Select Page

 In response to Hillary’s ridiculous ad asking “Who do you want answering the Red Phone at 3:00 AM”,  Obama provides this beauty:

I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it’s a threat that should rally the country around our common enemies. That is the judgment we need at 3:00 a.m., and that’s the judgment that I am running for as president of the United States of America.

Um, is it just me, or did that first sentence make no proper sense? If I read it right, he’s saying he doesn’t want to use terrorism to “scare” people into doing what he wants… and that’s sort of noble (but unrealistic), and in the next breath says that the threat of terrorism should cause us to rally around our enemies?  Doesn’t that term mean “support our enemies”?  Okay, I can accept that he meant “rally the country against our common enemies”, but how is that different than using the threat to “scare” the country to rally against our enemies?  I think he’s trying to say he’s not going to try to manipulate, but that just won’t wash, and in saying it, he can’t even really prove it to be true.

The fact is, I don’t want someone as commander-in-chief who doesn’t have the nerve to use the tools we’ve provided him as a country to protect us and our national interest.  You can argue all you want about whether Iraq was right or wrong, the fact is I don’t think Obama or Clinton have what it takes to do what needs to be done even if it’s abundantly clear what should be done.  I think that’s a big reason why Kennedy and Johnson failed so miserably with Cuba and Vietnam.

Obama scares me.  As does Clinton.

McCain makes me nervous, but I think he’d do the right thing when it comes to military action and foreign policy.  I don’t really care that he leans left on domestic policy since that’s the job of Congress.  If we can get control back in Congress that will make the difference.

Hat Tip to Memeorandum.

    Log in