telephone call as a metaphor for experienced leadership in foreign policy has generated considerable comment, but much of the reaction is from people who have never been involved in foreign policy and certainly never had to field such a call in a crisis situation. Some of the responses are from advisers to the Obama campaign who know better but are actively diminishing the importance and realities of presidential engagement for immediate political advantage.
To begin with, there are such 3 a.m. calls. During my long career as a diplomat, including crises and military actions in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, I have been on the receiving end, the sending end, and the development of options that led to some of those late night calls. The president’s role in crisis management is direct, critical and reflects the exercise of leadership in its most fundamental and powerful form. That capability is not intuitive; rather, it comes from years of experience, training and exposure to the complexities that are in inherent in international relations.
On August 3, 1990, while serving as acting Ambassador to Iraq, I received a middle of the night call from then President George H.W. Bush’s Middle East adviser, who informed me that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. While the president had not personally called me, it was clear to me from that moment on that he was directly responsible for every significant decision made and engaged in marshaling the forces of the U.S. government and the support of the international community in what ultimately became Desert Storm.
In 1995 and 1996, while serving as Political Adviser to the Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, I was directly involved in the diplomacy associated with the movement of troops from Western Europe to Bosnia in support of the efforts of President Clinton and his special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to implement the Dayton Accords and bring an end to the Balkan genocide.
In 1998, as Senior Director for Africa in President Clinton’s National Security Council, I helped orchestrate six phone calls, some late at night, directly from President Clinton, three each to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles, and Eritrean President Afwerki, to stop the air war between the two countries. Two of Barack Obama’s senior advisers, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also involved in that effort, and could attest to the importance of presidential involvement if they would choose not to remain silent as a ploy to protect their candidate’s slender credentials.
In each of the three cases, there was a critical common denominator: direct presidential engagement. During the Desert Shield part of the first Gulf War, then President Bush personally chaired many of the National Security Council meetings and made nonstop calls to foreign leaders to assemble the international coalition and secure the U.N. resolutions that provided the legal underpinning for the military action.
In former Yugoslavia, President Clinton played a similar role, reaching out to friends and allies, to adversaries and belligerents, in order to reach agreements that permitted the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.
And in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, the aerial bombings of Addis Ababa and Asmara ceased thanks to the personal efforts of a President.
Contrast the above examples with the last seven plus years of George W. Bush and the conclusion is inescapable: presidential leadership is critical and should be tempered with experience and capability.
Senator Clinton has a long and well documented history of involvement in many of critical foreign policy issues we have confronted and will continue to confront as a nation. Critics can quibble about the details of the health plan she fought for in the 1990s, or whether hers was the decisive or merely an important voice in the Northern Ireland peace efforts, but there can be no denying that she has been in the arena for a generation fighting for what she believes in, gaining experience and developing leadership skills. She has traveled the world and met with international leaders both as the First Lady and as a respected senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As NSC director on Africa I experienced her direct positive involvement in U.S.-African relations; it was she, as First Lady who advanced through her own travel, then urged and made possible President Clinton’s historic trip. In the Senate, she has aggressively exercised her oversight responsibility and held the Pentagon’s feet to the fire on plans related to withdrawal from Iraq, shaped legislation requiring reports to Congress, and cosponsored legislation with Senator Byrd to deauthorize the war with Iraq. She has exercised the levers of power because she knows how to do so. That is not a small thing; it is not a campaign theme. It is simply true and goes to the heart of whether she, or anyone, is prepared to be the president to manage at once two wars and a global economic crisis.
Senator Obama is clearly a gifted politician and orator. I disagree profoundly with his transparently political efforts to turn George Bush’s war into Hillary Clinton’s responsibility. I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.
Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.
As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?
Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say? Already, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, has been compelled to resign for, among other indiscretions, honestly revealing on a British television program that Obama’s public position on withdrawal from Iraq is not really his true position, nor does it reflect what he would do. Her gaffe exposed a vein of cynicism on national security. How confident can we be in his judgment? In fact, the hard truth is that he has no such experience.
