Obama's excuse for neglecting to hold ANY hearings on NATO or Afghanistan in committee he chairs

[bigtree]

. . . is that he's only been chairman since January 2007, about the same time he began running hard for president.


Clinton camps highlights Obama's chairmanship

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign Wednesday pounced on Sen. Barack Obama's acknowledgment that he has yet to hold a substantive hearing since becoming chairman of a Senate subcommittee on Europe.

The admission during Tuesday night's Democratic debate offered a "glimpse of the real Barack Obama," and was emblematic of the Illinois senator's light record of results, the Clinton camp said in an e-mail.

Obama "did not hold a single oversight hearing because he was too busy running for president; the Barack Obama who spends his time talking about change you can believe in instead of change you actually can count on," the e-mail stated.

Clinton herself raised the issue at the debate in Cleveland.

'"He chairs the subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan," she said. "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."

In response, Obama noted he has only served as the committee's chairman since January of 2007, just when his presidential campaign was beginning — a fact the Clinton campaign's memo also highlighted.

"But by his own admission, he was too busy running for president to conduct a single substantive hearing of the committee he chairs," the memo stated. "So he would rather talk about what he would do rather than do it through the responsibility he had.”

For the record, Obama has held two hearings on ambassadorial nominations, but no oversight hearings.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/27/clinton-camps-highlights-obamas-chairmanship/



Sen. Clinton 2007 ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARINGS

Senator Clinton Questions General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Iraq at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing - September 11, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions General James Jones (Ret.) on the Findings of the Iraqi Security Forces Independent Assessment Commission - September 6, 2007

Nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Commits to Senator Clinton to Brief Congress on Redeployment Planning - July 31, 2007

Senate Armed Services Committee Approves Clinton Measures to Help Wounded Servicemembers - June 14, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Lieutenant General Douglas Lute at Senate Armed Services Committee Confirmation Hearing - June 7, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions U.S. Central Commander Admiral William Fallon at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing - May 3, 2007

Senator Clinton Calls for Closure of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center - April 26, 2007

Clinton Presses Bush Pentagon on Contracting Abuses in Iraq - April 19, 2007

Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on State of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps - April 17, 2007

Clinton Continues to Fight for Our Troops & Veterans; Questions Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Officials About Treatment of Servicemembers and Veterans at Joint Armed Services-Veteran Affairs Committee Hearing - April 12, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Air Force Leaders Over CSAR-X Contract Process - March 20, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Army Generals About Living Conditions and Administration of Outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center - March 6, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Administration and Military Officials About U.S. Policy in Afghanistan - March 1, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Vice Admiral John M. McConnell, USN (ret), Director of National Intelligence and Lieutenant General Michael Maples, USA, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Worldwide Threats - February 27, 2007

Senator Clinton Raises Iraq and Darfur with Defense Secretary Gates and General Pace, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Administration's FY 08 Department of Defense Budget Request - February 6, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions General George Casey Jr. on His Nomination to be United States Army Chief of Staff - February 1, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Admiral William J. Fallon, Nominee for Commander, United States Central Command - January 30, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Defense Secretary William Perry, Ambassador Dennis Ross, and General Jack Keane on Iraq Strategy - January 25, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions General David Petraeus at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing - January 23, 2007

links: http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/sasc /

[bowens43]

1. blah blah blah blah

[bigtree]

2. avert your eyes

lest you learn anything negative about your icon

[Auntie Bush]

7. Keep it up! That's about as intelligent as you usually are.

No wonder you're so thick headed. You don't see, read or understand anything that isn't to your liking. Why comment on a perfectly legitimate subject if you only have more blah blah blah to say.

[rodeodance]

38. making incoherant toddler sounds will not make the truth go away

[EFerrari]

3. More negativity from the Sunshine Campaign. n/t

[bigtree]

4. Anything critical of your icon is 'Negativity'

don't let me bring you down

[madrchsod]

5. is this the talking point today?

second time today with the same info....

i get the point- obama neglects is duties to the citizens of the state of illinois and to the citizens of the united states of america to run for president

[Auntie Bush]

8. That's right!

[bigtree]

9. So, your response is that you've seen this before. That's it?

Is it too hard for you to understand why this might be troubling for folks?

Obama claimed concern about Afghanistan in the debate when he was criticizing Hilary Clinton's vote on the Iraq resolution. Obama claimed that attention had been diverted from the important mission in Afghanistan by the Iraq invasion.

In the debate, Hillary Clinton, correctly, pointed out that, as Senator, Obama has neglected to hold even one hearing on the issue he claimed to be so concerned about.

Avert your eyes . . .

[indimuse]

6. action is and was needed...

