Now maybe you don't see the relevance, but the idea that Obama would freeze in indecision when faced with a simulation related to a nuclear threat to this country would seem to me to be a substantive issue.

Only if Obama was a part of the simulation, which I gather he was not.
I mean, I just ran a highly secretive simulation that shows that George Bush would have surrendered to Al Qaeda if they attack NYC, does that make it a substantive matter?

Until we know _why_ the simulation shows Obama freezing (and presumable other candidates not freezing), the whole simulation is worse than useless.

Try re-reading the statement substituing the word man for boy and see if you can't then see a substantive question that was raised about Obama. Let me help.

Congressman Geoff Davis, took the criticisms of Mr. Obama a few steps further, likening the change slogan to the pitch of a “snake oil salesman.” He then relayed to the audience that he had taken party in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama.

“I’m going to tell you something: That MAN’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Mr. Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

Now maybe you don't see the relevance, but the idea that Obama would freeze in indecision when faced with a simulation related to a nuclear threat to this country would seem to me to be a substantive issue.

Of course not, that is only reserved for deflecting question about substantive matters on Obama's fitness to be president.

I don't see how the "boy" controversy was in any way deflecting questions from any substantive matters.