Thinkin’bout Stuff

Be back soon.

Hours after I described Barack Obama as a good communicator, it occurred to me that, no matter how great the delivery, if the message stinks or the words are carelessly thrown about, you really can’t be a good communicator.

First we read about Obama’s spat with one of our most loyal allies. Now, while catching up on news from yesterday, I read this in the Washington Post:

Senator Barack Obama, circling through Iowa on Sunday before returning here on Day 2 of his presidential launch, challenged his Democratic rivals to lay out specifics for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and declared that the thousands of lives lost so far in the war had been “wasted.”

His recovery was almost as good:

He backtracked in an interview with the Des Moines Register, saying: “I was actually upset with myself. Their sacrifices are never wasted; that was sort of a slip of the tongue as I was speaking.

Sort of a slip of the tongue… sort of the kind of thing that might show a propensity for saying what he means and then having to retreat to repair the damage.

“The sacrifices they have made are unbelievable. What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership,” he added.

Right… he meant to say all that instead of the word “wasted”. 

It’s early in the campaign and this slip combined with the Howard slip may not indicate a pattern just yet, but it should not be forgotten just yet. First because of the potential that he speaks without considering the consequences of his words. Second because he may just believe the things he is saying.

Other thoughts on the topic: Cheat Seeking Missiles

Reading Wake Up America’s article on the evidence of Iranian weapons captured in Iraq, the thought occurred to me that we need to find a good way to dispose of those weapons.

But why should we take on that kind of responsibility? After all, those weapons were made by Iran, they should be returned to Iran and detonated so that they can never be sent back to Iraq to kill innocent Iraqi’s or US troops.

So, I think we should send them back to Iran via airmail, ensuring they are returned directly to Ahmadinejad. Seems only fair, and at least we can’t be accused of dropping American bombs on Iran… we’re just rendering unto Ahmadinejad the things which are Ahmadinejad’s.

The AP story about John McCain’s fears of a “Tet Offensive” in Iraq was so close to the truth, but the writer, Bob Lewis, failed to capture the why this potential exists.

McCain fears ‘Tet Offensive’ in Iraq

By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, ‘Tet Offensive.’ You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did,” the Arizona senator said.

McCain made his comment in explaining why he did not believe the Bush administration should set a date by which it should deem Bush’s troop increase a success or a failure.

“I think that it should be publicly open-ended because I think that if you set a date, that there’s every possibility that the insurgents would just lay back and wait until we leave,” McCain said.

Tet, a massive invasion in 1968 of South Vietnam by Communist North Vietnamese, inflicted enormous losses on U.S. and South Vietnamese troops and is regarded as a point where public sentiment turned sharply against the war.

Factual to a point, but missing critical facts that should be considered when assessing the current situation because we have failed to learn one of the key lessons of Vietnam: the enemy feeds upon the anti-war rhetoric of left-wing politicians, celebrities and media outlets, bolstering their morale and proving to them that the path to victory in any war with the United States is simply a matter of waiting for the left-wing propaganda machine to convince the rest of the country that we’ve already lost and need to surrender.

It can not be a good sign that Jane Fonda is back in action; how encouraging this must be to al Qaieda to know that Hanoi Jane herself is ready, willing and able to stand as a beacon of hope to all who oppose the United States.

So, let’s fill in a few blanks about the Tet Offensive:

From Wikipedia: The Tet offensive was a tactical defeat for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces, but it inflicted severe damage on American civilian morale and contributed to the withdrawal American forces from the country.

Compare to the Bob Lewis article:

Tet, a massive invasion in 1968 of South Vietnam by Communist North Vietnamese, inflicted enormous losses on U.S. and South Vietnamese troops and is regarded as a point where public sentiment turned sharply against the war.

Hmmm… where’s the part about this being a defeat for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces? If you knew nothing about the Tet Offensive, you would be inclined to believe this was a major victory for the North Vietnamese. In one way, I suppose it was. Because of people like Jane Fonda lying to the American people, victory turned into defeat. More from Wikipedia (bold mine)

The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. The Viet Cong’s operational forces were effectively crippled by the Offensive. Many Viet Cong who had been operating under cover in the cities of South Vietnam revealed themselves during the Offensive and were killed or captured. The organization was preserved for propaganda purposes, but in practical terms the Viet Cong were finished.  [...]

The Communist high command did not anticipate the psychological effect the Tet Offensive would have on America. For example, the attack on the U.S. Embassy was allocated only 19 Viet Cong soldiers, and even the expenditure of this force was considered by some VC officers to be misguided. Only after they saw how the U.S. was reacting to this attack did the Communists begin to propagandize it.  [...]

Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war. President Lyndon Johnson saw his popularity fall sharply after the Offensive, and he withdrew as a candidate for re-election in March of 1968. The Tet Offensive is frequently seen as an example of the value of media influence and popular opinion in the pursuit of military objectives. 

There are many lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War.

One we appear to have missed, although al Qaieda has learned it well, is that we can count on the press and the Far Left loons to do everything they can to erode support for the United States, ensuring that a persistent enemy, who can outlast the support for the war by the American people, is virtually assured of a victory courtesy of the Left-Wing propaganda machine. And yet, here we are again, being fed daily doses of negative opinions disguised as news reporting, and believing our only hope is to set a date to “redeploy”… 

One major difference… with Vietnam, the enemy wasn’t planning to continue the fight here at home…

I have to ask. Tough question in a PC world, but I really have to ask. What makes Barack Obama a legitimate candidate for president?

Sure, anyone can be a candidate. According to the United States Constitution, even I can be a candidate for president, although as an Independent it is very unlikely I’d have a chance even if I was the best person for the job. You might point to Ross Perot or Ralph Nadar as people with limited qualifications who were candidates for president; but let’s face it, they were never legitimate candidates. Amusing distractions? Sure. Potential spoilers? Perhaps. But would we have ever seen a President Perot or President Nadar… unlikely.

But Barack Obama is different. This man has a legitimate chance to win his party’s nomination over a somewhat weak field of candidates currently led by another candidate with questionable credentials for the job, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Why?

OK, I admit it, I like the guy. I don’t agree with many of his positions, but he definitely appears to have the charisma to attract followers and presents logical arguments for his positions; but why does that qualify him to be president?

Was it his seven years serving in the Illinois state senate? Quick, name three state senators from your home state. Can you even name one? Can you identify one that you think should be considered for a presidential run? Of course not. There is virtually nothing that a state senator would experience or learn that would provide the necessary experience or establish the necessary credentials that would lead any of us to believe they are ready to be the next President of the United States.

Was it his two years as a United States Senator? Many would argue, me included, that the skill set necessary to be a senator is not transferable to a governance role like president. We have not had a president elected directly from the Senate since JFK for good reason.

Was it his brave stand against the war that he apparently made while an Illinois state senator? The Reuters headline proclaims:

Obama says he opposed Iraq war from start

That was quite the risk he was taking considering all the evidence supporting the contention that Hussein had or was close to having WMDs and planned to use them and share them with terrorists; the evidence that Hussein actually was funding terrorist organizations and paying the families of suicide bombers for the “service” of their sons and daughters; the clear and indisputable human right violations that were occurring in Iraq including torture, rape, and mass murder, something I would imagine Barack Obama would oppose.

And yet, not really much of a risk since he did not need to tell anyone of his opposition until now when the political winds are filling the sails of those tacking to the left. How wonderful life would be if we could all wait until years after a decision is made to announce our position on that decision.

I’m not disputing his claim that he was opposed to the war from the start; I just don’t see announcing historical positions as bolstering his qualification for president. Perhaps he’d like to let us know his position on the D-Day invasion or the dropping of an atomic bomb on Japan to end the war in the Pacific.

But what makes Barack Obama a legitimate contender for the Democrat nomination for president? That’s right, you know it and I know it, it’s because he’s … a celebrity. (You thought I was going to say “African-American” didn’t you?)

You see, we like celebrities in this country; heck, some of us worship them. And yes, his celebrity status is due in no small part to the color of his skin (although that still amazes me that anyone cares what color skin we have…   it’s skin, get over it.) But it is much more than the color of his skin, otherwise we might be discussing Al Sharpton as a serious candidate.

Barack Obama is a communicator; and whether you agree with his positions or not, he is just the kind of candidate who could get elected in this popularity contest we call the Presidential Election. I continue to hope that we will be able to find a president who is qualified to lead and who is prepared to make the tough decisions to ensure the security of our nation; leave the popularity contests to class president and state senator.

Unfortunately, Obama already seems to have lost perspective on who our enemies are and who our allies are (from the same Reuters article):

Obama also had a sharp response for Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a Bush ally who said Obama’s proposals would create chaos in the Middle East.

“I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Howard said on Nine Network television.

Obama said it was “flattering” for a Bush ally to attack him the day after he formally launched his presidential bid but noted Australia had contributed 1,400 troops to the war compared to 140,000 U.S. troops.

“If he’s ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq,” he said. “Otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”

Prime Minister Howard was expressing his view that Obama’s proposals on Iraq would aid the cause of terrorists, sending the message that the United States is not prepared to stand by their commitments in the region and will turn and run if hit hard enough. In other words, leaving Iraq would reinforce the message sent to the terrorist community in Somalia under President Clinton.

In response, Obama essentially told Howard to either send more troops or shut up. Is this how President Obama will respond to criticism from our friends? By essentially calling them irrelevant? Interesting that Ambassador Bolton was tough on our enemies, was criticized by the left and driven out of the UN; bet we don’t hear any criticism of Obama’s “diplomatic” approach to one of our top allies.

This highlights the fact that, although a good communicator, Barack Obama has a lot to learn about relationships with our friends and decisions concerning the content of the messages he communicates in public; we can not afford on-the-job training in a world where our true friends, such as Australia and Great Britain, are so critical to our success in the war against the terrorists.

Update:  Aussie News & Views responds to Obama. (Hat tip to Wake Up America)  An excerpt:

Barack Obama is either very badly advised or a complete fool to smear Australia by implying via his comments we are not carrying our share of the load or not putting our money where our mouth is in Iraq.

He has neglected to acknowledge Australia (not Austria, thats over near Germany) also has troops in Afghanistan,Timore,Soloman Islands,Egypt and SAS in the Philippines,it would seem that Obama like so many on the left in the USA and Australia see nothing worthwhile in acknowledging that commitment to peace keeping, in a region of the world where the most populace Muslim nation on earth,Indonesia,is but a stones throw from Australia’s northern doorstep,Darwin, in other words Barack our defence forces are flat out like lizards drinking.

I wonder does Barack Obama know how many personnel Australia has in its defense forces,I wonder does he know the population of Australia and the size of the country, I hope the answer is no he does not, to both questions,that way he could only be labeled an ignorant fool and not a malicious mischief maker attempting to make cheap political capital by smearing Australia’s defense forces for implying they are not doing enough in Iraq.

It will be interesting to see how this law suit is resolved, but if Keith Urban is successful in his suit against Keith Urban (same name, different guy), the implication will be that the rights of the famous trump the rights of the rest of us, once again highlighting that the “us vs. them” in this country is not about money, it’s about fame.

Singer Keith Urban sues Keith Urban over Web site: Urban has filed a lawsuit against a painter of the same name, claiming that the lesser known Keith Urban’s Web site infringes trademark and cyber-squatting laws.

Singer Urban filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tennessee, Friday against the New Jersey painter who uses the Web site address www.keithurban.com to advertise oil paintings for sale.

The singer, 39, wants the other Web site to be shut down and its domain name transferred to his ownership. He also seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Damages? He suffered damages because a painter with the same name has a website, using his own name, where he sells paintings that he probably also signs with his name, and happened to reserve the domain name first? What damages could he have possibly suffered? Are the paintings so bad that Urban the singer has been embarrassed that people believe they are his paintings? (Actually, they are quite good) Have people been buying paintings from Urban the painter believing he is really Urban the singer? I guess anything is possible, but how is any of this Urban the painters fault?

This is show business arrogance on display folks. How dare someone use their own name if it happens to be the same name as the famous Mr. Urban (the singer, not the painter).

I wonder who was born first. Maybe the guy who was born first gets to keep the name and the other guy has to change it, not just for the website, but for everything. Perhaps Urban the painter should file a counter suit insisting that, as a Jersey guy, he is embarrassed that people confuse him with an Aussie who sings country songs.

I checked out the painter’s website. The copyright notice indicates the site has been around since 1998, before Urban the singer was even a solo artist… talk about arrogance. He gets “famous” after this innocent painter, who clearly was not trying to piggy-back off of the singer’s fame, establishes his place on the net, and the singer wants the painter to not only move, but also pay damages? Are you kidding me? Damages? Was this painter supposed to wake up one day and realize some arrogant singer with am inflated ego was going to have a hissy fit over a website that this painter had before anyone even heard of Keith Urban the singer?

Amazing!

OK.. a wee bit early, but I saw this story on Yahoo! News with a photo of a hugging couple buried about 5,000 years ago that really got my attention.

Not only is this couple hugging, they appear to be gazing into each other’s eyes at the very moment of their passing. We may never know their story, but we can imagine two young people in love, at the moment of realization that their time in this world was at end, comforting each other as they began their journey to eternal rest, desperately clinging to the hope that they will be joined together forever in everlasting peace.

I know that whatever happened to these young lovers happened a very long time ago, but the message of love that they have given us so many years later is as powerful as any captured by artist’s brush or writer’s pen; their sadness over time together cut short, perhaps some regret over wasted moments spent on the unimportant, some concern for loved one’s left behind, and a final compassionate embrace to overcome their fears and accept whatever fate awaits them.

To me, their message of love reminds us to live every day as if it may be your last, tell those you love that you love them, don’t wait until tomorrow to live your dreams… every day is a gift full of surprises. Some bring joy, some bring sadness, but they all bring opportunities.  Unwrap each one and live all that life has to offer, and remember to thank God for each gift of a new day.