NOT WORDS!!! Especially empty words about what you intend to do...what about what you actually do to implement "CHANGE"? Where were you Obama..?

[Auntie Bush]

10. You can't see him because

he's up Rethug asses yelling, "Hey, this guy needs a CHANGE". Yuck! & lol

[Just-plain-Kathy]

15. Do you think Obama is reading this???

I have to say Hi. :hi:

Good Luck Obama!!! ...You're winning the people over and that's great!!! America has to stop voting for warmongers!!! You’re a breathe of fresh air!!

[OhioBlue]

11. As an Obama supporter

I have mixed feelings on the Clinton attacks on Obama. At first, I only thought that it was a mistake for her. It always seems to backfire on her and it hurts Obama(should he be our candidate for the general) and gives the Right more ammunition. It also lowers her credibility should she campaign for him in the general.

But, I have started to think that since she raises all of these issues, and forces him to answer for them, maybe it prepares him better for the General election. She does have a point, that he hasn't faced the attacks from the right like she has. So, maybe I can just chalk this up to being good experience for him.

As far as the oversight hearings - yeah, I understand. He has been running in the Presidential Primary. The oversight hearings are not likely to change anything. The Bush Administration would thumb their nose, nothing would change and our Dem leadership in the Congress hasn't really forced them to change. But, at the very least, he should have a better response than implying that he was too busy running for Pres.

So, I guess I will concede the point to the Clinton Campaign with the * that these tactics (IMHO) don't work for her.

[bigtree]

19. he hasn't made it to McCain yet.

[OhioBlue]

21. It isn't McCain

It is the Right Wing noise machine/infrastructure/hate fest that we have to face going into the General. Hillary or Barack would face the same mob of haters. IMHO - Barack has displayed a better ability of facing negative attacks.

[bigtree]

28. he hasn't yet made it to the general election. He still has questions to answer

for DEMOCRATIC voters in our primary.

[jackson_dem]

12. Obama will be eaten alive on national security because of his negligence

It isn't just this. He couldn't be bothered to show up and vote on a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, as well as a bill providing funding for DHS on the same day.

[karynnj]

36. There was no negligence - everyone who runs for President

misses close votes - they coordinate with their parties leader (reid or McConnell). As all three are Senators this should be less an issue this year.

What I have a bigger problem with is HRC implicitly accusing the Democratic led SRFC with no doing their job on Afghanistan. She ignores that There were three hearings this year - and February is not over - on Afghanistan. Two in the full committee and 1 in the Near East and South Asia committee - run by Biden and Kerry respectively - two people with far more foreign policy experience and more knowledge of the region than either HRC or Obama.

DKos diary to back up those claims: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/27/10645/7336/820/464968

[bigtree]

43. She accused Obama of neglecting to act. Where DID he act on those concerns, in the Senate

. . . that he expressed in the debate?

Obama:

"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. And I think
even this administration acknowledges now that they are hampered now
in doing what we need to do in Afghanistan in part because of what's
happened in Iraq.

Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander
in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are
looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base
in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American
homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just
in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument
with respect to Pakistan.

I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign
nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist
organizations. But if they are planning attacks on Americans like
what happened on 9/11, it is my job, it will be my job as president to
make sure that we are hunting them down. "

[karynnj]

69. The SFRC gives advice on foreign policy - those comments are

in line with his comments in committee - they are also close to Biden's and Kerry's. Where has HRC acted on defense?

The point is that there were hearings on Afghanistan. HRC has given the RNC a gift. If she is successful, people may thing that due to some negligence on Obama's side the Democratic led SFRC did not do due oversight on Afghanistan. This hurts not just Obama, but the reputation of the SFRC, and the Democrats who lead it. More people will ultimately hear this charge than know that 3 of those Senators could have given their lives working to provide oversight in Afghanistan. They were lucky to have an excellent pilot.

[bigtree]

71. That's just bunk about Sen. Clinton's questioning hurting the 'reputation of the SFRC'

Her challenge was clearly directed at OBAMA'S lack of personal involvement in the issues and deliberations about Afghanistan and al-Qaeda that HE expressed in the debate in an effort to contrast his concern with her own.

All of the rest you're arguing have absolutely no bearing on Obama's (apparent, until someone can point me to it) lack of direct experience in addressing the issues and concerns he claimed to be so concerned about in the debate.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

13. And how much does Hillary neglect while she's running for president?

She serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. According to her website, that committee works "to see that America's military has the necessary resources to protect our national security".
I don't know how much oversight she's contributing to there. I know for years our soldiers went under equip and under trained.

...As a New Yorker, it's disappointing to see that she failed to get New York's fair share of HLS funds.

