Every now and then I hear people say things like this:
Barack Obama had enough life experience by October 2002 to utter the following words.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
Hillary’s years of experience resulted in thne kind of judgement that helped get us in a dumb war.
This is what we call, stupid reasoning. First, the surface level issues with this comment, IE if being “right” about the War in Iraq four years ago is the criteria for who you vote for as president, then you’re saying that people like Pat Buchannon are qualified to be president.
But a deeper issue with this comment is the devaluing of experience. Let’s be clear here, if someone you loved were on the operating table awaiting surgery, you would never say “I don’t want that really experienced surgeon because he made a mistake four years ago, give me this inexperienced doctor who was right a long time ago.” In this instance you would clearly recognize that the best option would be the surgeon with years of experience to rely on.
The fact is, while experience does not make you infailiable, and sometimes experienced people are wrong, experience gives you a MUCH higher probability of being right than inexperience.