Politicians rely heavily, on almost every subject, on advisors to get them educated and keep them current. And nobody really expects Obama or Clinton or even McCain, who was a Navy aviator, to know anything about ground combat. But one does expect the candidate to employ advisors who know what they are talking about and to prevent their candidate from embarrassment.
The criticism is directed at the recent remarks about seized Taliban weapons and lack of ammunition, but they could apply to a wide range of military issues, including Obama’s claim that after withdrawing all the troops from Iraq, he’d send some back “if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq.” As John McCain pointed out, al Qaida is in Iraq, operating under the name “al-Qaida in Iraq.”
Then, instead of debating the issue, Obama tries to shift the debate to one about whether Iraq should have been invaded or not. Instapundit posts a letter from a reader which includes
This has been a rhetorical trick that Obama has used a lot when he gets hit for saying something stupid. He never admits being caught and he changes the subject to a different talking point as fast as he can, claiming that he wants to be about the “future.” Given his tendency to make bizarre and naive statements about foreign policy, I have to wonder how long he can get away with it.
Obama is a decent speaker, fairly charismatic, and probably preferable to Hillary. But he is not ready for the big office. Not by a long shot. His apparent total ignorance of anything related to the military other than “invasion of Iraq = B-A-D” should trouble anyone. But I know that it doesn’t, and that’s even more troubling.