Obama has tried to have it both ways on the issue of national security. On the one hand, he claims his intuition somehow would make him best equipped to handle the difficult challenges that face the next president. On the other hand, he tries to ridicule and dismiss as relatively insignificant the idea that actual experience with and intimate knowledge of foreign affairs and leaders, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the intricacies of diplomacy matter. He has even suggested that talking about the problems of national security amounts to exploitation of “fear.” One of Obama’s fervent supporters, a Harvard professor named Orlando Patterson, who has no expertise in foreign policy, wrote absurdly in a New York Times op-ed that the 3 a.m. ad wasn’t about national security at all, but really a subliminal racist attack. Delusions aside, sometimes a discussion about national security is about national security.
There will, in fact, be 3 a.m. phone calls for the next president. They are not make believe. I have been there for such calls. The next president cannot be afraid or hesitant of handling the enormous national security crises that President Bush will leave behind. One thing is certain — the calls will come. Obama has only an abdication of his chief senatorial responsibility as a basis for assessing what his judgment might be if and when the phone rings. Which of his shifting coterie of volatile advisers would he turn to? Will it be the one who repudiated his withdrawal plan, exposing his real intention, prior to being forced to resign? Or will it be those advisers who remained silent until politically convenient — several years and several thousand lives after the shock and awe invasion, conquest and disastrous occupation of Iraq?
The calls are real and experience is real, too. The campaign might be treated as a game by the media, but those calls are serious, deadly serious.
Once $299.98, now yours for $149.99.
+ ALL 
Obama is unqualified. Period.
I bet for most people on this blog that is the key reason they do not support him.
For me, the last turning point came when I discovered that Obama’s most celebrated successes in IL came from a package of bills that was dropped in his lap during his last year, to pump up his resume for the Senate run.
Then, once he got to the Senate, he couldn’t be bothered to do his job.
Everything else—all the racial politics, the sexism, the hyped up hope—are just distractions which prevent people from seeing the fundamental truth about Obama.
Sure, he’s smart, educated and accomplished, but he is no more ready to be President than Paul Krugman or Laurence Tribe.
For me, the last turning point came when I discovered that Obama’s most celebrated successes in IL came from a package of bills that was dropped in his lap during his last year, to pump up his resume for the Senate run.
Yep. And the cheap opportunist has the unparalleled GALL to claim it’s his own work. That’s downright revolting.
Thank You Joe!
As a now retired 33 yr Flight crew of one of the airlines involved on 9/11..I do not feel comfortable ..at all..with a Obama Presidency.
I Never felt good about a Bush presidency..and I fought him being president in 2000 and 2004..so much so, that I ran an election to become a delegate for my state..and I spoke out publicly every where I could.
I have that same sick feeling now.
I didn’t do what I did for the fun of it..I did it for the safety of the American Flying public, I felt it was my responsibility..as I do today.
Thank you for speaking the truth Joe.
( oh and I saw you speak at the 2004 convention..at an event..with Gary Hart, and Kucinich and others)
fly
In paragraph four of the above column, Ambassador Wilson says:
Something is screwed up here.
There is no such position/command as the one he cites.
I suspect he means “Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Europe (CINCEUR).”
Probably just a typo — stemming from exhaustion having been woken in the middle of the night so often.
ETW states,
Uh not so fast skippy - CinC of US Armed Forces = POTUS, who was then Pres. Bill Clinton. Amb. Wilson served in that capacity under several presidents.
It should have been CINCEUR. Commander in Chief US Armed Forces Europe. Typo.
As always, thank you Ambassador Wilson.
Your insightful essay which details your inside knowledge of national security matters is very informative.
Well said OxyCon.
There is no time to prepare for a speech. We can’t wait 4 days for our president to show and make a speech. Speech does’t solve a darn thing.
