1) From the Politico, “Talking About AfPak” by John McCain. Fair is fair – I’ve criticized the McCain campaign when it has stumbled. It is thus only right that I give McCain and his team credit when they get one right. McCain gave a speech today on Afghanistan that displayed a superior understanding of our military needs in Afghanistan. “Superior to whom?” you say. Why a certain longtime community organizer who we’ll be discussing in a bit, that’s who. Said McCain:
2) From BarackObama.com, “A New Strategy for a New World” by Barack Obama At the risk of letting my scrupulously maintained neutrality slip, I must admit even the title puts my teeth on edge. Is it too much to ask for the Obama campaign to avoid grandiose pretension in its speeches’ titles? And what you ask is the lynchpin of Obama’s “new strategy for a new world?” Of course its Barack Obama’s superior intellect!
One gets the sense that Obama truly thinks his call for a “tough, smart and principled security strategy” really represents a new paradigm. I will allow this much – it certainly sounds preferable to a wimpy, foolish and unprincipled strategy. You know what else grates? The alliterations of “Kandahar and Karachi” and “Beijing and Berlin.” It’s impossible not to get the sense that Obama cares a lot more about how his words sound than what (if anything) they mean. Don’t get me wrong – obviously we do have interests in Kandahar, Karachi, Beijing and Berlin. But that’s precisely the point. Obama’s assertion here is off the charts in terms of its banality. And yet by imbuing it with a lovely albeit increasingly tired cadence, Obama seems to think he’s saying something of import. Speaking of the meaning of Obama’s words, I suggested earlier in the day that Obama’s call for action in Afghanistan sounded more like rhetoric than something he intended to seriously pursue. Perusing left wing Blogistan, I found an unlikely second for this notion. Obama supporting and (need I add) Bush hating Middle East Professor Juan Cole said of Obama’s plan to send more troops to Afghanistan:
There you have it – even Obama’s friends doubt the sincerity of his military plans. In the interests of fairness, I should point out that Professor Cole published his sentiments yesterday, 24 hours before Obama delivered today’s major address. Perhaps Obama’s assault with alliteration has caused Cole to revise his views on the senator’s sincerity. 3) From the Wall Street Journal, “Paulson’s Fannie Test” by the editors The Journal’s editorial board has been taking a well justified victory lap over the near-implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If you click here and really want to get up to speed on what happened with the semi-socialist siblings, the Journal has a list of roughly 15 editorials it has published since 2002 that predicted this crisis with eerie prescience. My favorite line came when the Journal compared my longtime congressman Barney Frank to Mr. Magoo because of his inept oversight of the situation. I understand the Magoo estate is thinking of suing the Journal for libel. Today, the Journal looks forward and urges Secretary Paulson to put the corrupt and stumbling behemoths into federal receivership. The Journal also notes that because of so many Democrats’ compromised positions on this matter, Paulson will likely never again find congress so pliant:
4) From the Boston Globe, “A Matter of Loyalty in Iraq” by Padraig O’Malley If you want a sign of how desperate the left has gotten for talking points belittling the successes in Iraq, I encourage you to check out this op-ed. Author O’Malley was director of the Helsinki Talks, which were jointly convened by the Moakley Chair at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and the Institute of Global Leadership at Tufts University. I know – sounds impressive and very, very important. Unfortunately, O’Malley was subject to a cruel parade of horribles while in Iraq performing his vital work:
Wait until you hear how Malike violated “every principle of democracy.” You better steel yourself, because the following makes for tough reading:
Lest you run off concerned that the cocktail party never came off, O’Malley consoles us that “of course, a compromise was reached.” Nevertheless, the ensuing shindig was “contrived.” O’Malley has drawn the inescapable albeit difficult conclusion from this sad trail of events – Maliki’s initial pre-compromise shuttering of the Al-Rasheed’s catering services and his office’s subsequent dismissiveness proves “the psychological pathology that pervades Iraq five years after Saddam Hussein’s toppling is the same: instantaneous capitulation to the whims of the most powerful, with orders from the top implemented unquestioningly. Bowing to authoritarian diktats is still embedded in the national psyche because the consequences of not doing so are unclear and memories of what has happened in the past are too clear.” Mind you, O’Malley is angry because Maliki initially cancelled his cocktail party, which ultimately came off. I must say, O’Malley’s op-ed does no great service to either the Helsinki Talks (which for all I know are a very wonderful thing, although I doubt it) or the Boston Globe’s op-ed page which I assume likes to think of itself as a repository for serious commentary. 5) From HotAir.com, “Reporter to Bush: Why don’t you formally inform our moron public that they should use less gas?” by the Allahpundit It was awfully lonely on the internet last week with the Big A on vacation. Thank heavens he has returned, and is back to providing mordant commentary on the press’ idiocies:
Here’s the clip:
