The Daily Detour

A war by any other name...

In yesterday's paper, I happened upon Charles Krauthammer's compelling article about the state of our foreign affairs, specifically related to our efforts fighting against terrorism. With the thwarted terrorist attack on the NW 253 flight on Christmas Day (thanks to the quick-thinking actions of some of the passengers), the ever-present threat of terrorists cut through the noise of the economy, healthcare, and global warming. Obama & Co may be attempting to downplay the threat of terrorism by forgoing the use of the term "War on Terror", providing a civil trial for the 9/11 mastermind, and the like. But, the threat is real. And but for the failure of the bomb to go off, combined with the vigilance of average Americans, we would be talking not about how "the system worked" (as Janet Napolitano asserted in the immediate aftermath), but instead about the Christmas Day massacre.

I've said repeatedly on this blog (including this post from back August 2007 among others) that we must remain vigilant to the clear and present danger of Islamic radicals seeking to destroy our country and way of life. But unfortunately, it is difficult to question how seriously those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are taking the threat. In fact, FOX News is polling with this question, "Are you confident in the Obama administration's ability to battle terrorism?" It's a fair and very legitimate question, given the fact that the jihadists are not passing out party cigars that simply blow up in our face.

Some might question the accusation that Obama is not taking our national security as seriously as he should. Consider for a moment, however, how much political capital Obama has expended on issues like stimulus funding, global warming summits, and most significantly, the healthcare debate. Has he exercised half as much focus on the pressing need? One could strongly argue that he hasn't. In fact, Krauthammer summarizes the feelings of many when he writes,

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face.

Krauthammer goes on to make the fundamental point:

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not...Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

It is the governing philosophy of Obama & Co. that concerns me, where the reality of terrorism is concerned. If the leadership of this country continues to downplay the threats we face, the next time even concerned citizens will not be able to prevent a tragedy on American soil.

The grade is in...

During his Christmas special with Oprah, President Obama gave himself a "good, solid B-plus" for his first eleven months in office. I'm not seeing it myself, because after all, that is just a shade below an A-minus, and I don't think an objective assessment of Obama's first year in office would consider him an almost-A level student. That seems decidedly optimistic. (But, that's just me, and our differences of worldview would clearly affect why Obama might be so generous in his evaluation of himself.)

Unfortunately, for Obama, his assessment of himself is subordinate to the assessment of his constituents. It's our grade that ultimately matters. The first part of his grade will come during the mid-term elections in 2010, followed up by the next presidential election in 2012.

What about you? How would you grade Obama for his first year in office?

UPDATE: It was reported today, "ABC News/Washington Post poll: Obama's approval rating hits new low". Apparently, the American people aren't as enamored with Obama's performance as he is.

Obama trying to walk the fine line between war and peace

It was interesting as Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last week that the event was often reported by various media sources as "the wartime president" accepting his peace prize. Such was/is the dichotomy that surrounds Obama. And as he gave his acceptance speech, the difficult tightrope he is walking is not lost on anyone, most especially his liberal base. One other writer termed his accept of the Nobel prize as the "Jekyll and Hyde" speech.

There are two issues surrounding Obama's Nobel Prize, received in the midst of his seemingly contradictory foreign affairs. 1. Should Obama have received the prize in the first place?, and 2. How is his reception of the prize reconciled in the midst of his decision to send more troops to the war in Afghanistan?

Concerning the former issue, even the Dalai Lama, himself a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his peaceful opposition to the Chinese rule in Tibet, candidly understated that President Obama's receiving the prize was "a little early". In fact, that is the notion that has plagued Obama since word came out in October that he had won the once-prestigious prize. People were trying to figure out where Obama fit within the pantheon of peace activists like Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and His holiness the Dalai Lama. (It reminds me of Christian Laettner's presence on the1992 Olympic Dream Team with Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson. I've always contended that Laettner was there to serve as the bellhop for the big boys. :)

I would agree with this assessment, that Obama's receiving the prize was inappropriate and undermined the significance of the award. Even the Nobel selection committee tried to justify their decision by admitting that it was given not based on Obama's securing peace but what he will presumably do. And as Obama himself acknowledged in his speech, the award was not for what he has actually accomplished, but what he "aspires" to do. And if he doesn't do it? (This whole event reveals the cult of personality that surrounds Obama and begs so many questions and problems--Namely, how do we measure whether or not he is successful in those aspirations? And, should we get credit for what we aspire to do, even if we don't actually carry it out--like school grades? If the aspiration for peace is the new criteria for the Noble Prize, perhaps every beauty pageant contestant should be considered for the award.)

