Wow, way to take the comments out of context, Hillary. That's really not h ard to do and we could easily do it to you. However, let's look at his whole statement at the debate that took place last week and see what was really being said:
Clinton: I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee...He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.
Obama: I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So, it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan. I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan. I think we have to have more troops there to bolster the NATO effort. I think we have to show that we are not maintaining permanent bases in Iraq because Secretary Gates, our current defense secretary, indicated that we are getting resistance from our allies to put more troops into Afghanistan because they continue to believe that we made a blunder in Iraq.
So the HRC campaign has attacked him repeatedly about this after the debate, now charging that he is soft on security because they haven't had hearings. Last time I checked, Afghanistan wasn't in Europe, but I could be wrong. Now, that doesn't preclude such hearings from taking place, since NATO is heavily involved in the region, but you'd think that maybe hearings would come from the subcommittee on the Middle East?
So, yes, what she says is true...but the charge is somewhat unfair if you believe Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN). As noted on politifact.com, Sen. Lugar's camp defended Obama.
But Clinton’s claim, while technically true, is unfair, said Andrew J. Fischer, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. Lugar now serves as a minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was the chair, from 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate. He is the ranking Republican on the committee.
Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.
So not only is her charge somewhat dishonest, it seems as if the logic from the ad could easily be turned against her..."Hey Hillary...are you too busy to release your taxes? Yes, you are?"
And, to remind you all that I am a Kucinich supporter who has simply embraced Obama, I am exrtemely disheartened by recently breaking news on Obama and NAFTA, if it is in fact true. According to CTV.ca, a candian tv channel:
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
Here is the story in question...
To me, that's a pretty damning report, and could lead us to my greatest fear in this campaign...that in supporting a candidate that is more centrist than I would like, we will end up with a candidate who isn't really a CHANGE. Now, the Canadian government is emphatically denying that this ever occurred. But, as The Nation reminds us when you read their article on the topic, "CTV has a very credible source -- a a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy -- who has provided the network with details of the call and a timeline." SO...who to believe? I really don't know. All I can do is hope it is not true.
