Obama's Weird Chess Game

📅️ Published:

🔄 Updated:

🕔 2 min read ∙ 359 words

Democrat candidate for president Barack Obama’s bizarre chess game with foreign policy took another twist today.

In remarks to a report, Obama seemed to formulate his nuclear policy as he went along:

“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, “involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”

Is this a chess game? Does Obama have some grand politic strategory in mind? It’s like a game of Good Cop, Bad Cop with Obama playing both parts. One day he’s doing Hennessy shots with Kim Jong Il, the next he’s pulling out of Iraq, then he’s invading allies, and later he’s eliminating our nuclear arsenal.


Democrat rivals pounced on the neophyte’s fourth foreign policy gaffe in two weeks. At the beginning, Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Obama’s foreign policy might have been mere campaign maneuvering. But many Democrats must now wonder if Obama is capable of making it to the Iowa Caucuses.

Moreover, the general population should be very concerned that one of the country’s two parties takes Barack Obama seriously. His statements on genocide, invading nuclear-powered allies, kissing up to despots, and no-use of nuclear arms prove the man has never really thought about America’s place in the world. Therefore, anything–ANYTHING–Obama says about Bush’s foreign policy can be summarily dismissed. Now, if only the Democrats would summarily dismiss Obama.

Matt Margolis calls Obama “clueless”

There may be more on the OTB Traffic Jam. While at OTB, don’t miss this wonderful tidbit about WSJ.

CNN calls Obama the Democrats' “punching bag.”

Dan Balz, writing in the Washington Post, manages to break away from his Ode to Obama long enough to mention this:

He continues to walk a fine line between sounding fresh and sometimes appearing green, between being the candidate who can offer an appealing break from the past and one whose inexperience may give people pause.

Quite.  But Mr. Balz mentions only two of Barack’s four gaffes.  Were Dan paying closer attention, he might have concluded as many have:  Obama isn’t ready.