Cocky Ignorance

[MDM4AU 336]

June 10, 2008

Cocky Ignorance

By Thomas Sowell

Now that Sen. Barack Obama has become the Democrats’ nominee for president of the United States, to the cheers of the media at home and abroad, he has written a letter to the secretary of defense, in a tone as if he is already president, addressing one of his subordinates.

The letter ends: “I look forward to your swift response.”

With wars going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a secretary of defense might have some other things to look after, before making a “swift response” to a political candidate.

Because of the widely publicized statistic that suicide rates among American troops have gone up, Obama says he wants the secretary of defense to tell him, swiftly:

-- “What changes will you make to provide our soldiers in theater with real access to mental health care?”

-- “What training has the Pentagon provided our medical professionals in theater to recognize who might be at risk of committing suicide?”

-- “What assistance are you providing families here at home to recognize the risk factors for suicide, so that they may help our service members get the assistance they need?”

-- “What programs has the Pentagon implemented to help reduce the stigma attached to mental-health concerns so that service members are more likely to seek appropriate care?”

All this sounds very plausible, as so many other things that Obama says sound plausible. But, like so many of those other things, it will not stand up under scrutiny.

What has been widely publicized in the media is that suicides among American troops have gone up. What has not been widely publicized is that this higher suicide rate is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

No one needs to be reminded that suicide is a serious matter, whether among soldiers or civilians. But the media have managed to create the impression that it is military service overseas which is the cause of suicides among American troops, when civilians of the same ages and other demographic characteristics are committing suicide at an even higher rate at home.

Moreover, this is not the first time that military service overseas has been portrayed in the media as the cause of problems that are worse in the civilian population at home.

The New York Times led the way in making homicides committed by returning military veterans a front-page story, blaming this on “combat trauma and the stress of deployment.” Yet the New York Post showed that the homicide rate among returning veterans is a fraction of the homicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

In other words, if military veterans are not completely immune to the problems found among civilians at home, then the veterans’ problems are to be blamed on military service — at least by the mainstream media.

Does Obama know how the rate of suicides or homicides among military veterans compares to the rate of suicides or homicides among their civilian counterparts? Do the facts matter to him, as compared to an opportunity to score political points?

Perhaps even more important, do the media even care whether Obama knows what he is talking about? Or is the symbolism of “the first black president” paramount, even if that means a president with cocky ignorance at a time of national danger?

The media have been crucial to Obama’s whole candidacy. His only achievements of national significance in his entire career have been media achievements and rhetorical achievements.

Perhaps his greatest achievement has been running as a candidate with an image wholly incompatible with what he has actually been doing for decades. This man who is now supposedly going to “unite” us has for years worked hand in glove, and contributed both his own money and the taxpayers’ money, to people who have sought to divide us in the most crude demagogic ways.

With all his expressed concern about the war in Iraq, he has not set foot in Iraq for more than two years — including the very years when progress has been made against the terrorists there.

You don’t need to know the facts when you have cocky ignorance and the media behind you.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._ignorance.html

[Tigermike 3,055]

In response to the arrogant, great hope of the dimocrats I will re-post this. Since the dims really don't care to hear anything good about the WOT in general and this administration as a whole.

GATES THE GREAT

SECDEF A PATRIOT WITH GUTS

Ralph Peters

Effective: Gates isn't interested in excuses.

June 12, 2008 -- MIRACLES do happen: A Bush Cabinet officer has proven not only competent, but wise, honest, independent and courageous.

That man is Defense Secretary Robert Gates - who just may be the best SecDef this country has ever had.

If only he could stay on into the next administration, he might rival our greatest Secretary of War, Elihu Root, the crucial military reformer of the early 20th century.

Gates is just and deliberate, but he's wonderfully tough when it's time to make hard decisions. In his brief tenure - since Dec. 18, 2006 - he's stood up to each of the services when they deserved it.

Even more crucially (and dangerously), he's been willing to face down the plutocrats of the defense industry - the thugs in $3,000 suits who've robbed our military for decades, stealing your tax dollars.

