Obama’s Afghanistan “fairy tale”

Remember the brouhaha that ensued in January 2008 after former President Bill Clinton pointed out “there was ‘no difference’ between Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s voting records on Iraq. ‘Give me a break,’ he said. ‘This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen’”?

Too bad President Clinton didn’t include Afghanistan in the “fairy tale” scenario.

The Atantic’s Marc Ambinder provides a partial transcript of last night’s interview by CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric with Sen. Obama in which Couric presses Obama “about why Obama says he still wouldn’t have supported the [Iraq] surge back then had he known it would help reduce violence so significantly.”

The key passage from the interview is this (emphasis added):

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.

Couric: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. [...]

Oh, really?

Would Sen. Obama like to explain then why he voted “no” on the $120 billion spending package that was passed May 24, 2007, by the Senate during the 110th Congress by an 80-14 vote?

According to the Washington Post, this bill includes 18 “benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid.” One hundred billion dollars in funding is slated to support continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan [...] The bill says that the President and Congress must not take any action that will endanger the troops and that they provide any funds necessary for training, equipment and other types of support to ensure their safety and the effectiveness of their missions.

Given that Sen. Obama missed 277 votes (44.3%) during the 110th Congress, why did he not simply sit this vote out instead of voting against it, just like he did on the one December 18, 2007?

Regarding HR 2764, Inclusion of Iraq and Afghanistan Military Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations, Sen. Obama did not vote.

On June 26, 2008, regarding HR 2642, Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding, Unemployment Benefits Extension, and GI Bill, Sen. Obama voted “yes”. However, on May 22, 2008, he voted “no” on Senate Amendment 4817: Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with Provisions Regarding Conduct and Congressional Oversight; did not vote for Senate Amendment 4818 to Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; but voted “yes” on Senate Amendment: GI Bill and Other Domestic Provisions.

But let’s step into the infamous RBO time machine and check in with Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Sun-Times who reported in January 2008:

When Barack Obama was running for a U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004, he filled out a questionnaire for the Chicago Sun-Times answering “no” to this question: Would you have voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan?

So, let’s follow the script of Obama’s Afghanistan “fairy tale”: in 2004, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama said that he would not have voted “yes” on the supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq; after being sworn into the Senate, in May 2007 he voted against funding for Afghanistan; but now, in last night’s interview he says that Iraq funding should have been used for Afghanistan instead of the war in Iraq.

Question for the good Senator: Why didn’t you say so? In 2005? In 2006? In 2007? In 2008—before you took your Magic Carpet Ride to Afghanistan?

Oh, and while we’re at it, how about the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Europe that Sen. Obama has chaired since January 2007? It was only last week that RBO asked if Obama is guilty of dereliction of duty since he has not convened his Subcommittee one time regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO or any other place on the planet that falls under its perview.

FYI: Sen. Obama’s Subcommittee is responsible for

United States relations with the countries on the continent of Europe, except the states of Central Asia that are within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs. It also oversees U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, relations with the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.

This subcommittee is also responsible for all matters within the region under its jurisdiction with respect to terrorism and non-proliferation, crime and illicit narcotics, U.S. foreign assistance programs, and the promotion of U.S. trade and exports.

Writing January 7, 2008, in the Boston Globe, Sasha Issenberg reported that Obama “has convened only enough hearings to approve presidential appointees.”

The U.S. Department of State does not report any Congressional testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Europe during 2007 or 2008.

Until this current campaign swing through Eurasia, with the exception of the Ukraine in 2005, Sen. Obama had not visited Europe, which is in direct contradiction with Obama’s comment December 26, 2007, to the Iowa Independent that although he had not made an “official trip”, he had “travelled through Europe extensively.”

According to sources, “inspite of efforts to get Obama to visit Europe, it, Europe, wasn’t “high on the list of Barack’s priorities.”

As has been mentioned before, during the February 26, 2008, Democratic presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) charged that Sen. Obama “has been so busy running for president that he hasn’t done much of anything as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs.”

“I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee,” Clinton said. “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 responded: “Well, first of all, 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.”

And there you have it, once again. Afghanistan—and Sen. Obama’s Senate responsibility for it—isn’t important until it’s time for a front-page presidential campaign photo op—or as an excuse during a prime time network interview.

By the way, it should also be pointed out that as recently as July 10, 2008, Sen. Obama did not vote on PN 1641, the Nomination of General Petraeus as Military Leader of the Middle East. Gen. Petraeus’s nomination was confirmed 95 – 2.

Wouldn’t you think Sen. Obama might make the effort to show up and vote to display at least symbolic support for the man who is in charge of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?