“No Hearings On Afghanistan, Correct?”
So we can see from this morning’s This Week that David Axelrod is not a good television surrogate, and we are reminded again that Obama has failed over the course of the last year to hold any hearings with respect to NATO support for the war in Afghanistan in his capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs. Indeed, during his chairmanship the subcommittee has not held any policy hearings. Obama supporters fans usually dismiss this as trivia, but it goes directly to his credibility as an advocate of greater U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, which he just reiterated this week, because it is through his subcommittee that the Foreign Relations Committee gathers important information about European governments and NATO. These are obviously critical to the Afghanistan mission.
As someone who has been in an official position, albeit only for a year, to draw attention to NATO’s limited support for the Afghanistan mission and to show some leadership in his role as Senator, he has not done so. The response will be: “Well, okay, but he was running for President! He can’t be in two places at the same time!” Well, exactly. In a three-year U.S. Senate career he has been part of the majority for just over one, and in that year he has done literally nothing about a policy whose importance he is supposed to rate very highly because he has been too busy working for a promotion that would allow him to wield far greater power. Further, if Obama is running on his superior judgement, what does it say about his judgement that he considered campaigning throughout 2007 more pressing and important than doing the work his constituents elected him to do?
As Conason’s December piece in Slate said:
Ritch points out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change — and of course, the undermining of the foundations of the Atlantic alliance by the Bush administration. There is, indeed, almost no issue of current global interest that would have fallen outside the subcommittee’s purview.
Also, for someone whose subcommittee oversaw European affairs, it is remarkable that he has apparently not been to Europe very often and certainly not since taking over his chairmanship. Obama and his backers like to talk about his biography as the source of a different perspective on foreign relations, but what can it say about his practical foreign policy experience that in the time he has been on the Foreign Relations Committee he has not actually visited the region whose relationship with the U.S. was his responsibility to oversee? The neglect of Europe is not limited to Obama’s time in the Senate, but can also be seen in the absence of any statements on Europe, NATO or Russia in his formal campaign literature or in his foreign policy addresses, except insofar as it relates to his nonproliferation agenda. It is particularly in light of his relative lack of interest in European affairs that makes his loose talk about “obligations” to Kosovo sound all the more disturbing.
18 Responses to ““No Hearings On Afghanistan, Correct?””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dude, you’ve been punked, as usual, by Hillary’s people. Obama’s subcommittee does NOT have authority over anything related to the Afghanistan war, even though it handles NATO issues. Anything related to NATO’s relationship to Afghanistan is handled by a different committee. And even that committee hasn’t held hearings on the issue, because the full foreign relation committee decided to hold those hearings itself.
Now, true, Obama could have been more active in his subcommittee, and traveled to Europe more, and it’s clear that running for President has taken up his time. What a shocker. Like, Hillary and McCain have been burning midnight oil at the Senate over the last year, rather than campaigning. Come off it dude. Stop looking for fake reasons to slam Obama. As if spending more time on a NATO subcommittee is really going to change the world. Let’s be perfectly honest here: being in the Senate, period, is hugely overrated in importance. Neither McCain nor Hillary have accomplished much of anything in the senate in their careers. It’s mostly a place to look good and grandstand, and spending more time in the Senate isn’t really going to prepare Obama better to be President. In reality, it would probably make him a worse President. Just as their longer “experience” in the Senate would probably make both McCain and Hillary worse Presidents, not better ones.
Yes, clearly it’s all the work of Hillary’s people, who also happen to work for the Times and Slate and who include Steve Clemons, all of whom were talking about this months before Clinton’s people thought to bring it up. Sure, it’s all campaign spin. Whatever allows the good feelings to continue.
His subcommittee obviously doesn’t have oversight over Afghanistan *military* operations, because it is part of the FRC. It certainly does have oversight over U.S.-Europe relations and to the extent that these affect cooperation within NATO it falls under his subcommittee’s responsibility. You can make an argument why he didn’t hold hearings on this or that policy, but what is the excuse for holding no hearings at all? If you want to let him off the hook for not doing his job while running for President, I don’t want to hear glowing praises about his supposedly numerous accomplishments, of which there are precious few as it is. Either he is judged by his record, or he doesn’t get credit for his record. He shouldn’t get to claim credit for his work with Lugar on proliferation if he is also going to receive criticism for his inaction.
I have given plenty of reasons before this why people shouldn’t support Obama, and I don’t have to go looking for them–they are abundant and crop up everywhere. Obama supporters seem to regard virtually every critical remark about their man as a “fake” criticism. As that mock-McCain ad says, good luck with that in November.
I see now you admit that you are in league with the liberal hegemons of print and online journalism – the NY Times and Slate. At least it’s out in the open. But even you admit Obama’s committee had no jurisdiction over military operations in Afghanistan, and that’s where the meat is.
As I said, yes, Obama has neglected some of his senate duties over the last year, and this is one of them. But it’s a very marginal duty indeed, and it’s a huge stretch to suggest that not holding hearings on these matters has made any serious impact on anything, including our relations with NATO. Would anyone have paid any attention to those hearings in any case, unless of course Obama were running for President? And how can Obama actually affect these matters better, by not running for President and holding hearings that everyone would ignore, or running for President and actually being in a position to make policy on these matters?
But you don’t answer the main point, which is, aren’t Hillary and McCain just as guilty, if not more so, of neglecting their Senate duties while running for President? One can’t hold Obama to the wall for this while not making a comparison to Hillary and McCain.
Now, it’s also silly to suggest that not doing much with this committee means we shouldn’t credit Obama for doing serious work on non-proliferation, which actually makes a real difference. You are vastly overstating the importance of holding hearings anyway. I thought that was all just “talk”, and talk is unimportant?
And please don’t give me that jazz about Obama supporters suggesting that every critical remark about Obama is fake. I’ve admitted over and over again to quite a lot of legitimacy in your criticism of the dude. He’s far from perfect. I have my own differences with him. But elections are not about absolute judgments, comparing him to some perfect candidate in your own mind, but about relative judgments, comparing him to the actual candidates he’s running against in the real world – Clinton and McCain. In that comparison, I think he comes out on top. This by no means makes him immune to criticism, just better when compared to those he is running against. What I object to is criticism of him that doesn’t place his faults in the context of the positions and faults on the same matters as those he’s running against.
BTW, maybe you noticed who the NY TImes endorsed? Have they run any articles critically examing Hillary’s neglect of her senate duties while campaigning for President? Wonder why not.
Actually, the Times I was referring to was that great Clinton conspiracy member, the Times of London. They’re the ones who ran the critical story on Obama’s indifference to Europe.
It would matter more for Clinton and McCain if they had been in the Senate for just two years at the time they started running for President. It seems to me that you don’t want him to be held accountable for what he hasn’t done, but want him to be lauded for what he has done. Sorry, it’s all part of his record, and he has to take his lumps just like everyone else. As the Conason article makes clear, holding hearings serves a practical function in the Congress. They aren’t just exercises in talking for the cameras.
Is this subcommittee business one of the most important things to mention about Obama? No, I don’t think so. That’s one reason why I didn’t write about it at all when I first read the Slate piece months ago. Is it worth drawing attention to and talking about in one post? Of course. Another thing that might be worth checking is to see how many Senate votes Obama has missed relative to his competitors. That would be a fair comparison, wouldn’t it?
Since we’re going to be even-handed, I would add that the subcommittee Clinton chairs held three hearings last year. Now maybe that’s not a big deal, but how they spend their time seems like a legitimate sort of inquiry to make about public servants.
If holding hearings were the standard, the indefatigable Rep. Henry Waxman would be a presidential shoo-in.
Ain’t gonna happen. This is the country that elected Warren Gamaliel Harding and James Earl Carter. And that’s just for starters.
Daniel,
Well, you snookered me on the Times. And no, I’m not trying to suggest that Obama’s record should be ignored. But I will assert that not doing unimportant things isn’t as meaningful as doing important things. The way I’d look at is that Obama realized that running for President would mean he’d have to cut back on his Senate activities, and he probably looked at this subcommittee’s hearings as a pretty meaningless endeavor that no one would miss, unless they were playing gotcha games. Likewise, he thought working on non-proliferation issues actually mattered. I call that a pretty good allocation of priorities.
