Monday, January 29, 2007

Jim Webb Doubletalk

Our new senator thinks politicians should leave the war-making decisions to the military. Or not:
Webb: Cheney's remarks 'wrong'
By Peter Hardin, Richmond Times-Dispatch Washington Correspondent

Webb -- a former Navy secretary under President Ronald Reagan and a Marine veteran of the Vietnam War -- said no politician has a right to speak for the views of the military.

Webb, who has a son stationed in Iraq with the Marines, slammed what he called "something from the other side . . . that borders on irresponsibility" as a floor debate approaches on Iraq. (link)
Those words spilled from the lips of politician Webb, who also said this:
Webb repeated his concern that the Bush administration has mismanaged the war, failing to make clear an overall strategy and an endpoint.

"And it's wrong to say we're going to let our military people down in terms of winning if we start taking this in a different direction. What we're doing is trying to define specifically how this could be a win."
"We" being politicians.

No, in fact what you're doing, Jim, is trying to manage the war for the military in spite of the views of the miltary that you profess such admiration for and deference to.

Suppose he has a clue?

Quote Of The Day

From this morning's Washington Times:
Tehran's useful idiots

As President Bush works to find strategies for victory in Iraq and dealing with the Iranian threat, the Democratic Party seems determined to send every possible signal to our enemies that they have nothing to worry about when it comes to the projection of American power in wartime. Prominent Democrats are increasingly behaving as if their primary mission is not to defeat Islamists determined to destroy Western civilization, but to do everything they can to ensure that they can turn Mr. Bush into a lame duck for the next two years regardless of the consequences for our national security. (link)
I leave it to others much smarter and wiser than me to determine if in fact the Democrats are useful, or not. But the idiot part certainly fits ...

Oh Yeah. They're Serious This Time.

To millions of people around the planet, including many here in the USA, who fret over the warming of the globe, this news will bring solace, perhaps even great joy:
World leaders rally around climate-change issue
By John Zarocosta, The Washington Times

Davos, Switzerland -- The world's political and business elite packed up yesterday and headed home from their five-day annual session in Davos, united in the belief that climate change poses the most serious threat to the planet.

Much of the attention focused on President Bush's initiative, announced in his State of the Union address, to slash gasoline consumption by 20 percent -- something British Prime Minister Tony Blair saw as evidence that the U.S. mood on climate change "is in the process of a quantum shift."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel lauded the announcement as "encouraging ... and an ambitious target" that is absolutely necessary. (
Goodness. Sounds like these people are serious about solving what many consider to be a problem of Biblical proportions (and others consider to be a Godsend). Perhaps they're going to get to work and do something about that global warming scourge.

But wait. Haven't they all said this stuff before? Didn't they all resolve to solve this pesky global warming problem already? Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that these pronouncements are nothing more than hot air?

Perhaps because none of these jokers has lifted a finger to accomplish that which he professes. In fact, since forcing us to endure the same blarney just a few years ago, these same "world leaders" galloped off in the opposite direction:
Figures reveal Europe falling far short of climate targets
By David Gow, The Guardian

The European Union, self-styled global champion in the battle against climate change, is falling woefully short of its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and will need to take radical measures to achieve them, new projections have shown.

The new figures predict that emissions in 2010 will actually be 0.3% higher than they were in 2004.

... seven countries - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain - would exceed their individual emission limits ... Spain is projected to exceed its 1990 emissions by 51.3% ...

... Ireland is projected to reach 30% above 1990 levels by 2010 ... and Portugal 42.7% higher ... (link)
So we find ourselves going down a well-worn path. European leaders get together, bad-mouth the USA for its substandard environmental standards, sign, with great fanfare, groundbreaking agreements to boost their own environmental standards, and then ignore same. And get together a few years later to (party their brains out and ...) sign another environmental standards agreement they fully intend to ignore. Again.

These people make my bowels move.

Inclusivity Requires Exclusion?

Sometimes a newspaper headline says it all. In the case of the Christian cross that was removed from the Christian chapel at the College Of William & Mary by its empty-minded president so as to bring about greater religious inclusivity, the Washington Times nails it:

More suitable words cannot be written.

The Age In Which We Live

I noticed an interesting phenomenon play out after the November elections. Those bloggers on the left who were so devoted to getting their guy into office, without really ever having or offering up any deep-seated reason why, posting in breathless tones and with a whole mess of exclamation marks, political commentary and links to breaking news stories - as well as to each other - throughout the day, every day, suddenly found themselves, the day after the election, with nothing to say.

So they sniped a bit, and back-patted a bit. Some even tried to keep the campaign going, they'd had such fun. But they eventually came to realize that it was over.

So they soon thereafter started in on the next election season.

Apparently that's the way of the future:
23-Month Campaign
New York Times editorial

In the old days, presidential races were one-year events. John F. Kennedy announced his candidacy on Jan. 2, 1960, and was elected that November. Earlier this month, would-be candidates who were still deciding whether to run in 2008 were being accused of reckless delay. Presidential campaign pundits were saying that if Senator Hillary Clinton had waited another minute to announce, Senator Barack Obama would have locked up every New Hampshire county committee member and hedge fund billionaire.

This really is an election on hyperspeed. (link)
May God have mercy. A never-ending campaign season. Round-the-clock on-the-hour-every-hour political commercials. Too many broken promises to keep track of. Hillary on your TV every day for years to come.

Maybe that's why I find myself, more and more, listening to 40's tunes on the radio.