Furthermore, Obama is making his case for what he calls the "just war" in Afghanistan. Others would disagree. What do you think? Is Afghanistan a just war? Is there any such thing? I believe there is, given the nature of those who use evil to achieve their ends. (But then again, I'm not up for the Nobel Peace prize.) 

UPDATE: This insightful article by Bonnie Erbe over at Politics Daily talks about the discontent of the Norwegians over having given Obama the prize. But more than that, she describes how he has come to embody the consumate politician. As she writes, "If only the Nobel Committee and the American voting public had dug a bit deeper before they endorsed Obama, they might not have been so surprised when he morphed into an unexpected type of president. The New York Times reported in February 2008 that Obama had a history of stretching his accomplishments and playing to his audience of the moment. It would have been easy to see what was coming if only voters had paid more attention to his record as a twister of facts and prince of prevarication." This tendency among politicians is hardly new. The question is, "What are we going to do about it?"

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

As Ronald Reagan famously said, these are the nine most terrifying words in the English language. Truer words were never spoken.

The AP just reported today,

"The Treasury Department is acknowledging for the first time that it lost $61 billion on two key programs designed to stabilize the economy after the largest financial crisis in decades."

So, apparently after all of the assurances that we needed bailouts and stimulus funding--and now, even more stimulus funding--to restart the economy, the government has fessed up to the fact that they have lost over $61 billion!?! (That's billion with a "b".)

This is what makes it difficult to feel confident when Obama & Co. essentially suggest to the American people, "Trust us, we know what's best for you and the country." Conservatives have been trying to sound this warning against that liberal mentality for some time. And to be fair, President Bush was no fiscal conservative, so the more courageous conservatives among us were warning the country back then. But the Obama presidency has taken spending to a whole other level.

Misspending (and in this case, losing $61 billion) is the luxury of those who are using other people's money. This is one of the many reasons why it is better to let people keep more of their money in their own pockets. The more the government overreaches, the greater the possibility for abuse. But then again, I guess we can at least find some comfort in the fact that they have enough integrity to admit their mistakes. :)

Copenhagen conference goes up in smoke

The big talk this week (other than Tiger Woods) centers on the 2-week long conference on global warming happening in Copenhagen, Denmark. This year's event has garnered considerable attention given the recent exposure of fraud on the climate change issue.

As the UK Telegraph points out, however, it seems the leading proponents of the evils of global warming are doing their fair share of contributing to the crisis that they are warning all of us about. The Copenhagen Conference seems to be going up in smoke--carbon dioxide, that is. The Telegraph reports that there have been 140 private planes and 1,200 limos being used by those who have come to Copenhagen.

Perhaps some may consider this little factoid an irrelevant point of emphasis. But these are the kinds of things that seriously undermine the credibililty of the Goracle and the rest of the "Chicken Littles" in the environmentalist movement. When their carbon footprint for one event--an event intended to reduce carbon footprints no less--is large enough to overshadow the energy usage of a small country, something is amiss. When those who are attempting to lead the movement are unwilling to follow their own admonitions, what does that say to the rest of us? Either those folks are okay with their hypocrisy, or perhaps they know something the rest of us don't about the true reality of the "global warming crisis." Perhaps it's not such a crisis after all. Otherwise, wouldn't those who care the most about this issue being making every effort to combat it? (Why not fly commercial and use public transportation like the rest of the world in order order to reduce the carbon footprint?)

UPDATE: There proves to be a record-breaking carbon footprint that the climate changers have left in Copenhagen after 2 weeks of deliberations about our impending doom. It was to be expected, but as this post attempted to emphasize, the whole affair smacks of "Do as we say, not as we do." Even the liberals are forced to admit that that is ALOT of carbon emissions, but are figuring out ways to justify this unavoidable dilemma. (So as to ease the conscience, and push the movement forward? Perhaps...)

Obama's eulogy at West Point

Last night at our United States Military Academy at West Point, President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech outlining his strategy in Afghanistan. As you may or may not know, General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. military forces in that war, came to Obama over three months ago requesting that additional troops be sent to help in a move similar to the surge which proved successful in Iraq. Obama's speech was his answer--an answer that has many disappointed on both sides of the aisle. For many of the young soldiers sitting in the audience, it was seen as a eulogy suggesting that the real chance for victory in Afghanistan is dead.

Given that Obama has agreed to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal has renewed his vow to take the fight to the Taliban. And because we have such noble men and women in harm's way (with more to come over the next 18 months), we should wholeheartedly support their efforts.

The challenge for someone in Obama's position (that is, someone with a far left base, combined with a country that is middle-right) is how to please everyone. As any leader knows the difficult decisions forged in the crucible of real-life make this desire all but impossible. And yet, Obama is giving it his best effort--trying to please the right by providing a quasi-surge in Afghanistan, while appealing to the left by offering an actual pull-out date of July 2011 (though it will be interesting to see how this date is adjusted as the realities of war--and the 2012 presidential election--affected the President). His is not in an enviable position by any means, but that is the nature of the job as Commander-in-Chief.

It does cause one to wonder, does Obama really want us to win? On the plus side, he did finally agree to send more troops (though not as many as McChrystal said he needed). So, there is the perceived desire to win, or at least, pass the job off to the Afghanis. On the negative side, by setting a pullout date, has he not telegraphed the gameplan? For the Taliban, what's to keep them from simply holding out until the Americans have left and then taking over again, just as they had before we arrived? Nothing of real consequence. (Yes, the Afghan military does have a significant role to play in their own protection, but they will never provide the necessary counter-measure to tyranny that the U.S. military power embodies.)

And so, it raises some significant questions: Are we in it to win it, or not? Why pull out in 18 months? Why not longer? Or sooner? And more significantly, if we are going to pull out, then why send 30,000 of America's best men and women to potentially suffer and die in battle if we are not there to win in the end?

Where war is concerned, I would echo President Reagan's terse response to the question about his strategy in the Cold War: "We win. They lose." In my heart, I truly wish war was not necessary, but the presence of evil in the world necessitates a response--even a response of war at times. And until we achieve that utopia that all of our liberal friends dream of, meeting violence with violence is sometimes necessary (as I've alluded to before). To go in half-heartedly suggests that it is better to have not gone in at all. Our brave men and women (and those we are trying to free and protect) desire so much more than that. The question is whether or not Obama's new strategy will give it to them.

UPDATE: Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates correctly pointed out that failure in Afghanistan will have severe consequences for the United States.

The power of story

Folks, sorry for the delay in putting something up here at TDD. With the holiday festivities and the lingering effects from the Thanksgiving injection of tryptophan, I've been negligent in keeping up with the latest cultural happenings and passing them on to you.

I ran across this commentary by John Harris over at the Politico concerning the power of story, especially as it relates to President Obama. We as people are influenced by stories. From Jesus' parables to the illustrations in a book or speech, we connect with stories. For many people, a person's story reveals points of connection and commonality with those who hear it. (Example: I just finished reading Sarah Palin's autobiography, Going Rogue, and had a spontaneous conversation with a lady at our local coffeshop who emphasized exactly that. In fact, Palin's story is one of the reasons why her book outsold Hillary Clinton's autobiography in just one week.)

Harris insightfully points out that in today's media-saturated age, the politician who gets their story in the minds of the people wins--a feat which the Obama campaign executed with enviable efficiency. (In fact, I'm just starting into David Plouffe's fascinating account of the campain, The Audacity to Win. Plouffe was Obama's campaign manager and one of the chief architects of that historic campaign.)

