Suma et substancia Obama (foreign policy edition)

Blogdom,
To refute the coherence theory of truth was the dream of the logical positivists which may, for all I know, have been acquired from an unknown father. I'm not sure (and in fact have absolutely no reason to believe) that A.J. Ayer's father was unknown to him, but without looking up this biographical datum, I am nonetheless just as sure that such an estranged deadbeat was the source of the wisdom of this philosopher as I am that Obama's father was the source of his. Mr. Obama's goal is different from A.J. Ayer's. Instead of refuting the idea that anything coherent is true, the blessed one seems to want us to believe, especially on Nov. 4th, 2008, that coherence is not only insufficient but also unnecessary.
What else could account for the stated sum of his foreign policy pronouncements?
A. We cannot and could never have defeated a movement that operates in 80 countries by invading Iraq, which is only one (1) country.
B. All our attention need be concentrated on Afghanistan (which is by my count one (1) country).
C. As a backup strategy in case the Afghanistan policy doesn't work, we should mosey our way over to the hella chique frontier of Waziristan, located in the (newly destabilized and nuclear-armed) nation of Pakistan.
D. Before this nation was destabilized, it was run by one Pervez Musharraf, who, while overtly an ally, followed a policy of mere containment of the tribal region of Waziristan (having as far as the editor can tell no choice). Therefore, I am very proud to have supported the removal of this Musharraf and his inevitable replacement by parties which are neither overtly nor in actuality allies of any sort. I just don't like phonies, being the authentic son of a Luo Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother that everybody knows me to be.
E. Clearly I would act like this only on 'credible' intelligence. (Editor's punctuation).
F. Intelligence is never entirely credible, as we have learned under Mr. Bush.
G. Russia-Georgia: We cannot hope to resolve conflicts of this sort, about which I take absolutely no firm position, if we have alienated our closest allies. Granted, they are with us on this one, but still... Granted, the situation I am referring to ceased to exist two years ago, as Merkel and Sarkozy are now in charge of Europe, but still...

Now let's be fair to Obama; on logical grounds, there is nothing wrong with opposing doing anything about Iran's rise to nuclear status if you start by the assumption that it is fine and dandy to go around invading nuclear-armed nations when you have 'credible' intelligence supporting their sponsorship of activities that threaten America or its' allies. I just happen to question the assumption here.