What he said.

It's no secret that I am no fan of Bar@ck Ob@ma, and think that an Ob@ma presidency would be the worst thing for our country since either Jimmy C@rter or Warren H@rding. His glaring lack of experience and apparent detachment from reality, particularly in the current state of global affairs, is nothing short of dangerous. George Wi|| of the W@shington Post illustrates this point rather succinctly by asking Ob@ma a series of questions that to which he presumably has no answer. My favorite such question:

You advocate leaving in Iraq "some" U.S. forces for three missions -- fighting al Qaeda, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. forces conducting those two missions. Some experts believe that even 60,000 U.S, troops would be insufficient for those functions -- even if the Iraqis were not, as they will be for the foreseeable future, dependent on U.S. logistics, transport, fire support, air support, armor and medivac capabilities.

What is your estimate of the numbers required by your policy? How, and in consultation with whom, did you arrive at your estimate? As to fighting terrorists but not insurgents -- how would soldiers and Marines tell the difference? If, while searching for terrorists, they make contact with insurgents, would your rules of engagement call for a full force response? You say all "combat brigades" should be out of Iraq "by the end of next year." Even if al-Qaeda is still dangerous? Who, after the end of next year, will protect U.S. noncombat forces that you say "will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities" and to "train and equip" Iraqi forces?

I will try my best to think like Senator Ob@ma and answer these questions on his behalf:

What is your estimate of the numbers required by your policy? Uh...

How, and in consultation with whom, did you arrive at your estimate? Just kinda pulled it out of my ass thin air.

As to fighting terrorists but not insurgents -- how would soldiers and Marines tell the difference? By going up to them and asking them nicely.

If, while searching for terrorists, they make contact with insurgents, would your rules of engagement call for a full force response? You used a lot of military terms there I didn't understand. I'm just going to say no. Or yes. Whichever one sounds better.

You say all "combat brigades" should be out of Iraq "by the end of next year." Even if al-Qaeda is still dangerous? Yeah, pretty much.

Who, after the end of next year, will protect U.S. noncombat forces that you say "will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities" and to "train and equip" Iraqi forces? That's not our problem.