[bigtree]

17. "I don't know how much oversight she's contributing to there"

Senator Clinton's Record

In the Senate, Hillary has championed legislation to improve the lives of our veterans and their families. She has secured funding for Veterans' hospitals, and secured additional support for disabled veterans. She also successfully fought off the Administration's proposal to double the co-payment for prescription drugs of certain veterans.

She created a health tracking system for all active duty personnel and Reservists to ensure that they receive regular check ups; and expanded access to military healthcare benefits (TRICARE) for all Guard and Reserve members whether they are on active duty or not in order to prevent another illness like Gulf War Syndrome.

She successfully passed her Heroes at Home legislation, which helps family members learn to support loved ones suffering from Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), identify ways to help Guardsmen and Reservists transition back to civilian jobs, and assess the mental health challenges -- including PTSD -- faced by members of the Guard and Reserve. Hillary's initiative improves the detection, assessment and treatment of traumatic brain injury and expands support systems for members and former members of the Armed Services with traumatic brain injury and their families.

She passed legislation to increase the military survivor benefit from $12,000 to $100,000.

Clinton successfully worked to address veterans' mental health needs. In part as a result of her efforts, the Veterans Administration will be directed to take into consideration the needs and concerns of Veterans as it proceeds with the CARES process.

Hillary wrote to Postmaster General John Potter, and launched a petition on her website to urge the Postmaster General to continue issuing the Purple Heart stamp. Hundreds of people signed the petition which were then delivered to Postmaster General John Potter. As a result, the U.S. Postal Service decided to continue printing the Purple Heart Stamp despite the recent rate change.

In recognition of her efforts, the American Legion named Senator Clinton an "unsung hero" of the 108th congress for her leadership in securing record increases in funding for veterans health care.

Clinton is the only Senator serving on U.S. Joint Forces Command's (JFCOM) Transformation Advisory Group (TAG). The TAG brings together leaders from academia, the military, Congress and the private sector to provide the Commander of JFCOM with timely advice on scientific, technical, intelligence and policy-related issues.

Clinton introduced and worked to pass the Armed Forces Personnel Medical Readiness and Tracking Act of 2004, which established a new tracking system that ensures that active duty personnel and Reservists receive regular health screenings. She also worked to include major provisions of her “Heroes at Home” legislation in the FY 2007 and FY 2008 Defense Authorization bills. “Heroes at Home” is intended to assist service members transition from deployments abroad back into civilian life and work and to improve detection and treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder


2007 ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARINGS

Senator Clinton Questions General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Iraq at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing - September 11, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions General James Jones (Ret.) on the Findings of the Iraqi Security Forces Independent Assessment Commission - September 6, 2007

Nominee for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Commits to Senator Clinton to Brief Congress on Redeployment Planning - July 31, 2007

Senate Armed Services Committee Approves Clinton Measures to Help Wounded Servicemembers - June 14, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Lieutenant General Douglas Lute at Senate Armed Services Committee Confirmation Hearing - June 7, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions U.S. Central Commander Admiral William Fallon at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing - May 3, 2007

Senator Clinton Calls for Closure of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center - April 26, 2007

Clinton Presses Bush Pentagon on Contracting Abuses in Iraq - April 19, 2007

Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on State of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps - April 17, 2007

Clinton Continues to Fight for Our Troops & Veterans; Questions Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Officials About Treatment of Servicemembers and Veterans at Joint Armed Services-Veteran Affairs Committee Hearing - April 12, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Air Force Leaders Over CSAR-X Contract Process - March 20, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Army Generals About Living Conditions and Administration of Outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center - March 6, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Administration and Military Officials About U.S. Policy in Afghanistan - March 1, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Vice Admiral John M. McConnell, USN (ret), Director of National Intelligence and Lieutenant General Michael Maples, USA, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Worldwide Threats - February 27, 2007

Senator Clinton Raises Iraq and Darfur with Defense Secretary Gates and General Pace, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Administration's FY 08 Department of Defense Budget Request - February 6, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions General George Casey Jr. on His Nomination to be United States Army Chief of Staff - February 1, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Admiral William J. Fallon, Nominee for Commander, United States Central Command - January 30, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions Defense Secretary William Perry, Ambassador Dennis Ross, and General Jack Keane on Iraq Strategy - January 25, 2007

Senator Clinton Questions General David Petraeus at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing - January 23, 2007

links: http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/sasc/

[Just-plain-Kathy]

26. You copied pasted from her website....

...She obviously wanted her supporters to be aware of every accomplishment she made in office. Heck, she even added that she saved a stamp. I think the list is kind of short, and the outcome to some of those hearings never amounted to anything.

Hey look, I don't like Hillary. I find it sad that she never addresses PNAC, but in her defense, non of our leaders do. I just expect more from her. For years I defended the Clintons only to find out how much the Clinton's policies helped lay the foundation for the corporate takeover of our country.

[bigtree]

29. That's about as dumb a response as they come. They are all linked at the page

You can clearly see from those hearings listed where she is questioning and fighting for answers and accountability from this administration.

And, the knock about those hearings not amounting to anything is no excuse for Obama not to pursue the issues he says he cares so much about from the position of his own chairmanship (or, anywhere else in his official capacity, on these issues). The list is obviously a partial one, but it is far more than the NOTHING on these issues Obama managed to pursue during his Senate term.

[Arkansas Granny]

64. Does it matter where the list came from if the information is correct?

Facts are facts regardless of where they are reported. I would expect her website to have a list of her accomplishments compiled where voters could acces the information.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

82. I would think Hillary's site would list alllllllllll her accomplishments.

The list seemed short.

[bigtree]

85. she does. I'm not here as a secretary for her.

these serve as examples of her committee work. I haven't yet gotten anything similar from Obama supporters here which shows a fraction of the concern and effort Sen. Clinton has shown toward these issues and other military affairs.

It's Obama's resume on these issues which is glaringly short.

[JimGinPA]

14. Yeah,

Like anybody thinks what we need to do to solve the problem in Afganistan is have Senate Sub-committee hearings. :eyes: Everybody knows the Senate has very little to do with conducting the war.

You Hillbots need to hurry up, you're going to be late for your MENSA meeting. :dunce:

[bigtree]

18. What was he doing in the Senate then? Marking time? Padding his resume'?

[karynnj]

37. Writing good legislation

On the ethics bill - He fought Scuhmer over lobbyists and won: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=Senate+ethics+bill&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

On nuclear non-proliferation:
he recently passed bill with Lugar on non-proliferation, to counter the issue Kerry and Bush agreed was biggest threat to the US :
"In January 2007, the president signed Obama and Lugar's legislation aimed at improving nonproliferation efforts, including eliminating stockpiles of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. Later that year, Obama proposed creating an internationally monitored uranium reserve that would guarantee fuel would be available for commercial nuclear reactors and dissuade countries from building their own uranium enrichment capability."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hF21X4euXTnoLZk5sNoBd9NVtcRQD8V1SV980
(note that this article does list other SFRC stuff Obama did. In addition, John Kerry spoke (in the CSPAN covered Texas coverage) of Obama as asking great questions and having good insights into issues discussed in committee - from his that compliment means a lot.

[bigtree]

39. but, this thread is about the concerns he expressed in the debate about Afghanistan

Where has he addressed those in his official capacity, during his term?

[karynnj]

70. Afghanistan is not his juristiction - should he fight Kerry and tell him the Europe

subcommittee should hold hearings not the Near East and South Asia subcommittee? Now, where is my map.

This was a cheap shot by HRC.

[bigtree]

73. It's not a 'cheap shot' to contrast her involvement, experience, and credentials

. . . with that of Sen. Obama. That's a very relevant issue in this campaign. Will we choose someone who has a learning curve on these issues or someone who has taken the time to involve themselves to the degree that they are directly influencing the debate or the advancement of solutions. On the issue of Afghanistan, there is an apparent lack of history of personal involvement by Sen. Obama during his term in the Senate. There is a record of not only interest, but direct involvement in these issues by Sen. Clinton during her term. The comparison is a fair one to make, whatever way you measure it.

[karynnj]

77. It was a cheap shot to ask about why his committee had no Afghanistan hearings

I have seen almost not on Afghanistsn by HRC - I saw a bill introduced in fall 2006 by Kerry and Feingold to get more support in Afghanistan and Kerry included it in his Real Security speech on September 9 at Faneuil Hall.

If we wanted a leader who had spoken out on this and was extremely knowledgeable - we could have supported Kerry - or when he opted not to run, Biden. HRC really has no significant credentials on Afghanistan. Both she and Obama will rely on the knowledge of their advisors on it and their own judgment.

[bigtree]

79. She referenced its oversight of NATO (in Europe) which is certainly relevant to Afghanistan

. . . and to their ability to get Europe to provide more troops for Afghanistan. But, those issues certainly won't be addressed if Obama has your narrow focus of relevance.

[karynnj]

89. They were asked by Senator Kerry many many times in many hearings

this year and last. My ENTIRE point was that these issues WERE ADDRESSED. Do you think Senator Biden and Kerry need Obama's permision to speak of NATO?

Where is the LOGICAL committee to have the hearing in? Why do you think Hagel and Kerry went to Afghanistan? Hagel is the ranking member on Kerry's subcommittee. Why do you think Biden went with them? This was not a fun filled boondoggle. These are the people leading this effort - and it is their jurisdiction. (Why was Hagel there and not DeMint, the ranking member of the Europe committee.)

