1) From the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Way Past Time for U.S. to Recommit to Afghanistan” by Senator Robert Casey. I love the smell of a moldy talking point in the morning. Having been caught flatfooted by the Iraq war going unexpectedly well, the Democratic party has developed a sudden need to find a new Bush foreign policy fiasco to whine about. The answer? Afghanistan. In this tedious op-ed, Senator Casey repeats every exhausted trope about Afghanistan that you’ve heard Democratic talking heads mutter since the dark days when John Kerry was a national figure. “Our initial success in Afghanistan was followed by years of neglect…The Bush administration took its eye off the ball by shifting U.S. military forces out of Afghanistan during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Our senior uniformed military officers acknowledge that the United States continues to have inadequate forces in Afghanistan, in large part due to the demands of our ongoing presence in Iraq.” So here’s the question: Is Senator Casey actually suggesting that we send more of our children into Afghanistan, the great maw of death and the burial ground of empire? That would be pretty bold stuff. Casey does specifically call for a “Marshall Plan for Afghanistan,” but I’m unclear what such a gambit involves. And what of the Democrats’ presumptive nominee? Barack Obama has used similar language in discussing Afghanistan. Does his vision of “recommitting” and “putting our eye back on the ball” include sending more troops? Or is it all just a bunch of rhetorical gobbledygook, and do the Democrats have as little interest in constructively engaging Afghanistan as they do Iraq? I’ll save you a trip to BarackObama.com to seek out the answer. “Afghanistan” doesn’t even rank as an issue that the site deems fit of mention. Then again, if you wish to further your knowledge on Obama’s positions on such pressing and controversial matters as “Rural” or “Ethics,” then don’t let me dissuade you from taking a gander. 2) From NextRight.com, “The Election Will Polarize Around Obama” by Patrick Ruffini. Ruffini, my erstwhile blogging partner at HughHewitt.com, piggybacks on a Politico report regarding the way Obama dominates the campaign and concludes, “It’s probably not a wise use of the McCain campaign’s time to try and dominate the news cycle and the public consciousness in the same way Obama does, but rather to ensure that in an election that can easily be summed up as Obama vs. Not Obama, Not Obama wins the narrative.” Ruffini also mentions the golden James Carville quote, “There has never been a major party candidate less relevant in an election than John McCain. It’s all about Obama.” Ruffini’s final observation is also worth pondering: “Obama is a cultural icon. But so are Tom Cruise and Britney Spears. The danger to this celebrity strategy is that it’s rendering Obama’s trump card — partisan contrast and ‘Bush’s third term’ — irrelevant.” Could Obama have raised expectations so high that when/if he falls, the crash will be mighty and irrevocable? Our recent presidents who achieved truly stratospheric and thus trans-partisan approval ratings (Bush 41 and 43) never recovered their footing when they fell from their perch. For some reason, this entire conversation has upset the normally placid Andrew Sullivan, who lashed out at Ruffini, “Keep throwing s**t at the horse, Patrick. But it didn’t work for the Clintons and it doesn’t seem to be working for McCain.” I have to admit, I’m unfamiliar with the metaphor of throwing dung at a horse. I’ve heard of throwing dung at a wall and seeing what sticks, but this one is new to me. But that’s what’s so great about the blogosphere – you learn interesting new uses for obscenities virtually every day. 3) From the New York Times, “Lurching with Abandon” by Bob Herbert. Some good blue-on-blue action:
While many readers here will feel an unmistakable frisson from a Times op-ed columnist going after Obama, I feel the need to point out an inconvenient truth. Can there be any doubt that Obama, in incurring the ire of the Bob Herberts and Frank Riches of the world, has almost surely put himself on the right track? 4) From the Wall Street Journal, “Iran’s President Dismisses Threat of War With U.S., Israel” by some guy who works for the Associated Press. Forget about the substance – let’s talk style. A-Jad first fired off a really lively metaphor: “Any hands, any finger that wants to pull the trigger to send the bullet toward us will be caught by the Iranian people.” He then morphed into a Persian speaking version of Jesse Jackson: “(The next American government will) need at least 30 years in order to compensate, renovate and innovate the damages done by Mr. Bush.” 30 years? Obviously, A-jad underestimates the power of Hope/Change. Speaking of Hope/Change, A-Jad is willing to return an Obama favor: “He said he is also willing to meet with presumed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.” Just like Obama, A-jad made no mention of either preparations or preconditions. 5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Obama’s Nixon Reprise” by Bret Stephens. When I was an 8th grader in 1980, my junior high history teacher beguiled his young charges with the story of how Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968 promising a “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War. We liberal Boston teens marveled at the gullibility of the American people who voted for such a fiend over noble opponents like Hubert H. Humphrey and George McGovern. My teacher somehow failed to mention that in 1968 before Nixon took over, there were over half a million troops in Vietnam. By 1972, that number had dropped to fewer than 70,000 with 641 casualties that year. There had been 16,000 in 1968. So maybe the Nixon plan, in spite of its secret status, wasn’t such a failure or a campaign fabrication after all. Stephens brings this up in the context of Obama’s plan to end the Iraq war. Since Obama has distanced himself from his earlier vows of abject surrender, what the longtime community organizer will order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do is anyone’s guess:
80,000 troops? Is that Obama’s secret plan? If he wins, let’s hope it’s something along those lines. Still, someone better keep this from the kids at Daily Kos. BONUS: From Yahoo, “Fake Ark. Bouts Showing Men Kissing Draw Suspicion” The lede says it all: “LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Crowds in Arkansas came for the lure of cage fighting and $1 beer, but police say what they got instead was men ripping each others’ clothes off and kissing – a stunt suspected of being orchestrated by Sacha Baron Cohen of ‘Borat’ fame. ” There’s comedy, and then there’s fearless comedy. This falls into the latter category. And yes, it was Sacha Baron Cohen’s character “Bruno” who was behind the mirth. Below is the poster that lured unsuspecting Mixed Martial Arts fans into becoming extras in Cohen’s new movie.