With Obama I get the feeling that in a national emergency he would finish reading The Pet Goat and then look around for the teleprompter to decide what to do next.
Thanks for illustrating what the President’s role in world affairs is, Ambassador. Obama’s been something of an underachiever in this area, and that’s not a good sign.
And this is where I fail to understand Obama’s so called intellectualism.
He never really seems to understand the implications of issues, the greater contingencies.
He has the intellectual depth of wall paper, yet no one really examines, or wants to admit, the depth of his incompetence, this great ruse for those not shrewd enough to understand the game.
Why does the media think it’s OK to put such a foamy, untalented man in the US Presidency, given what Amb Wilson has just written?
The Corporate owned RW MSM doesn’t want Obama to be the President. That’s why they’re drooling all over him now, to brainwash the masses so they will vote for him. In the GE you will see the reasons why. They will destroy him. He’s an easy target and they all know it. Hillary isn’t and they all know that too.
The RW Corporations that own the MSM DO NOT want a Democratic President and all their talking heads have been given orders to get Obama the Dem nomination so they can easily get McCain elected in November.
Last Night on Sean Hannity’s show, he said there’s MORE damaging information out there about Obama and he will stay on it. I suspect we’ll see the most damaging things AFTER Mr. Hope is the Dem nominee.
Thanks for the condescension Taters….but you should stick to farming. The good Ambassador was describing the position he held in 1995 & 1996 (according to his own post).
If you go to the usually semi-accurate Wikipedia (and many other websites) you’ll find the entry on Wilson saying that:
Yes, the Constitution does call for the President to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces….but your tip off that that was not what Joe was talking about was the mention of the POLAD. POTUS’s don’t have POLADS.
In the unlikely event that you care any more — you can look up the structure of the military combatant commands (EUCOM, NORTHCOM, PACOM etc) and you will find they all have a civilian usually detailed to them from the StateDepartment to advise the General or Admiral in charge on diplomatic matters.
IF the POTUS had a POLAD..the POLAD;s other title would be: SECRETARY OF STATE.
None of this is a big deal….but before you go jumping all snarky on people….you might start by knowing WTF you are talking about.
BTW…at the time Wilson was there…the official name was CINCEUR….but Don Rumseld, in yet another dumb move, decided it should be renamed…because he thought there should be only one “Commander in Chief” — the POTUS. So CINCEUR was changed to Commander U.S. European Command.
ETW,
Good catch and I stand corrected. And pardon my knee jerk reaction, I thought you were questioning Amb. Wilson’s creds.
CINCEURLY,
Taters
LOL!
The calls are real and experience is real, too.
Thank you Ambassador Wilson.
I noticed as Larry King was interviewing Sen. Obama, he said that he would reach out to George the 1st; and the people that George HW Bush surrounded himself with, as people that would bring experience to his administration. Imagine that! Senator Obama would want Neo-Cons in his administration.
In this setup, Obama would asking for advice “up the food chain”.
Senator Clinton would be asking from a position of knowing a great deal more than Obama than Obama with no stage freight.
I would LOVE to see a video of that. You can’t make stuff like this up folks.
It was towards the end of Larry King’s interview.
It was a guiter string broke when I heard it.
Erg!
OT: I notice an avitar place holder below the Add comments button, what is that about?
He also gave GHB and his advisors credit for ending the cold war.
Between the different post titles mentioned, there was SACEUR(Gen.Clark).
Afghanistan has been training with soldiers here at facilities in Kansas, according to wire pieces the other day.
Amb.Wilson,
The earlier site update ate prior posts of mine. Also prevented me from thanking you for the post.
Thanks for official mention of Rezko. You could expand upon the background of his main benefactor Auchi(and vice versa in Auchi’s instance to Rezko).
Dayton was an achievement in terms of effective intervention, our own restraint in the field, lack of casualties, and overall collateral effects in comparison to the pace and schedule of genocide that was undertaken before we acted officially.
You could, at later times, probably reveal more how the internecine disputes waging across eastern and north central and southern Africa, now mid western Africa, were part of larger background activity being attempted by the arch nemesis of diplomacy, the same groups we have fought in Afghanistan. The extent to which this is an FBI kind of item, one based on international and multinational gun runners and client states gun smuggling and trafficking weapons and people beyond ideology, remains to be addressed either.
The markets never sleep. At 3 Am here it’s trading hours elsewhere. Their capital and influence acts, we want someone to at least try to see that its action is shaped to the benefit of all. That cannot be said at this time. Someone who understands and grasps these points fully could be considered qualified to greater extents.
Not to say someone from the Bull market’s city does not understand this, but Americans prefer someone whose grasp of bull is a bit different from his, different subject matter entirely in his case. In either case it represent light years of nuance and ability past John “the Confessor” McCain who admits he knows nothing of finance, or at least that was what Keating era counsel appears to have trained him to say.
I would like to know what Ambassador Wilson thought about our signalling to Saddam that we did not care if he invaded Kuwait. As I understand it he actually asked our ambassador, April Glaspie, what our position was and she basically told him we did not care. Then our State Dept. spokesperson made a big point of assuring the media that we did not have an obligation to defend Kuwait. I have never understood why this happened - did we think he was bluffing or did we secretly want this war? And why is this never talked about. I have heard a lot of talk about whether FDR allowed Pearl Harbor so why no interest in whether we could/should have avoided the first Gulf War?
If you take the time to read my book, “The Politics of Truth”, I address this canard and many others at great length.
I was told a full two years before the Kuwait invasion that we were going to take Hussein out. When I asked the person that told me why we were going to go against our ally I was told that it was because “he is getting too big for his britches.” An exact quote.
The person that told me this was in the military at the time and had no special security clearance as far as I know. So I assume it was common knowledge at the time. Or the person was a great guesser.
If you are talking about the First Gulf war (and I assume you are), I was in Iraq two years before the Kuwait invasion, and there was no discussion about taking Saddam out at that time. I would also note that when we prosecuted the first Gulf War, we did not “take Hussein out”, we drove his military out of Kuwait.
He was not, by the way, our ally.
Your source was a great guesser, though in fairness, he was 15 years off on the timing of his guess.
Things that get lost in the debate about whether Sen. Clinton or state legislator Obama had better judgement in that fall ‘02 leading to AUFI:
There was significant debate about the wording. Senators were concerned about giving W.Bush too much free reign about what he would deem necessary or appropriate. Much of the concession vote resulted from not only the desire to avoid being characterized as procrastinators, but also conceding that language should convey determination.
Not only as widely pointed out, did Obama’s ‘02 rally speech not cost him political damage, it helped his own state election at the time. But what I think is far more significant, in ‘04 with 20/20 hindsight, he stated in an interview he did not know how he actually would have voted. Then on top of that, just so there was no mistake, he wrote down the same thought and published it in his ‘06 book ‘Audacity of Hope’.
Now today, he criticizes Hillary’s ‘02 judgement, while he himself has published the fact that even with hindsight, he is unable to actually have ANY judgement.
Ambassador Joseph Wilson, I would just like to say that I find your commentaries a breath of fresh air in the swamp that usually passes for public discourse. You always manage to combine expert insight with common sense.
My thought for the day; as I imagine urgent middle of the night phone calls. While Hillary as first lady was not the same policy maker that POTUS Bill was; as one of the more active first ladies, she can legitimately call herself an advisor, and also legitimately claim to have personally met and interacted with foreign politicains that Obama has only heard about through the crib-notes of his primary campaign. She has useful pre-knowledge about how they think, which can only be gotten by that kind of experience.
So when that phone rings, Hillary will know who else needs to be called for what specific purpose, and at least as important, who to delegate to task most effectively; while Obama will know who to call to have a conversation about hope.
“I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.”
What debate? Obama was not in Washington at the time of the war (2003) He got elected in 2004.
“his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright”
Let’s not even discuss the association of BOTH Clintons with Wright.
As for your statement that Clinton is better suited fro the 3 am call, ALL THREE CANDIDATES MISSED THEIR 3 AM CALL.
But what really callls my attention, is th4e fact that Clinton is willing to change the rules of the game when it is convenient for her. (She did AGREED that Fl and Mi would not count)So, if it is unamerican to not seat the delegates of those two states, it was unamerican of her to accept that deal.
But it seems that Clinton was infected by the Bush doctrine (pre-emptive strikes and constantly moving the posts.) So, please explain to me how the facts that she is so willing to attack a country (or will aprove the attack of one country to another), or the fact that she will turn her back to an agreement she made, will in the end be a plus in her foreign policy?
How predictable from the Obamab0t comments at HP.
Ambassador, you spoke against their sainted rock star and now you are only worthy of scorn and ridicule.
Not only is Obama unprepared to lead us in these dangerous times, his supporters are shrill and I have nothing but contempt for many (most?) of them for their shallowness.
What is truly interesting about this, is what many Obama supports themselves say.
Often times, when questioned about Obama’s experience or lack of it, the reply is, ‘there’s people now with experience, and look what that got us…so maybe it’s better to have an outsider with less of the wrong experience’.
This is the gist of what I hear from those of the phone-in callers on C-Span who support Obama.
It seems there’s a fundamental divide between those who value the fever of inspirational speech, versus those who are looking for an action plan.
In the heat of the battle over the Florida vote after the 2000 US presidential election, a burly, mustachioed man burst into the room where the ballots for Miami-Dade County were being tabulated, like John Wayne barging into a saloon for a shoot-out. “I’m with the Bush-Cheney team, and I’m here to stop the count,” drawled John Bolton. And those ballots from Miami-Dade were not counted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/10/usa.comment
Now a big page in the Obama playbook - stifle and silence the will of the people in FL and MI.
Where do think Axelrod got the Idea?
Look it’s a bird, it’s a plane…it Condi calling BO saying, “Sorry for letting this go public, but I never knew, after all it’s not like you have much in there…unless it had to do with that secret trip you took to _______ after meeting with Auchi…
Is Friday yet?
Clinton also agree to have the Fl & Mi candidates not seated. Hope we haven’t forgotten. (I can imagine Republicans calling her a flip-floper.)
BTW, I am looking for Hillary disavowing perjuror-in-chief, but can’t seem to find any.
Well, no, that was not part of the candidates’ agreement on those states.
Exactly! So why try to pin it in Obama now???
Sorry, I missed the “NO”.
“”It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything,” Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio’s call-in program, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_pf.html
Now she wants to count the delegates and/or the popular vote?? Either she was lying then or she is cheating now!
I don’t think she’s either lying or cheating. Frankly, the only cheating in politics is gaming the system (see caucuses for more info). I think it’s perfectly plausible that she realized, assuming she didn’t know in the first place, that it would never be plausible not to let the election count or have a do-over. She advocates a do-over or a seating of the original results. Regardless of her orginal stance, that’s what voters and FL and MI want to hear right now.
Gaming the system? Every single candidate plays by the same rule. It is not like the caucases are something new.
After all her bragging about her experience in the White House, she realices that she fell asleep during the process in which her husband ran for two elections? Sorry but I don’t buy that.
What I see is a candidate who has lost, and is trying to do anything possible to revert that result.
Not too long ago, Larry said that what counted was the delegates. Now what counts is the popular vote. For me, trying to change the rules in the middle of the game equals cheating
As for the voters of Mi and Fl, they should have voiced their oposition BEFORE the election took place. And if necesary they should have boycotted the election.
