Obama not fit to be Commander-In-Chief


Well, I think a basic prerequisite for the Commander-In-Chief is to love your country, or at least its citizens.  I believe it is arguable if Obama does either…..at the very least, he looks at his country as a failure and only he has the power to change it as he sees fit.  He also has a great knack for running down citizens of this country (bitter gun-clingers, people who can’t use e-mail, suppression of speech that doesn’t agree with his,e tc)

But besides the basic instincts for the job….there are many others who see Obama’s naivety, his undermining the current administration, his inability to hear commanders on the ground, among other things as just a few of the reasons Obama is not cut out to be Commander-In-Chief.

First, a good ad from Move America Forward…pointing out how Obama says one thing to his left radical base, but doing something different behind the scenes….this is just Obama’s MO on most things.   But in the case of his visit to Iraq, he said one thing in his Berlin speech and then, on the same trip, tried to convince the Iraqi government to do another, all while trying to undermine the current administration.  I wrote about it here.

 (H/T: The Jawa Report)

Second, Captain Pete Hegseth, and Iraq Army Veteran and National Guard member, says “Obama’s self-serving machinations in Iraq bespeak a candidate unfit to be commander-in-chief.”

You should read the entire piece by Hegseth, but here are excerpts to make the point:

It’s not just that Sen. Obama doesn’t believe in the mission in Iraq, it’s that he still doesn’t get it (to plagiarize from the senator himself). Fundamentally, he doesn’t understand the mission in Iraq, what it takes to win a war, or the ramifications of the outcome of this war for the U.S.’s enduring national security. He just doesn’t get it.

In Obama’s world, foreign-policy contorts to meet domestic politics, and commanding generals accommodate arbitrary political timelines. From his perspective, facts on a foreign battlefield exist to the extent they comport with his judgment, rather than his judgment comporting to facts on a foreign battlefield.

Despite recognizing security gains in Iraq, Sen. Obama continues to declare the surge a strategic failure because it hasn’t created necessary political progress — an assertion that has been patently false for some time now. Nonetheless, Senator Obama won’t adjust his stance before the election because, as Taheri so aptly points out, “to be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire.”

and this:

Surely Sen. Obama doesn’t want to lose in Iraq? No, he just believes winning or losing there doesn’t matter. Surely he doesn’t really believe our presence in Iraq to be “illegal”? No, he just doesn’t understand existing strategic agreements. And, as explained by Taheri, surely he doesn’t think we can withdrawal in 16 months? No he doesn’t, he just remains politically wedded to a discredited policy.

How else can you explain the actions of a senator who travels abroad and calls the commander-in-chief “weak,” and the war we are winning “illegal”? My sources tell me he made few friends among warriors and diplomats in Iraq; yet he wasn’t actually interested in hearing from them, only preaching to them. He really believes — as do many of his antiwar colleagues — that they know better than generals and Iraqi leaders. And he was hoping to have Iraq’s help in confirming that self-regard, in making him look like an expert. Alas, no longer.

and regarding Obama and the Democrats on playing politics with the war:

As a response to Lieberman-Graham, which has 33 co-sponsors as of this writing, Senate Democrats have proposed a counter-resolution (which is not yet posted, but has been reviewed by the author). As expected, Levin-Reed includes the familiar litany of reasons why the surge is a failure, why Iraqis haven’t reconciled, and why Afghanistan is the only war that matters.

Intended to be a resolution “recognizing the performance of the United States Armed Forces,” Levin-Reed quickly descends into a laundry list of problems in Iraq (financial cost, human toll, military strain) before launching into a rudimentary call for a new and “effective strategy” in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A new and effective strategy? Would that mean returning to the strategy that didn’t work before the surge? The answer is yes. At the end of their resolution, Levin and Reed reiterate their hollow belief that we can achieve “strategic success” in Iraq by redeploying (i.e., withdrawing) based on a fixed timeline. They have learned absolutely nothing from the last 20 months in Iraq, and are willing to put it in writing.

Of particular note in the Levin-Reed resolution is the fact that not oncedo they acknowledge that the new Petraeus strategy had anything to do with dramatic gains in Iraq. They talk about “increased troop numbers” and “enhanced special operations” but never talk about the new strategy. They purposefully exclude the single most important factor — presumably hoping that no one will notice. In this instance, it’s not that they don’t get it, it’s that they’re hoping voters don’t get it.

Equally disturbing, the document includes a quote from an admiral saying that we are “running out of time” in Afghanistan, yet excludes — and contradicts — statements made by a certain general, our current CENTCOM commander, that al-Qaeda is the “central front for extremists.”

Once gain, Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats continue to insist that they know better than generals. They won’t let the facts get in the way of a good political narrative. Taheri’s article is the latest crack in the facade of Sen. Obama and his fellow travelers, and signals their flip, naïve, and self-serving approach to strategic objectives on the battlefield.

McCain was spot-on when he said Obama would rather lose a war to win an election!

Advertisements

8 Responses

  1. Obama may be the ANTI-CHRIST

    think about it…think; about the criteria…a politician who appears suddenly on the national/international stage…questionable religious affiliation(s)…an .
    unnatural gift for public speaking…appears to be anti-Israel…appears to lean toward Iran…appears to be

  2. This is absolutely right. Obama has no executive experiance what so ever. He has never been any form of government leader. Granted, the same could be said for McCain, however McCain has been in the senate for quite some time. And, Obama will be the Commander-In-Chief. This means he will be the COMMANDER of the most powerful fighting force in the world. He does not understand the military, and does not seem to care. In a time of war, we need a president who knows and understands the military and government.
    McCain ’08

  3. Insightful analysis, Mr Lighter.

  4. Mr. Lighter,
    Glad to see you back on SharpRightTurn!

  5. “Obama may be the ANTI-CHRIST”

    Marxist? Probably. Doofus? Definitely

    Anti-Christ? A bit of a stretch.

  6. Billy Wilson, you’re not helping the cause. Before you put that label on anyone remember the history of just such pronouncements. Hitler, Stalin, every Caesar living in the church age, etc., has been labeled the anti-Christ. So … you’re not helping the debate along when you do the same.

    Instead, tell the world in a non-prophetic way, why Obama shouldn’t be the President. There are good reasons. Enumerate them.

    And one more thing. In the Old Testament, if a person made a prophetic pronouncement and the prophecy didn’t come true – that person was stoned. If you want to avoid a similar fate, well … be wise.

    Lowell

  7. Aloha,
    Point well made…:)

  8. A little Obama humor…

    Barack Obama was seated next to a little girl on an airplane He turned to her and said, ‘Let’s talk. I’ve heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.’

    The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the Obama,
    ‘What would you like to talk about?’

    ‘Oh, I don’t know,’ said the Obama. ‘How about What Changes I Should Make To America ?’ and he smiles.

    ‘OK, ‘ she said. ‘That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass – .

    Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow
    Turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass.
    Why do you suppose that is?’

    Obama, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks
    About it and says, ‘Hmmm, I have no idea.’

    To which the little girl replies, ‘Do you really feel qualified to cChange America when you don’t know shit ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: