Knowing What He Knows Now...He'd Still Prefer to Lose

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at LeftCoastBlues do the heavy thinking on behalf of those who just can’t be bothered.

Everyone who hasn’t been living in a cave for the last week or so knows that Barak Obama has finally decided that maybe he should actually go see this Iraq place that he’s been promising to pull us out of. The press has, of course, been covering his every move. But this morning, as I was reading the morning newspaper, I saw a quote that just about made me spew my morning latte across the breakfast table.

As Obama’s visit to Iraq wrapped up, ABC’s Terry Moran asked, “If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?” Obama immediately answered, “No,” then stuttered a little, then observed that these kind of hypothetical questions were “very difficult.” Well, yeah – because you’ve either got to admit that you were wrong, or say something astoundingly stupid. He opted for the latter.

Let’s recap for a moment, in case you’ve forgotten the time line:

• In January, 2007, the United States Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as the new Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Barak Obama was one of those who voted in favor of his confirmation. During those hearings, General Petraeus spoke very candidly about the planned troop surge and about the resources he was going to need to actually accomplish the job he had taken on – with the blessing of Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden, among others.
• The ink was barely dry on General Petraeus’ official orders when the Democrats began opposing the surge. Obama stated, on MSNBC (January 10, 2007), “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
• In March, April, and May of 2007 the Democrats told us repeatedly that the surge had failed – even though it wouldn’t reach its full strength until sometime in July. Harry Reid went so far as to say publicly that the war was lost.
• In July, 2007, just as the surge was finally reaching full strength, Obama stated on the Today show, “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” A few days later, campaigning in New Hampshire, he said, “Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked.”
• By last September, it was obvious that the surge was working, and we were making serious progress in Iraq. As time drew near for General Petraeus’ September briefing to Congress, Democrats started desperately trying to spin the situation, culminating in Senator Dick Durbin’s mind-boggling statement, “By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that the violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong.” (Italics added.)
• November, 2007 – two months after General Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama again stated that the surge was actually making the situation in Iraq worse.
• Today, July 22, 2008, it is crystal clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that the surge has worked. Al Qaeda is on the run. The Iraqi people finally feel secure enough to cooperate with coalition forces, and that’s made all the difference in the world. The Iraqi army is stepping up. The troops are starting to come home. The Iraqi government is feeling secure enough to actually play a little hardball with the US in terms of what kind of long term deal we should have there. By the way, Obama’s campaign team re-worked his Web site last weekend to remove his criticism of the surge. His new plan for Iraq, while still critical of the Bush Administration’s approach, really doesn’t sound that different from it. Despite his continued reference to a 16-month timeline, his plan now states that “The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government…a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.” (Italics added.) That, I suppose, is just another example of "change you can believe in."

I’m frankly having trouble figuring out if Obama really knows where he stands. He has said repeatedly that he would listen to his “commanders on the ground.” Yet while he acknowledged today that “There’s no doubt that General Petraeus does not want a timetable…I think he wants maximum flexibility to be able to do what he believes needs to be done inside of Iraq,” he also said (again with the characteristic stammering that seems to occur whenever someone bumps him off his script) that deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground say would not be doing his job as commander in chief. Now, personally, when we’re in the middle of a war, if we have a commander in chief who has never served in the military, let alone led troops in combat, I hope to God that he does listen to and follow the advice of his commanders on the ground. Who else should he be taking advice from? Nancy Pelosi?

As we grow nearer to the Presidential election, the Democrats are faced with their biggest foreign policy nightmare: President Bush’s plan is working, and we are winning the war in Iraq. They don’t know what to do about it, so they’re hoping that the economy gets worse so that people will be focused on that instead of remembering that for the last five or six years, the Democrat party has been doing everything it possibly could to get us to declare defeat and go home when it is now obvious to any fair-minded person that the war was indeed winnable…because we’re winning it. Which has to make you wonder how much sooner we could have reached this place if we’d had the support of both political parties all along.

But as you prepare to cast your vote, just remember – even knowing what he knows now, Barak Obama would still have opposed what we now know was a winning strategy. I’m having a tough time understanding how that’s different from saying that he’d rather we had lost.

Thanks for listening.

We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us!

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at LeftCoastBlues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

In my last post, I presented my case that the current sky-high gas prices aren’t the fault of the oil companies, and aren’t the fault of the speculators, and promised to tell you whose fault it is. Then I promptly left town for a week. Then it took me a week to find my desk again when I returned. But here we are, ready to reveal the big secret.

Ready? Got a mirror handy? Go look in the mirror, and you’ll see whose fault it is. Yep, it’s our fault…but maybe not for the reasons you think. It’s not our fault because we didn’t conserve enough. It’s not our fault because we insisted on driving our SUVs, or didn’t take public transportation frequently enough. No, it’s our fault for believing our politicians when they tell us that there is such a thing as a free lunch, and then not holding them accountable when it becomes obvious that they’ve lied to us.

We are the only industrialized nation on the planet that has voluntarily placed a large percentage of our own natural energy resources off-limits. For the last ten years or so, we’ve bought the idea that we didn’t need to increase our own domestic oil production, and we didn’t need to build more refineries, and somehow things would magically work out with those alternative energy sources we’ve been pursuing.

What has it got us? Well, $5/gallon gasoline, for one thing. Far greater dependence on imported oil, for another. Oh, and the price of corn is now going through the roof, because so much of it is being consumed to make ethanol. Guess what that does to food prices? Like a good steak now and then? Ever hear the phrase “corn-fed beef?” Ever read the ingredients label on the stuff you eat every day and see how many items contain corn syrup or some other corn-derived product? Not to mention your morning corn flakes. Just be thankful that corn tortillas aren’t your primary staple, like they are for a lot of people in the world who are now finding it difficult to buy enough corn to make them. Yep, the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

In April of 2006, when the price of oil was around $70/barrel, Nancy Pelosi issued a press release that said, “Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices…Our plan would empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on price gouging to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices, increase production of alternative fuels, and rescind the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies.”

You can read the full press release at http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April06/GasPrices.html. I would encourage you to do just that, and think hard about what you’re reading. Back when that press release was issued, gas prices had soared to a national average of $2.90/gallon. And Nancy Pelosi could tell you exactly why: It was the fault of the evil George Bush and the “Republican Rubber Stamp Congress,” who continued to give subsidies to the evil oil companies, who were reaping “gigantic profits” and paying their executives “astronomical compensation.” It was “just the latest example of the wealthy few benefiting at the expense of hard-working Americans under the Bush Administration.” But the Democrats had a plan. If we would just put them in power, they would bring down the skyrocketing gas prices.

That fall, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. How did that work out? Well, the price of oil has roughly doubled on the world market, and $2.90/gallon now looks like the good old days. What happened to the plan? Guess cracking down on price gouging and increasing production of alternative fuels didn’t quite work the way it was intended. And, of course, according to Nancy Pelosi, it’s still the fault of the evil George Bush and the evil oil companies. One thing is for certain, according to the Democrats: we can’t “drill our way out” of our current situation, because any new oil fields we found would take at least ten years to bring on line. Frankly, that tells me two things: (1) we should have started drilling ten years ago, and the people who prevented us from doing that should be thrown the heck out of office, and (2) we’ll be in a worse mess ten years from now if we don’t start drilling today.

Yet, despite their abject failure to do anything constructive that would actually have a positive effect on energy prices, we now have Democrats in Congress talking seriously about nationalizing the oil industry! Why, in the name of all that’s rational, would we want the government running the oil industry? Because they did so well with Amtrak and the Postal Service? You’ve got to be kidding me…but they’re not – they’re as serious as a heart attack.

A recent Rasmussen poll taken earlier this month found that Congress’ approval rating stood at 9%. That’s the lowest approval rating ever. President Bush’s approval rating – which the media delights in telling us is abysmal – is three times higher. Yet, if historical trends hold true, this fall 80 - 90% of the sitting members of the House and Senate who seek re-election will be re-elected – and that’s what amazes me.

Psychologists use the term “cognitive dissonance” to describe the stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. There must be a lot of cognitive dissonance going around if Congress as a whole has a 9% approval rating, yet individual members of Congress have about a 90% chance of being re-elected.

Folks, it’s time to stop measuring the performance of our Senators and Representatives by how many “earmarks” they can successfully bury in legislation that will bring us our share of the pork, and start holding them accountable for what they actually do about important issues. Because at the end of the day – and I’m speaking specifically of the first Tuesday in November here – the American people pretty much end up with the government they deserve.

In the immortal words of Walt Kelly (the creator of Pogo): “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Thanks for listening.

P.S.: Interestingly enough, the price of oil has actually declined more than $10/barrel over the last week. Why? Well, it wasn’t because of anything that Nancy Pelosi – or anyone else in Congress – did. It declined because of concerns that slowing economic growth in the United States, and reduced consumption because of high prices, would reduce future demand for oil. And when demand drops, assuming that supply stays constant, prices fall. That, as we stated previously, is the way a free market works.