The truth about Obama and Hillary

Ken Blackwell, a columnist on the Townhall site, makes the definitive points about the two leading dem candidates. First, Obama is dead wrong about meeting with "leaders" such as Castro, Kim, Amadinehad, and Chavez without any preconditions and yet he continues to defend this ludicrous position by attacking its chief critic Hillary calling her Bush-Cheney lite, etc. Obviously he's not mature enough to be trusted with the defense of the United States. Second, Hillary continues to label Bush a liar for getting the US into the Iraq War with false claims regarding the existence of weapons of mass destructions. And yet, when she voted for the resolution to go to war with Hussein, she did so because of the existence of WMD which she became aware of not from Bush but from the same sources Bush learned from. Taking this position makes Hillary herself untrustworthy and also unqualified to lead the US because she simply cannot tell the truth. It seems to me these two points by Blackwell cut to the chase and do in fact eliminate these two candidates as viable leaders of the free world. Here's Blackwell's summary:

"Her campaign attacked Mr. Obama for failing to grasp key foundational principles of national security and foreign policy. That's absolutely unacceptable for a post-9/11 American president, they said.

They also seek to cast Mr. Obama as a would-be Wayne Palmer president. The president on Fox's popular TV show "24" is charismatic and bold, but prone to dangerous and costly national security blunders because of his inexperience which results in poor decision making.

That's bad news for a future Clinton-Obama ticket.

The top requirement of a vice president is that they're qualified at any moment to become president. In war time, a president has no greater obligation than making sure the person who would become commander-in-chief in the event of an attack or assassination is ready to take on the job.

And anyone who fails to understand that our response to such an attack must be retaliation against our attacker has yet to grasp how to protect our nation. But this internecine squabble also exposes Mrs. Clinton's lack of veracity. She refuses to tell the public what she knows and believes to be true. This could be a disqualifying flaw.

Mrs. Clinton believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, just like President Bush. Her husband and the previous administration believed that as well, as did Britain, France, Egypt, Jordan, and a host of other nations. Even Saddam's own generals believed it.

Everyone believed it, and everyone was wrong. But being sincerely wrong does not make you a liar, and so Hillary knows it's not fair to say President Bush "lied us into a war."

Mrs. Clinton knew she was voting for military warfare with her vote, not diplomacy. She supported the war, but refuses to admit that now. She also promised to continue funding the troops and said not to do so would be wrong, but now she's done exactly that.

She could have chosen to be a unifier. Instead, she's chosen partisan division and political advantage over bringing the nation together. Instead of pursing the national interest, she's pursuing her party’s nomination with statements she knows to be untrue.

Senator Clinton knows that Senator Obama's "irresponsible and... naive" foreign policy mouthings should raise questions about his readiness to be president or vice president. But her duplicitous and deceptive comments about her Iraq vote and the war challenge her veracity and give life to questions about her own ability to execute a competent national security strategy."