Now, as for Obama’s three years in the US senate, it’s only four years less than Hillary’s seven. And what exactly has she done in those seven years? Well, it’s pretty easily arguable that it’s less than Obama has accomplished in three. Let’s be honest, Obama has impressed a lot of people with his quick grasp of the issues in the short time he’s been in the senate. Not to mention the very impressive eight years he spent in the Illinois senate. He has more legislative experience than Hillary, and he achieved all of it on his own, rather than riding on nepotism to get him a quick pass to the Senate as a carpetbagger who pushed aside a more accomplished female congresswoman who had actually earned her way to the position where she would have been the democratic candidate for NY in 2000.
Now, as for Obama’s short record at the federal level, let me remind you that some of our greatest presidents had little or no federal experience. Lincoln was a two-term congressman who accomplished very little, and who had to drop out of congress rather than suffer a humiliating defeat. His only skill was in criminal lawyering and speechmaking. He didn’t do too badly in a crisis, as it turned out.
My general experience is that, short of highly technical professional jobs, experience simply isn’t that important, while character and talent is. People who rely on their resumes to argue for a job are losers. If you believe in experience, then vote for the old guy. If you want talent, then Obama’s the guy.
He didn’t do too badly in a crisis, as it turned out.
You mean starting an unjust war that cost a lot of lives? That sounds pretty bad to me.
tedschan,
Read a little history. Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. The southern states began the cessation before he even took office. Nor did he campaign on the program of war. And it was the south that initiated the first hostilities. Lincoln simply responded to a treasonous attack on our country. But I guess you would prefer he not fight back? By that standard FDR started WWII by fighting back against the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
So if a foreign power decided to build a base on American territory and occupy it, and refused to surrender it after being warned, you’d let them maintain that base?
Lincoln did start the war–if you accept that a state has the legitimate right to protect its territorial integrity with the use of force, than this is what South Carolina was doing, and Lincoln merely used it as a pretext to launch a war against the CSA. As a response to what happened to Ft. Sumter, not justified at all.
I don’t expect to dissuade you from your Nationalist views of the war (or probably of the nature of the Federal government).
Daniel,
Also, as to your basic charge that Obama is neglecting Europe, and isn’t mentioning Europe much in his policy statements, how do you explain the fact that Europe is hugely in favor of Obama? You would think, if there was any substance to your criticism, it would show in European indifference or even hostility to Obama, and yet they are showing extreme forms of Obamamania. What gives? Either something in your analysis is way off, or the Europeans have gone insane.
Why do you think Europeans are so excited about Obama? Even The Economist is excited about him. And how do you square this with your claims that he’s neglecting Europe?
Tedscan,
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that the federal government of the United States of America, which the southern states joined to form a Union bound by the Constitution in 1789 (and previously by the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Articles of Confederation in 1783), was actually a foreign power, and that the establishment of military bases in the southern states constituted a military occupation of sovereign states by a foreign power?
Now, of course if the states had a legitimate right to secede from the Union, I will concede your point that after formal cessation, the Confederacy could be declared and independent nation. But where in the Constitution is this right of cessation spelled out? THe entire point of the “United States” is that they agree that on the level of federal powers, the individual states do not have the right to defy the federal government. And it is also clear that the federal goverment had done nothing to violate the rights of the states prior to cessation, other than electing as President someone the southern states didn’t like. This is hardly legal cause for cessation, and I think you know this. So your points are all nonsense. In any case, it’s obvious that the South initiated the war, not Lincoln or the North. Lincoln was clearly hoping for a peaceful solution to this impasse.
The larger question this brings up for me is, Is this how paleocons actually think things through? It’s not very impressive, dude.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that the federal government of the United States of America, which the southern states joined to form a Union bound by the Constitution in 1789 (and previously by the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Articles of Confederation in 1783), was actually a foreign power, and that the establishment of military bases in the southern states constituted a military occupation of sovereign states by a foreign power?
It was a foreign power after the states seceded.
And here, it would not be the establishment of military bases, obviously, but the continued maintenance of bases that would be a problem.
But where in the Constitution is this right of cessation spelled out?
This is the typical Nationalist rejoinder–if it isn’t in the Constitution, it doesn’t exist. See Kevin Gutzman’s A Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution on what was understood by the state legislatures regarding secession when they ratified the Constitution. Some even, gasp!, explicitly reserved the right to secede. If the right to secession is more than a legal right, its existence does not to be spelled out on paper in order for it to exist. So you’re going to have to show that the states surrendered their sovereignty (along with the right to secession) when they ratified the Constitution. But history is against you on these points.
