Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
OK, sarcasm (and crocodile tears) aside, let's quickly move on to politics. The past week in Washington has seen somewhat of a frenzy of activity. So many things are getting done (or at least getting talked about) that it's almost impossible to keep track of everything. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on your point of view, of course.
Below is the transcript of the speech President Obama's gave accepting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. It is an interesting speech, and not exactly the normal remarks given by past recipients. Obama notes the irony of accepting an award for peace just after announcing he will escalate a war. But rather than comment upon Obama's words, we thought it would be better to just present an unedited transcript for you to read today.
We do offer a heartfelt apology for the silliness of our opening segment. We make a solemn promise that such silliness will not appear in these hallowed pages ever again... once such silliness disappears from both politics in general, and the media's obsessive lunacy. Once silliness is absent from both of those, we'll never resort to it again, how's that?
At first glance, it seems like nobody's happy with President Obama's new Afghanistan strategy, announced Tuesday night before an audience of West Point cadets. Voices from the left and right (for different reasons, of course) are decrying the president's decision as not what they wanted to hear. Hard-liners are attempting to score political points, from both sides of the aisle. But when you strip away the heated rhetoric, what remains? To me, the core question becomes: "Is Obama's new policy a good thing or a bad thing, and does it have a chance of working?" OK, that's really two questions. And, for now, I think the answer to both is: "Maybe." Maybe, and then again, maybe not.
But, by doing so, his approval numbers continued their gradual slide downwards this month. And, although not reflected in our once-a-month snapshot, the truly worrisome thing for the White House is that for the first time, Obama's numbers flirted with going below 50 percent. This isn't an enormous deal (as, for instance, going below 40 percent would be), but it is still a big red flag to politicians, because it means you don't have the job approval of over half of the public.
I know I'm supposed to be writing about Afghanistan today, in advance of President Obama's speech tonight, but I am still waiting to hear what the man has to say before analyzing it, so you'll just have to join me as I wait and see.
The idea itself is a basic one -- pay for the costs of war now, instead of endlessly borrowing money in order to do so. A few weeks ago, the White House leaked an interesting factoid -- it costs one million dollars to put one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year. This is a nice round number, and gets people to think about the war in a new light -- how much it costs.
This column is really a second installment to yesterday's ("How To Not Give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed What He Wants"), where I took a look at two of the criticism's against Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal civilian court rather than in a military tribunal.
There was an absolute prime, Grade-A example of media cluelessness this week which is still unfolding, much to my bemusement, so I thought I'd start by pointing it out. Nothing to perk everyone up like a little well-deserved media-bashing, eh?
It must be a little hard to understand, for anyone reading this under the age of about 30 or so, the significance of the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. Because one event has become historical shorthand for an immense change in the dynamics of not just our country, but the entire world. We've all seen the pictures of an exuberant crowd at the Brandenburg Gate (or "Checkpoint Charlie"), seemingly tearing The Wall down with their bare hands. But it wasn't just one wall, or one city, or even one country that the events in Berlin were changing -- it was the entire political makeup of the planet. Because the fall of The Wall signified the fall of the Soviet Union, and an end to the Cold War. And while this was of enormous historical import, I fear that future generations won't really pay much attention to it. Truth be told, I can already feel it slipping away in the American consciousness. Which, while I understand the impulse, I still think is a shame. Because as the Cold War is forgotten, passing into the dusty pages of children's history books, we run the risk of forgetting some of its lessons.