While this claim is clearly not true (we have had presidents who studied Hebrew), let's assume it were. If you were the foremost expert on a subject, would you brag about it in such a manner? The lack of humility is cringe-inducing.
But, Obama's religious scholarship is not limited to the Old Testament, it includes Catholic just-war theorists. As the New York Times reported over the weekend, when it comes to the use of predator drones and how targets are determined, "nominations go to the White House, where by his own insistence and guided by Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama must approve any name," because as a "student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions. And he knows that bad strikes can tarnish America’s image and derail diplomacy."
LBJ picked bombing targets in Vietnam to protect America's image (how did that work?), while FDR let Ike choose where the Normandy invasion would be. Some tactical decisions should be left to military experts, but I'm guessing there is no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the scholarship of Mr. Obama's to be trusted with such a task. By the way, what was Augustine's views regarding killing rather than capturing and questioning terrorists? What does Aquinas say about the criteria for choosing military targets?
The Time quotes former C.I.A. director, Michael Hayden, as saying: “This program rests on the personal legitimacy of the president, and that’s not sustainable...”
I'm not sure if the program is unsustainable, but it is bizarre. For Obama, the New York Times and the rest of the American left, detaining terrorists in Guantanamo is a moral abomination, but Obama acting as judge, jury and executioner is fine because of his party affiliation (and he read Aquinas). In short, because Obama believes one should take moral responsibility for such actions, the left finds Obama's actions moral. We'll see if they hold this opinion when Romney is ordering drone strikes.