Gates' most-recent demonstration of patriotic guts involved firing the Air Force secretary and chief of staff.

They had it coming. The secretary was oblivious and inert. The chief of staff, Gen. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, thought that the only Air Force missions that mattered were supporting Lockheed Martin and fighting attempts to expand the use of cost-effective UAVs (a k a "drones").

A member of the Air Force's notorious "fighter-pilot mafia," Moseley pushed bankrupting buys of aircraft-without-an-enemy, such as the F-22 - then refused to send that platinum-plated piece of junk to Iraq, where its defects and limitations would've been exposed before the buy was complete.

Meanwhile, Moseley and the dozing service secretary continued to neglect our nation's nuclear deterrent - even after repeated embarrassments showed that mission and safety standards had eroded almost to Soviet levels.

Moseley always had an excuse for every security breach. But Gates wasn't interested in excuses. Instead, he applied a military axiom: "The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters."

Gates not only faced down the Air Force's entrenched fighter-pilot mafia, his new choice for Air Force chief of staff reflects that service's real missions: Gen. Norton Schwartz made his bones flying transport aircraft and in special operations - two disciplines that matter.

While Moseley's fair-haired boys drilled very expensive holes in the sky over Nevada in $330 million aircraft that never flew a combat mission, the in-the-fight Air Force of transport crews, special operators, ground controllers and ground-attack pilots were at war.

Gates fired the prince and put the pauper on the throne - then went in person to a series of Air Force bases to tell blue-suiters why he did it.

Nor does Gates "pick on" the Air Force. On the contrary, he may be the best friend the Air Force has had in decades. He just raised a stop sign in front of those willing to cut Air Force personnel to the bone to keep funding ever-more-expensive, ever-less-relevant aircraft. This SecDef wants a robust Air Force that can fight.

He holds the other services accountable, too: Questioning the cost and utility of the Future Combat System - a divisive issue within the Army itself - Gates "went Missouri," demanding evidence of how this $200 billion package would contribute meaningfully to the range of conflicts we face now and will face in the future.

The Navy and Marine Corps have had to answer tough questions, too. Everyone gets a fair hearing, but if Gates remains unconvinced, he'll go high-noon with the vested interests. And his decisions always favor our troops in combat.

When the generals decided not to buy vehicles designed to deflect roadside bombs - since they might not be useful in future conflicts - Gates overruled them. In the view of this SecDef, protecting our troops now is more important than fantasies about tomorrow.

That said, Gates respects his generals just as he values the privates. He just won't tolerate substandard performers. His motto could well be "Never imperious, always curious."

In other words, he's the anti-Rumsfeld. As SecDef, Donald Rumsfeld surrounded himself with yes-men. Gates seeks out the best men.

Rumsfeld assumed he knew everything. Gates understands that learning never stops.

The Rumsfeld Pentagon ran a propaganda organization that amounted to a self-licking ice-cream cone. Gates disdains self-promotion.

When the going got tough, Rummy sent his underlings out to take the hits. When Gates makes tough decisions, he stands in the line of fire himself - as he did last week in front of those Air Force audiences.

While the Rumsfeld Pentagon was subservient to the defense industry, from Boeing to Blackwater (to say nothing of Halliburton and the like), Gates insists on giving our troops - and taxpayers - the best value for our defense dollars. (The contractors hope to wait him out.)

Rumsfeld was a bully. Gates is a warrior.

Few Americans will miss the Bush administration. But the men and women in uniform will miss Bob Gates. He's the model of what a public servant should be.

Ralph Peters' new book, "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World," will be published on July 4.

LINK

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06122008/posto...reat_115062.htm

[AURaptor 1,126]

There's a term used by psychologist , though I can't recall it just now, which describes this very thing. Those who have less knowledge on an issue, any issue, tend to boast more and act as if they know far more than they do. It's a defense mechanism, used to bluff their way out of tough situations. Shout down the competition w/ an assertive, aggressive tone, and they'll likely leave you alone.

Usually.

[tiger88 934]

What a douchebag. A messiah, of course, but a complete douchebag none the less.