Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

I'm sure you've all heard about Bush going to Israel and mocking those who want to talk to Iran (the Nazi's in this little analogy-always classy).

Honestly, OK, cool. If you think talking is a bad move, you're the President, you're the chief diplomat so that's your call. But you would think you would get your cabinet on board before you go about running them under the bus.

Since the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that it wasn't talking about Obama,

there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to".

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she added.

"That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.

So, if it's not Obama who could be included in the nameless masses that W was referring?

Could it have really been a way to attack Defense Secretary Robert Gates? After all, Gates was on record the day before saying we need to engage Iran in talks. Maybe this was W's way of chastising his Secretary of Defense. I mean what good is a Secretary of Defense who's an appeaser?

What about McCain? McCain also mocks Obama for wanting to talk. From Yahoo!

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Excellent point. What kind of a jackass thinks its a good idea to talk (Gates) and more importantly for the American people, what kind of jackass would support that jackass? Not John McCain, that's for sure. Wait, what? McCain voted to confirm Gates? Well, surely it was reluctant. Let's look at the transcripts from the hearing.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this nation again. We're very grateful. We know you left a very comfortable life in Texas to serve this nation again, and we are grateful. And I would like to offer my congratulations and condolences for your appointment.

MCCAIN: ...I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of our nation's security and the men and women who serve it as our highest priority.

And I hope you will help us gain consensus so that, as a nation, we can move forward and make sure that the American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this conflict.

And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

Hmmm, well that doesn't look good. I guess McCain will be calling for national attention on why the Secretary of Defense wants to sit down with terrorists. I imagine he'll be calling for W to fire Gates for beings such a stupid sissy. I'll be right here waiting...

I Am Sub-Prime

The sub-prime meltdown and the ensuing tsk-tsk's started me thinking (good thing I had my Excedrin handy, thinking always gives me a headache). The general attitude seems to be "well, the borrowers should have known better" and, "obviously, borrowers should have known that those rates weren't forever" or even, "you simply cannot get a house for free."

OK, I hear and understand all of the above. But here's the thing. In a very real way, we are all sub-prime borrowers. Not because of any fallout regarding mortgages. Nope, not that simple. We're all involved because we, as voters, have all bought into the GOP notion that "deficits don't matter." (Well not all Americans. H-Blog readers are well aware of that this GOP notion is utter nonsense-quick examples here, here, here, and here. Two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate? H-blog, H-blog, yaaaaaaaay H-blog!).

For example, when we fund a multi-gazillion dollar war solely on debt, we're signing on the "no money down" line of our nations mortgage loan.

When we continue to borrow, and assume that we will aways grow our way out of our debt payments, we're committing the "I'll always get raises to cover my spending" mistake that leads to taking on more debt than our nation's household can reasonably sustain.

When we continue to borrow thinking that we can always get others to finance our spending, we're committing the "Las Vegas homes will always go up in value" mistake of the real estate speculator who does OK in good times but goes busted in bad.

So before anyone gets too high and mighty on those who are going busted in sub-prime, I suggest taking a good long look in the mirror. By default, you're in just as deep (I say deeper) and you've fallen for the same "it will all work out, sign here" scam as those who bought their house with too much leverage. You bought the same, "it will cost you nothing" argument, the same, "you can always make the payments" argument, and the same, "someone will aways be there to buy it at a profit argument" argument. In the end, you accepted the same, "it all makes sense in the math, just sign here" argument. Why? Because you really didn't understand the math, because you trusted "experts" who were conflicted because they were profiting on our signature, and most importantly, because we wanted to. So show a little sympathy for the busted homeowners. You're heading in the same direction.

Bush's real, lasting, legacy will be that of the mortgage broker who got the nation to sign away the house.

Is a Change a Comin'?

I'm not sure anyone should be ready to call Al-Jazeera an ally in the war on terror just yet. But is it possible that time is now on our side? Bin Laden is clearly frustrated with the inability of his holy warriors to drive out the crusaders. Bush's stubbornness has apparently gotten under his craw. And now Al-Jazeera has realized it's good press to report on the dissension in the ranks of terrorism. So the west can no longer pretend that the Iraqi resistance is unified and unyielding and conclude that Bush should just give up and go home.

What our generation (and our parent's) has not had to learn is that war is a long, brutal process. And the winner doesn't have to execute the best or strategize the best. Often the winner just has to wait for the other guy to blink. Now the Left started blinking about the time the dust from the Twin Towers got in their eyes, but thankfully, they aren't America. America, has been considering blinking for several years now but hasn't. And that is almost solely to the credit of President Bush who hasn't allowed it. In that time, there has been no sign that the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere were even considering blinking. But now, with Al Jazeera willing to report that there may be disunity in the great struggle against the occupiers one can't help but wonder if this isn't the beginning. Shouldn't it be obvious to everyone that the longer the insurgents see that their tactics are failing the more frustrated and disheartened they will become? Perhaps common sense isn't so common.