Barack Obama’s Record of Poor Judgment

Barack Obama and his supporters are fond of citing his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an example of his superior judgment over his rival John McCain. To me, it's just the opposite, and illustrates how poorly Mr. Obama, as commander-in-chief, would handle national security matters. Saddam Hussein ignored 16 United Nations resolutions demanding UN inspectors' unfettered access of his facilities to locate and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. After a protracted cat-and-mouse game, Saddam finally kicked inspectors out and thumbed his nose at the world. How many more resolutions would Mr. Obama like to have seen before forcing Saddam's compliance? If you don't comply with our next resolution and let our inspectors back in the country, we're going to be really, really mad. We mean it this time, Mr. Saddam. At what point does the UN finally protect its credibility and enforce the provisions of its resolutions? Is Mr. Obama suggesting that finally enforcing the resolutions is an example of poor judgment? And don't tell me President Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress and the American people to justify military action because that is simply ludicrous. Such a lie would have required the complicity and cover up of the entire intelligence communities of the U.S., Great Britain, White House staffers and the U.S. military. Doesn't it stand to reason that at least one person from those organizations would have the integrity and moral fiber to blow the whistle on such a conspiracy? U.S. and European intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that he was most likely conducting covert operations to acquire nuclear weapons. That's pretty scary, especially in a post-9/11 world, since Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbors and using chemical weapons against his own people in northern Iraq. There was every reason to believe he had WMDs at his disposal and would use them against his enemies, namely the United States. President Bush's decisive action was required to not only protect the nation, but also maintain the U.N.'s flimsy credibility. The problem I have with Mr. Obama's judgment stems from his insistence that if he was a U.S. senator at the time of the vote to allow President Bush to use military force, he would have voted to deny him that authority. How can he justify such a vote? This begs the question, if there wasn't enough credible intelligence to convince Mr. Obama that force was justified then, what evidence would he require as president before taking action to protect American interests in the future? Saying no to any military action is the easy way out. The fact that Saddam didn't possess either WMDs or a viable nuclear program is completely irrelevant. What matters most is what President Bush believed at the time he made his decision. Mr. Obama wasn't a visionary, he was lucky. The sort of luck you have when you don't buy wind insurance in south Florida and still have your home standing when you sell it. Despite indisputable evidence that hurricanes plague Florida, somehow you aren't quite convinced you need the insurance. After all, you could spend that money on other things like paying higher taxes to fund new social programs. As an extreme liberal, Mr. Obama's priority is to weaken national security, not strengthen it. He wants face-to-face meetings with America's enemies but won't meet with Chris Wallace on the Fox News Network. He has pledged to withdraw troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and would allow homosexuals in the military. That's his idea of enhancing national security. Sticking your head in the sand to avoid making a decision and hoping the problem goes away is never a good option, such as when Mr. Obama voted "present" more than 100 times as a member of the Illinois legislature. He said he made a mistake when he consulted with federally indicted Tony Rezko, a campaign contributor and shady Chicago real estate developer, before buying a home. Superb judgment and leadership is the winning combination of any successful presidential administration, neither of which Mr. Obama has demonstrated.