The interesting thing about people's connection to stories is that people will tend to buy into a well-crafted story--even if that story proves to be more fairy tale than truth. As Harris points out, that is the danger that Obama is running into. A danger that could perhaps be just the creation of the antagonistic opposition, or simply the result of his own making.

Take a look at the Politico's "7 stories Obama doesn't want told" and judge for yourself whether there is merit to them or not. I'm sure that your political persuasion will heavily influence your take on their merit, but they are worth considering regardless. Because the outcome of these storylines can have significant impact no matter which side of the political aisle any of us is on.

UPDATE: Interestingly, the Palin reference above seems to drawn more attention than the main point of the post. Thus, it seems worth noting that HarperCollins reported on Tuesday that Palin's memoir has surpassed the 1 million mark in just two weeks.

Turning up the heat on the global warming theory

The news is spreading about the hacking of the computers at University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom last week. This represents one of the leading "expert" sources on global warming. Why is this significant? Because the over 3,000 emails and documents that found their way to the web reveal the effort to hide the truth about climate change.

As you might imagine, the nature of the emails has generated considerable interest. And for the gurus of global warming, it has caused understandable concern. Interestingly, someone today pointed out that if the truth about the global warming is that the globe is not warming, those who have continued to sound the alarm should be ecstatic. And yet, they are anything but. Which only makes sense if it turns out that the Goracle & Co. are perpetuating a conspiracy--based on a theory in which they have invested considerable time, energy, and reputation. This latest development does not bode well for their cause, so we'll see...

FOX News outfoxed...

...by incompetence or stupidity--or both? Hard to say without all of the facts. But it's come to light that FOX News used misleading footage this week showing Sarah Palin "at a book signing" with huge crowds when in reality, the crowds shown were actually from a 2008 rally during the presidential campaign. It could have been attributed to honest mix-up, and FOX News has apologized. The only problem is that this is the second time in as many weeks that the news organization has made the same kind of error.

I have always appreciated the attempts by FOX News to share the sides of a story that would never make it into the same story as told through the liberal MSM lens. Though their more conservative bias is hardly hidden, their mantra of being "fair and balanced" can be seen simply by that role they play in providing a counterweight to the MSM.

This is why, in my opinion, these kinds of errors are absolutely unacceptable. For any news organization, the ability to establish trust with your audience should be paramount to all other priorities. If trust is lost, what is left? And for a news organization like FOX News in particular, doctoring footage or stories to present a slant is especially disappointing. More than that, it is gross negligence. FOX already faces daily criticism from the MSM and the increasingly vocal liberal camps. Which is why there is all the more reason to be extra vigilant with the facts, given the fact that the libs are looking for any excuse to fire the deadly salvo which will cripple the FOX juggernaut.

FOX News is certainly not alone is this tendency to utilize footage to do more than report a story. Though there are many who are reluctant to admit it, the MSM has turned it into an art form. And certainly there are the usual liberal antagonists who continually argue that that is what FOX News does all the time anyway. But the advantage that FOX has held (which has jettisoned them to the top of the news reporting heap as they continue to outstrip the competition) is being the more conservative voice to counter-balance the daily dose of liberal bias being promoted on the MSM channels.

The astute news consumer should be one who filters the news from all sources--be it the MSM, FOX News, or whatever internet site one visits regularly. But if FOX begins to make a habit of this kind of lowbrow news reporting, the trust they have built with their audience over the years will erode. And worse yet, they will be no different than those news organizations with whom they are competing for our attention.

The "jobs saved" numbers were inflated?

Not long ago, the Obama adminstration proudly announced the jobs that they said had been saved through the stimulus recovery plan. Now, however, it seems the Obama administration may have over inflated the statistics. And it's got one Democratic heavyweight hoppin' mad. As Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) stated in no uncertain terms:

"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now."

Rep. Obey is exactly right. And it is refreshing to see him step beyond the expected partisan bias in order to address the issue straightforwardly. As difficult as hard truth is, we will never determine the road to recovery if we are unwilling to recognize the obstacles in our way. Special thanks to this prominent Democrat for his efforts to do just that.