I am old enough to recall the ‘72 McGovern campaign. I see little difference (but much worse) with Obama.
Inspite of the growing unpopularity of the Vietnam War (1,000 U.S. deaths per month - not per year)Nixon was re-elected by an enormous landslide.
The reason was that most voters chose someone they felt could be a CIC. In McGovern’s case he was a man who had foreign policy experience and was even a decorated WW II military officer. But he simply did not inspire confidence
In Obama’s case he has zero as you articulated. Hs nomination would result in a far worse landslide than either McGovern or Mondale
Also, any idea why Bill Richardson threw his friends, the Clintons, under the bus to board the Titanic?
Thanks you Amb. Wilson for the post. You and your wife are true American patriots. Your book was a very interesting read, I highly recommend it to anyone who might not have read it yet.
The type of courage you displayed with Saddam is something that I simply cannot envision BO displaying, based on the way that he has chosen to run his campaign, if for no other reason. It is a good yardstick to use I think in selecting a leader to view what they would do had they been in your shoes.
I can however see Sen. Clinton being as courageous as you were in dealing with Saddam.
Thank you for taking issue with the ridiculous assertions of Orlando Patterson. Even more ridiculous, he was on Chris Matthews show talking about it recently. I restrained myself mightily from hurling something at the TV.
BO uses race to attempt to distract from the fact that he is totally unqualified to serve this country in the capacity of president.
I hope another door opened for your wife and family when the criminality of this administration closed the other. I was very pleased to get the news that S. Libby was disbarred citing moral turpitude. He deserved far more than that for the personal damage to you and your family and the damage he did to national security.
[...] Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country (by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, writing at No Quarter) Senator Clinton has a long and well documented history of involvement in many of critical foreign policy issues we have confronted and will continue to confront as a nation. Critics can quibble about the details of the health plan she fought for in the 1990s, or whether hers was the decisive or merely an important voice in the Northern Ireland peace efforts, but there can be no denying that she has been in the arena for a generation fighting for what she believes in, gaining experience and developing leadership skills. She has traveled the world and met with international leaders both as the First Lady and as a respected senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee… [...]
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/21/121626/179
Please recommend this post and add a comment
Obama’s Moral Relativism by Sarana
[...] [See No Quarter’s trove of stories on Obama’s failure to convene a single significant hearing of his European Affairs subcommittee (which covers NATO), or to visit any European countries. See in particular Joseph Wilson’s “Obama’s Hollow “Judgment” and Empty Record” and “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country.”] [...]
This week’s TIME magazine has a report on Tony Lake, and Richard Holbrooke, Clinton’s foreign policy adviser.
One of the suggestions Clinton’s campaign has made is the appointment of a US diplomatic envoy, to shuttle between Afghanistan, and Pakistan, an on site presence to help iron out and negotiate difficulties between those countries, and “Iraq’s warring parties, too.”
Holbrooke, with experience in Bosnia, would, according to TIME, make an excellent candidate, the man able to accomplish this mission.
(As would Mr Wilson, no doubt).
Clinton has opened a door to a civilized, workable solution, US brain power as muscle to bring about some control, as opposed to this mess of military and mercenary jello we now see in the Middle East, courtesy of Bush.
Perhaps NATO does not want to contribute more in terms of troops and money because the Bush administration is so incompetent, as evidenced, well, everywhere.
Would you invest in Cheney’s Pentagon team, Cheney’s corrupt Pentagon?
Of course not.
Now imagine Obama in charge of this operation.
Why do people take him seriously?
Because he makes them feel so hopeful.
Just don’t mention real work, ok?
Which is why he is but tied with McCain in the polls.
McCain has the experience, Obama has nothing.
[...] — last but by no means least, as you will see — from Joseph Wilson’s “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country,” March 20, 2008, republished from Huffington Post: Senator Obama is clearly a gifted [...]
[...] “Obama’s Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country” by Joseph [...]