Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In two days, he declared (i) that he would invade a nuclear-bomb possessing ally and (ii) in any future combat, all US nukes are off the table.
It reveals that Obama is a bit of tone-deaf clod, and that Hillary is has virtually secured the Dem nomination.
|
You are quite likely right on the 2d point, and his positions do seem somewhat contradictory. Nevermind that he's beholden to a corrupt democratic establishment in Illinois.
That said, on your first point, you're intentionally distorting what was said: On (i) he didn't say he would invade Pakistan--killing OBL does not constitute an invasion (unless you use a
very broad definition of "invasion"); on (ii) Obama was asked about using nuclear weapons against terrorist targets Afghanistan and Pakistan, not "all future combat". If you think that "invading" Pakistan is a bad idea, you should agree that nuking Pakistan is a very bad idea.
If Obama had suggested an Iraq-War-sized invasion of Pakistan, his campaign would be over; if Obama had said that nuclear weapons were not going to be used anywhere, against any enemy, under any circumstances, I would wholeheartedly agree that he cannot be President or even Vice President--that he would have limited himself in a fashion that made it impossible for him to confront any hostile power (honestly, even France has maintained the implicit threat that it might use its nukes). Obama did neither of these things and I just don't get why there are people defending OBL because he "happened" to domicile himself in Pakistan.
