Skip to main content

For Commander-in-Chief it's a question of judgment, and Mr. Obama fails that test

I've already discussed the questionable judgment of President Barack Obama in allowing his chief political advisor to become part of the process of determining which individuals should be targeted in our Pakistani drone strikes.

President Obama has also dragged America (without Congressional consent) into more conflicts in more different places than any Chief Executive of recent memory, incuding a covert cyber-war against Iran from the first days of his administration.

Now we discover that, even after Mr. Obama had been advised that his Stuxnet virus, designed to attack Iran's centrifuge production, had spread beyond the targeted areas and represented a threat to computers even in the US, he ordered the attacks to be continued:

Yeah, screw 'em.  Maybe Stuxnet
will work itself into one of the
Bain mainframes.

Despite an error in the Stuxnet worm that attacked Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which caused the malware to spread wildly out of control and infect computers outside of Iran in 2010, President Barack Obama ordered U.S. officials who were behind the attack to continue the operation.
That was despite the fact that Stuxnet was spreading to machines in the United States and elsewhere and could have contained other unknown errors that might affect U.S. machines.

There are arguments to be made on all sides of the political, economic, and social equation about who should be President of the United States.  While I will vote for, or vote against, somebody based on his or her view on same-sex marriage, or marijuana legalization, or the abolition of the US Department of Education, these are not issue--either way--that disqualify an individual from becoming President.

This is different:  the more we learn about the inner workings of foreign and military policy under President Barack Obama, the more we discover that we have placed a man in office who combines the micro-managing style of Lyndon B. Johnson with all the respect for American and international law evidenced by Richard M. Nixon secretly bombing Cambodia.

I would openly invite anybody who thinks that President Obama has revealed the mature judgment and calm temperment necessary to serve as our Commander-in-Chief to explain exactly how--based on the evidence--they reached such a conclusion.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...