Or, “Why the Democratic Primary Needs to Continue for as Long as Possible.”

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization [to go to war in Iraq] had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton’s actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood…

As a consequence of Obama’s dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Ahem. — ed], a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don’t hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he’s a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability…

Obama’s gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

I excised the part where he basically calls him gutless for skipping the vote on whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Would the Messiah pull a move like that just to avoid being put on the spot politically? Yeah, maybe.

Exit question: Whom does this damage more, Obama or Holy Joe? Wilson thinks he has Absolute Moral Authority by dint of his anti-war martyrdom for the left but he’s served his purpose in that regard. All he is now, really, is a shill for Hillary, challenging the “true” anti-war candidate who also happens to be the repository incarnate of all forms of AMA. Isn’t this the point where the left, chanting “Yes we can,” politely ushers him offstage?