You are conflating two issues:
1) Whether there should have Afghanistan hearings in the Europe subcommittee
2) Experience

You are absolutely wrong on the first - the issue I have raised and it is mystifying why you don't just concede it.

[bigtree]

90. Where was Obama during all of this activity? What was his involvement?

Where did he act?

[leftynyc]

30. So can we stop paying his salary?

Or does he believe, like Mitt Romney, that just running for the office is hard work enough?

[calmblueocean]

16. There's really no excuse for this. What I don't understand is... why *not* have a hearing?

It would've burnished his national security credentials and showed attentiveness. He could've distinguished himself by enforcing proper oversight. Now he just looks like Cheney, who couldn't find time to oversee his own committee on terrorism in 2001. Obama's got a lot of pluses, but this one is a giant red minus, and a missed opportunity.

[karynnj]

72. Because there have been 3 hearings on Afghanistan since January 2008

They were in the full committee and the subcommittee where they belong, the East and South Asia one headed by Senator Kerry.
Maybe we need to send HRC a MAP.

Obama heading a hearing on Afghanistan in addition to these would be political grandstanding. Kerry has staffers who are expert in that region; Obama has staffers expert on Russia. There is already a scheduled hearing on Kosovo in the full committee that he will likely be active on - though it will be chaired by Biden. (This does not diminish Obama, Biden chairs all full committee ones unless he has some conflict.)

[bigtree]

84. But, on the issues he claims to be co concerned about . . .

. . . WHERE has he addressed them in the Senate during his term? Has he been a part of the Kerry, Biden mission? If not, then those are irrelevant as a measure of Obama's interest or involvement in the issues he raised in the debate.

Was he directly involved in those efforts by Kerry and Biden, or wasn't he?

[stillcool]

20. It would have been much better...

if he started his campaign later. That way he'd be out of the race already. Maybe we should not let elected representatives run a Presidential Campaign anymore. I think that is the answer.

[bigtree]

33. I think he should have shown more interest in addressing these issues on NATO, Afghanistan

. . . and the pursuit of the original al-Qaeda suspects during his term. He didn't just start in the Senate in January 2007. What did he do to address these issues he claimed to be so concerned about, during his term?

[karynnj]

42. Are you saying that the head of the committee that oversees Afghanistan is not qualified to do this?

Or that the Chair of entire committee isn't? Both Kerry and Biden have been on top of this.

[bigtree]

44. I'm asking where Obama actually acted on those concerns, in the Senate, during his term.

It's just not credible to point to Kerry and Biden. Where did Obama stand up and address the issues surrounding Afghanistan? Where has OBAMA acted on issues related to defense?

[karynnj]

58. The SFRC has subcommittees for a reason

The point is that Afghanistan is being covered well by the appropriate subcommittee and the full committee.

As to defense, Richard Clarke, who is advising Obama said to a person close to me that Obama is a very quick study and that he is one of the few who "gets it" on terrorism. This was said last August when he also said - HRC is going to win.

[bigtree]

61. "Obama is a quick study"

That may not be good enough for some voters.

[Auntie Bush]

22. K & R

[Redstone]

23. Got some time on your hands, do you?

Redstone

[bigtree]

31. how very droll of you

That's the same non-response Obama is giving to this question. Where DID he pursue these issues he says he's so concerned about, during his Senate term?

[Cameron27]

24. K&R

[stillcool]

25. What is a 'subcommittee'?

Subcommittees are formed by most committees to share specific tasks within the jurisdiction of the full committee. Subcommittees are responsible to, and work within the guidelines established by, their parent committees. In particular, standing committees usually create subcommittees with legislative jurisdiction to consider and report bills. They may assign their subcommittees such specific tasks as the initial consideration of measures and oversight of laws and programs in the subcommittees’ areas.<1> Service on subcommittees enables members to develop expertise in specialized fields. Subcommittees diffuse the legislative process. For the most part, they are independent, autonomous units with written jurisdictions, and, pursuant to longstanding practice, most bills are referred by a full committee to them.<2>

General requirements for establishing subcommittees are established in House or Senate rules, but specifics with respect to subcommittee assignments and their jurisdiction are left up to the parent committees.<3> Committees have wide latitude to increase or decrease the number of subcommittees from one congress to the next, including renaming or reassigning jurisdiction among previous subcommittees. Some committees, like the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, often retain a predictable subcommittee structure from year to year, due to the set duties of each subcommittee in drafting annual spending bills. However, even these committees are not immune to organizational changes. New subcommittees on Homeland Security were created in 2003 to handle funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and underwent a joint reorganization during the 110th Congress to better coordinate annual appropriations between the House and Senate.<4>

The respective party conferences in both the House and Senate also provide their own rules, traditions, and precedents with respect to the subcommittee assignments, chairmanship of subcommittees, and even the number of subcommittees on which members can serve.