THe entire point of the “United States†is that they agree that on the level of federal powers, the individual states do not have the right to defy the federal government.
Actually, they do, if they view a law as being unconstitutional. See the right of nullification.
This is hardly legal cause for cessation, and I think you know this.
The “legal” case is more complicated with that. (And a legal pretext or justification may not even be necessary, depending on how one understands the nature of the compact formed. What is necessary is to do it legally through a convention, involving the people or its delegated representatives.)
In any case, it’s obvious that the South initiated the war, not Lincoln or the North.
And what war would that be? Did the South attack the Northern states? Did it mount an invasion of the North in 1861? Using force to take control of property is not the same as waging war against the North. But following your prejudices, you don’t understand the difference.
Lincoln was clearly hoping for a peaceful solution to this impasse.
A peaceful solution would have been to allow the states forming the CSA to go their way. However Lincoln believed that war was necessary in order to keep them from leaving.
The larger question this brings up for me is, Is this how paleocons actually think things through? It’s not very impressive, dude.
The amount of space prevents a thorough refutation of what you have written–and I wouldn’t expect you to provide one either. But all you’ve done so far is assert the pro-Lincoln case.
Tedschan,
I’m sure this is “unjust war” theme is very fascinating to you, but it ignores so much of reality I think I’m just going to have to pass on arguing it through. I think a peaceful solution to WWII would be to simply let the Germans and Japanese have their way as well. And let the Serbs ethnic cleanse whoever they want. And if the south wants to reinstitute slavery, that’s their right. I will live on a plane of sheer nostalgic fantasy in the meantime, and fly they Confederate flag from my dream planatation’s outhouse.
Regarding this whole Afghan hearing thing, you may have heard that Hllary is a member of the Senate Armed Services committee, which held multiple hearings on Afghanistan this year, none of which she bothered to attend, because she was out campaigning for President. So there’s that. Not that anyone cares when the sport of the day is Obama-bashing.
OK, I’m new to this blog … looks interesting.
I do hope refighting the Civil War won’t be a regular occurrence, though.
The “occupying territory of a foreign power” argument requires acceptance of the premise that secession was lawful. If the premise fails, then the accusation fails.
The argument, as I read it, is secession was a power retained by the states because nothing in the Constitution forbids it. It’s an interesting argument; it’d be more interesting if there were citations to the founders discussing the point as they were debating whether to ratify the Constitution.
I see two practical problems, though:
1) The Constitution was drafted to address the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation; the means selected was creation of a significantly more powerful central government. The notion that any one state or group of states could unilaterally decide to walk at any time negates what the Constitution creates. The right to leave with no consequences would put the central government at the mercy of the individual states (or combinations thereof). The only way such a right could exist consistent with the aims of the Constitution is if it required MUTUAL assent, i.e., a state could only secede if the other states, through the central government, agreed to its secession.
2) Consider the Constitution a contract, an offer to the various states to agree to a certain form of central government. The founders drafted language which defined how the contract would be accepted, how it would become effective amongst the various states which wished to operate under it and how it would be amended. It did not, however, define a method for any party to withdraw from the contract.
Basic contract law does not permit unilateral withdrawal from a contract unless the parties have agreed such a right exists and defined how it will be exercised. There’s no such language in the Constitution.
Meanwhile, back to the original topic ….
“not my jurisdiction” is a fine argument if the particular member of Congress isn’t interested in holding hearings on a particular topic. But I’ve never known committee jurisdiction to be an impediment to a member of Congress determined to get noticed on a particular issue or topic.
The notion (albeit only implied) that Obama somehow couldn’t have convened a hearing which focused on operations in Afghanistan if he wanted to seems a bit naive.
IMO, Democrats in Congress talk about Afghanistan because the only alternative would be to admit they don’t want our troops fighting anyone anywhere. Leave Iraq, and we’ll quickly learn – they’ll tell us – that Afghanistan is hopeless too & we need to retreat again.
In short, Democrats don’t oppose the use of force in theory … it just seems that, somehow, they’re never in favor of it in fact.
re (1): One may wish for a “better” federal government without necessarily allowing it to be the only government, replacing or subsuming the sovereign authority of the states–the problem with your argument is that it assumes that the states followed your reasoning in ratifying the Constitution, without looking at the historical facts.
re (2): Of Contracts and Constitutions by David Dieteman