No nukes is good nukes?

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

How do I put this delicately?

Barack Obama is a blithering idiot, a politician so bereft of experience and wisdom as to be an embarrassment to the entire process of selecting an American president.

That about does it.

I refer specifically, but not exclusively, to Obama's comments to this effect: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance – involving civilians." He then added as an afterthought: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

As if the Democratic Party had not yet done enough on behalf of our enemies around the world, Obama just tipped them that his presidency would virtually rule out use of nukes.

Does this make America more secure?

Of course not. The deterrence effect of nuclear weapons has managed to keep the peace between nuclear powers for 62 years.

Does it make America's enemies more secure?

It gives them a false sense of security, because, no matter what Barack Obama tells our enemies, they will be nuked with enough provocation.

For instance, if a nuclear weapon should ever be detonated on American soil by anyone, the U.S. will be actively searching for someone to get targeted by a nuclear retaliatory strike. This isn't conjecture. This is fact.

So, does it serve any good purpose to rule out the use of nuclear weapons knowing full well it is a lie?

No, it is, in fact, counterproductive – possibly persuading America's enemies that it has become a toothless tiger and will absorb any and all attacks without a nuclear response.

None of this is rocket science, of course. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. Nothing here should be news to a person seeking the lofty position of president of the United States. But clearly Obama is in need of some remedial education on foreign affairs.

I admit, the idea of a President Hillary Rodham Clinton scares the Belial out of me. I've been there. I remember the first Clinton regime. One was enough for me. I haven't been audited since, thank you. My office hasn't been broken into either. But, nevertheless, Clinton surrounded himself with enough foreign policy specialists to avoid these kinds of embarrassing remarks – statements that make America look foolish, not just the candidate responsible.

I'd like to see Hillary get a good run for her money, too. That doesn't seem likely when her closest contender is someone who wouldn't know a nuclear warhead from a hole in the ground.

Here's a guy who wants the U.S. out of Iraq now but is ready to declare war on Pakistan!

Is his job to make Hillary look smart by comparison?

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," said a sober-sounding Hillary in response. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Is his job to make John Edwards seem sincere and reasonable by comparison?

This guy is quickly ruining his chances to be vice president.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance – involving civilians. Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

That's what he said. Is that what he meant? Who knows.

By the way, have you noticed Obama likes to use these words: "I think it would be a profound mistake… " Check it out. He says that often.

You know what I think would be a profound mistake?

If Americans ever elected a know-nothing like this to be president of the United States.

Special offers:

"Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians"