NATO and Afghanistan
“He was given the responsibility of chairing what’s called a subcommittee in the Congress responsible for the European countries and our alliance with them and as part of that responsibility was NATO… [W]hat you learned last night is he’s never held a substantive hearing or meeting to look at what is going on in NATO, to take a hard look at what’s happening in Europe and in fact the reason he hasn’t as he said is because he got the assignment when he started running for president. Well, I don’t think that’s an adequate excuse.” - Hillary, 2/28/2008
Still awake?
Excellent! Then I’ll explain what’s wrong with this late-breaking accusation against Obama.
It is true that he chairs the aforementioned subcommittee. (Something about talking about subcommittees makes me want to use words like aforementioned.) What Hillary isn’t saying is that another subcommittee is really in charge of Afghanistan. Sure, Obama could have held hearings on NATO involvement, but it wasn’t really his turf.
And, honestly, when your campaign is reduced to complaining that a US Senator failed to hold oversight hearings in the subcommittee he chairs, you’ve pretty much lost the attention of the American public.
And when it’s an issue related to the war on terror, we’re all pretty sure that hearings wouldn’t have mattered. Bush officials, you may have noticed, don’t seem particularly motivated to assist congress in oversight. The best way to fix things seems to be to run for president.
C’mon Hillary. Go out on a high note. Please?