[bigtree]

32. Whatever she did on her committee on the issues surrounding Defense and the military

is far more than Obama pursued, and he CHAIRED his committee.

[karynnj]

41. Here is what Obama did in the SFRC:

"LEGISLATION:

_ In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal to require a new strategy to reduce global poverty.

_ In January 2007, the president signed Obama and Lugar's legislation aimed at improving nonproliferation efforts, including eliminating stockpiles of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. Later that year, Obama proposed creating an internationally monitored uranium reserve that would guarantee fuel would be available for commercial nuclear reactors and dissuade countries from building their own uranium enrichment capability.

_ In June 2007, the Senate passed Obama's resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government.

_ In January 2007, he proposed legislation that would have prevented President Bush from sending more troops to Iraq and required troop withdrawals to begin that spring. Last November, he introduced legislation that would make clear Congress had not authorized military force against Iran. Neither measure received a vote."


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hF21X4euXTnoLZk5sNoBd9NVtcRQD8V1SV980

Do you seriously think the subcommittee on EUROPE should have hearings on Afghanistan? Senator Kerry somehow thinks that his subcommittee on Near East and South Asia does - and he has held a hearing:

" Kerry Unveils Three Major Reports From Afghanistan Study Group

Without Immediate Action, "Forgotten War" in Afghanistan Will Continue To Spiral Out of Control

WASHINGTON D.C. – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs Subcommittee, introduced three new reports that conclude that a major new effort is needed to succeed in Afghanistan. The reports were: the Afghanistan Study Group report sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Presidency (co-chaired by General Jones and Ambassador Pickering), the Atlantic Council report (co-chaired by General Jones) and a paper written byDr. Harlan Ullman and others, "Winning the Invisible War: An Agricultural Pilot Plan for Afghanistan."

These reports conclude that without prompt actions by the U.S. and its allies, the mission in Afghanistan may fail – causing severe consequences to U.S. strategic interests worldwide, including the war on terrorism and the future of NATO. The U.S. cannot afford to let Afghanistan continue to be the neglected, or forgotten, war"

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=291980
Here's a link where you can watch it:
http://kerry.senate.gov/newsroom/kerrypress013008.ram

In addition the FULL committee had two hearings. Kerry, Biden and Hagel thought it important enough that they were there last week - flying to areas near the Pakistan border. This cheap shot disrespects their efforts.

[bigtree]

46. I want to know WHERE Obama acted on the concerns he expressed in the debate.

It's no 'cheap shot' to expect that he has done SOMETHING before he started running for president to address these issues, as well as, issues directly related to the functioning of the branches of the military who would carry out these tasks.

[karynnj]

65. You can't DO something on foreign policy

Only the President can execute foreign policy. This would be like me asking what HRC has DONE on defense. It would be dumb to say, "She's on the Armed Services committee - why hasn't changed the military policy." (In fact, what I do ask is why she led the faction that not only fought Kerry on Kerry/Feingold, but went to the media vilifying him.)

[bigtree]

67. Boy, that's winging it

Your argument is that there is nothing the Senate, or individual Senators can do about foreign policy and military and intelligence affairs? Good luck with that.

[karynnj]

74. Ok - Then what has HRC done on foreign policy or military policy?

This is stupid. What they can do is formulate what good policies are and to attempt to get bipartisan support behind it - as Lugar and Obama did on non-proliferation - their bill was actually signed into law.

On Afghanistan and Iraq, they can not force Bush to do anything - he is CIC and he controls the foreign policy. That does not mean they do nothing - they are providing a clear view of the situation there - different from the Bush spiel. Yes, Kerry and Biden are the most active on this now - but that is because they are the ones whose job it is.

[jannyk]

27. K&R

[ProSense]

34. Hillary grasping at straws again. Did she participate in the SFRC hearings on Afghanistan?

No, she didn't, but Obama did. The Afghanistan hearings were held by the full and relevant committees and the issues addressed.

[karynnj]

45. In addition, HRC is giving the RNC the means to attack the Democratic leadership of the SFRC

Biden as Chair of the entire committee and Kerry as chair of the Near East sub-committee have done extensive work on this. They both just returned from a trip there with Hagel, the ranking member of Kerry's sub committee. Their flight to the northern area near Pakistan could have cost them their lives. This HRC attack shows she has little respect for the real work done and is willing to turn anythging to a political cheap shot.

[bigtree]

47. All of your defense involves things Kerry and Biden have done.

What has Obama done on these issues, during his term in the Senate?

