|
by Paul R. Hollrah, Lincoln Heritage Institute Senior Fellow
“… has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?”
— Charles Krauthammer, The Audacity of Vanity, July 18, 2008
July 3, 2008 — In a news conference in Fargo, N. Dak., Obama told reporters, “Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war.”
Then, ten days later, in criticizing the Bush Administration strategy in Iraq, he reiterated that on his first day in office he would order the Joint Chiefs to “end this war.” He said, “In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected.”
If I have counted correctly, those two sentences contain no less than five waffles. He would make “tactical adjustments,” he would “consult with commanders on the ground,” he would “consult with the Iraqi government,” he would “ensure that our troops were deployed safely,” and he would make certain that our “interests were protected” – any or all of which allows him to cover all of his bases, pro-war and anti-war.
So, once again, the silver-tongued Marxist from South Chicago has straddled both sides of the issue. In trying to be all things to all men, he succeeds only in being trusted by no one. But what is most amazing about this man who aspires to be the Commander in Chief is his ignorance of the chain of command. What Obama should know, but apparently does not, is that the service chiefs who comprise the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not in the chain of command between the president and the military services.
Since passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986, the Joint Chiefs no longer have operational command of U.S. military forces. The responsibility for military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense, and from the Secretary of Defense to the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands, completely bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs act only in an advisory capacity for the President and the Secretary of Defense.
July 16, 2008 — Obama reiterated an August 2, 2007, policy statement in which he expressed himself on the use of nuclear weapons. He said, “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. After a pause, he added, “involving civilians.” But then, just as quickly, he said, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”
When Obama was asked by an Associated Press reporter whether there was any circumstance in which he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons, he replied, “There’s been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that’s not a hypothetical that I’m going to discuss.”
However, just two months later, in October 2007, he said, “America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons.” (Senator McCain has given an important policy address on nuclear non-proliferation, committing America to the same – if less specific – goal, but he has expressed no intention of taking the use of nuclear weapons off the table.)
So now, in 2008, we have a Muslim nation, Pakistan, which possesses nuclear weapons. They were developed as a counter-measure to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by India, but could easily be redirected if that volatile nation were ever to fall into unfriendly hands. And we have another Muslim nation, Iran, that a) has an active nuclear research program aimed at developing a nuclear arsenal; b) has threatened time and time again to wipe Israel and the United States off the map; and c) is presided over by a madman.
We also have a presidential candidate with a Muslim name and lineage who denies his Muslim roots, but who tells us that:
- It would be a profound mistake for the United States to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance…essentially taking nuclear weapons off our side of the table.
- As president, he would work tirelessly toward a nuclear-free world in which the United States and other western nations would dismantle their nuclear arsenals.
- As president, he would use personal diplomacy to make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the rest of the jihadist madmen of the Muslim world abandon their march toward world domination.
Obama seems not to understand what it was that kept the American people and the Russian people from complete annihilation during the long years of the Cold War. It was a bizarre concept called “mutually assured destruction” (MAD). In other words, any preemptive nuclear attack by either side would have resulted in a massive retaliatory response. There could be no winners. Everyone would lose.
So are we to believe that, if President Barack Hussein Obama’s powers of persuasion were such that he could persuade the Russians, the French, the British, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Israelis to destroy their nuclear weapons, that we could trust the Muslim nuclear powers, the Iranians and the Pakistanis, who look forward to death as the ultimate Earthly reward, to do the same…without cheating?
Does he take us for fools? Don’t answer that!
|