[karynnj]

53. You didn't see the Ap article listed in several posts specifically on Obama's SRFC work?

Here is the link to that:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hF21X4euXTnoLZk5sNoBd9NVtcRQD8V1SV980

The reason it deals with the work of Biden and Kerry is that they are the ones with responsibility over Afghanistan - no matter what HRC suggested in her question. Obama has EUROPE, thus his SFRC staffers are experts on EUROPE. Do you think he should be the one holding the hearings on Afghanistan? Go to the listed DKOS diary - you will see that the NATO people have been at those hearings.

(As to alluding to Kerry's and Biden's work, at least I didn't claim it as Obama's - as HRC people do with Kennedy's, Hatch's and Kerry's on SCHIP)

[bigtree]

55. I think there should be SOMEWHERE it can be shown that he did SOMETHING in the Senate

. . . to actually address these issues he, correctly, says we were diverted from by the Iraq invasion and occupation, during his term. Where did that concern manifest itself?

[karynnj]

35. There were at least three hearings on Afghistan in the SFRC since January

Yes - in less than 2 months, there have been THREE hearings. Two of them were before the entire committee - because the issue was that important, not because the Senators heading the Near East Asia (Kerry) sub-committee and the Europe committee were negligent. The third was an earlier hearing in the Near East Asia Committee.

It would have been showboating and strange if Obama held hearings on this. HRC attacked the credibility of the SFRC as run by Joe Biden. Joe Biden and John Kerry have done a great job bringing out the facts in Afghanistan - as has Russ Feingold, who in 2006 was with Kerry in sponsoring a bill to put more effort into Afghanistan. It was a cheap shot.

(Incidently the list of HRC press releases on Senate Armed Services Committee hearings for the last 14 months is not impressive. Every Senator on a committee asks questions when they do those rounds - Obama asked questions in every SFRC meeting as well - and I always thought they were good, whether bringing up new points or continuing to push on points started in their turns by Kerry, Feingold and Boxer (the toughest three on the Bush administration - and in that order in the committee :) ).

Here is a DKos Diary that contains links to what the SFRC has done on Afghanistan - with links to the hearings and the press conference Biden and Kerry gave 2 days ago. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/27/10645/7336/820/464968

(I do think Obama's answer on this was week - he should have slammed back mentioning these 3 hearings in 2 months and demanded that she would agree that Joe Biden and John Kerry were completely qualified to hold to hold these hearings themselves.)

[bigtree]

40. Where has Obama addressed his concerns about Afghanistan, during his term?

Where's the record of his own inquiries on defense?

[karynnj]

48. His questions are in the official record of the SFRC, just as HRC's are in the Armed Services

Committee. I have watched some of both - though the SFRC ones interest me more. Obama's questions are excellent often backing up lines of inquiries started by Kerry, Feingold and Boxer, who all precede him in the questioning rounds. HRC often seemed to use her time to rattle over a set a questions without pausing to get answers to the end. This means I have rarely seen her do what Obama has sometimes done which is to latch onto an answer to dig deeper.

[bigtree]

51. On Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. Where are these 'questions' you say Obama asked on these issues

in that committee?

[mmonk]

49. Which ones (investigations) will HRC endorse?

[rox63]

50. Other people can chair hearings in his absence

I've seen several Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings that were chaired by Senator Kerry while Senators Biden and Dood were out campaigning. They were both senior to Kerry on that committee, and Biden was the chair.

[bigtree]

52. Where was Obama directly involved in addressing the issues of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda

. . . in that committee or anywhere else in the Senate, during his term? Can you show me?

[rox63]

54. See #53

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4803653&mesg_id=4807351

[bigtree]

56. Neither examples show any direct involvement by Sen. Obama with the issues he raised in the debate

. . . about Afghanistan and al-Qaeda.

[rox63]

68. It says his sub-committee is on EUROPE, not AFGHANISTAN

:banghead:

[bigtree]

75. with jurisdiction over NATO forces. Their commitments in Europe impact what they do in Afghanistan

and elsewhere . . . Here's just ONE link he could have explored:

US warning on Nato's Afghan role

"The European public needs convincing that Nato's mission in Afghanistan is part of a wider fight against global terror, the US defence secretary says.

Robert Gates warned that the future of Nato was at risk if it became a "two-tiered alliance" of countries which fought, and those that did not.

Mr Gates said it was incumbent upon Nato leaders to "recapitulate to the people of Europe the importance of the Afghanistan mission and its relationship to the wider terrorist threat".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7237237.stm

and another:

US Afghan stand-off puzzles Nato allies

"The recent attempts by the US to urge its allies to boost their combat roles in southern Afghanistan has both puzzled and antagonised some NATO members, who see it as unconstructive and driven mainly by America's domestic politics."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7223559.stm

[karynnj]

78. And these issues were covered in the full committee and Kerry's committee

Why should Obama have had his own hearings? Should he reinvent the wheel too?

[bigtree]

80. WHERE was he DIRECTLY involved in those issues?

You've answered with everything but that. That was the contrast that Sen. Clinton was making in the debate, between just talking about these issues and actually doing something about them.

[karynnj]

86. Again where is the contrst? HRC was not on the forefront

on Iraq or Afghanistan. Not in 2002, not in 2003, not in 2004, not in 2005, not in 2006, not in 2007 and not now. I am making no claim that Obama was - nor has Obama.

[bigtree]

87. The contrast is his almost zero involvement on these issues, versus Clinton's documented efforts

. . . from her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, to her other efforts I documented above in focusing on managing military affairs critical to these engagements.

[mmonk]

57. Would HRC want any investigations into this?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

[bigtree]

60. I dunno

who, in power or authority has signed on to this so far?

[mmonk]

83. I don't think she would.

So the attacks on Obama for not holding hearings is moot in my estimation (but it's just my opinion).

[bigtree]

88. because she might not address that particular issue by holding hearings?

She doesn't have a chairmanship from which to pursue hearings, and I'm not sure the issues and accusations in the article have any consensus of support anywhere in Congress. Who there is on the subject of the article, right now?

[mmonk]

91. Afghanistan is a Pandora's box

and investigations would lead IMO (if they are real) to American support of the unsavory including the Taliban Government in the last two administrations. Neither party will go there. So I really don't get the blame Obama angle.

[high density]

59. All three candidates are senators, so they all share this problem of being away from their jobs

I fail to see how this is a problem unique to Senator Obama.

[bigtree]

63. I'd like to know what he did to address these issues before he began running for president

. . . in his job in the Senate. Any idea?

[Raffi Ella]

62. Facts are funny aren't they.

This looks bad,IS BAD and there is no excuse for it.And here sit the Obama follower's,acting as if this is nothing.Bushies did that too.



Thanks bigtree,very revealing and relevant post.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

66. I was only a Senator for 1 year before I started my run for the president SORRY I HAVE BEEN BUSY!!!

[zulchzulu]

76. I'm glad Hillary had the time to ask generals about the war she voted for

As for Obama, here are a few of the efforts he helped pass so far related to national security/defense/homeland security:

After visiting weapons stockpiles in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, Senators Lugar and Obama introduced the Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006 in the 109th Congress, which would expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons. The Lugar-Obama bill would energize the U.S. program against unsecured lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons and would strengthen the ability of America's allies to detect and interdict illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Funding would be provided to eliminate unsecured conventional weapons and to assist countries in improving their ability to detect and interdict materials and weapons of mass destruction. The Lugar-Obama bill was included in the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 and was signed into law by President Bush in January 2007.

Senator Obama backs efforts to expand TRICARE eligibility and reduce TRICARE premiums so that our nation's service members, Guard members, reservists, and their families can have improved access to health care.

(snip)

As a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has been tracking the high incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) among the veterans returning home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. TBI is being called the signature injury of the Iraq war. Often caused by the shock wave of improvised explosive devices, TBI can result in permanent brain damage. In order to ensure that these returning heroes receive appropriate medical attention, Senator Obama passed legislation in the Senate that requires all soldiers to be assessed for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) after they return from deployments.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/defense/

---

To set a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007. The legislation begins redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/070103-010307_against_an_escalation_in_iraq/index.html

---

In the 109th Congress, Senator Obama, working with Senator Lautenberg, introduced tough legislation to drastically improve security at our nation's chemical plants. The Chemical Security and Safety Act would establish a clear set of federal regulations that all plants must follow. Plants that are considered a high risk to large population areas or critical infrastructure would face more stringent standards. The bill would require chemical facilities to take steps to enhance security, including improving barriers, containment, mitigation, and safety training, and, where possible, using safer technology, such as less toxic chemicals or safer procedures.

Senator Obama cosponsored the extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. The Act provides important protections to real estate in potentially vulnerable cities such as Chicago.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/homeland_security/

---

Obama is on these committees:
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

If the OP wants to paint the idea that Obama has done nothing related to national security and other matters, that is a distorted view of the facts. Should Obama have had hearings in 2007 as a chairman of a Senate subcommittee on Europe as well? Perhaps. Is running for President in a front-loaded primary schedule going to make it easy to be in two places at one time? Perhaps not.

[bigtree]

81. so you've shown NO involvement on Afghanistan and his first bill on Iraq

. . . coming in January 2007, coincidently, when he decided to run for president..