Confounding Rhetoric

It has become increasingly difficult for the average person to discern any semblance of rationality emanating from both politicians and scholars these days. The things they say in the interests of themselves leave one scratching one's head with increasing frequency. Perhaps most irritating is the notion that they obviously think us so dimwitted that we cannot see the hypocritical dialogue for ourselves.

For example, our politicians began setting aside large portions of land for "preservation" a few decades ago because the environmentalists wanted to protect the flora and fauna from man's destructive ways. Oddly enough, these same people didn't seem to give a fig about the indigenous species of say, Saudi Arabia. Apparently it was just a-OK to destroy the Saudi's environment so long as we could still drive and heat our homes without rankling a few caribou.

When the Arab Oil Embargo hit, Congress' knee-jerk reaction was to release oil from our reserves to lower the rapidly increasing cost per barrel. Today, certain members of congress are making the same pleas, even while they deny that the spiraling costs have anything to do with supply. The question is, then; how will increasing supply ease the cost if supply and demand has no bearing, as they claim? And why won't harvesting our own oil do the same, if we can flood the market with crude?

Moving on, we also have members of the left claiming that in order to save ourselves from Global Warming, we have to implement radical and painful changes in the way we live, as well as to our economy. When they are confronted with conflicting evidence, they claim that virually everything is because of Global Warming. Cooling, warming, more rain, less rain, fewer storms, more storms, etc. The position is, how shall I say, very convenient.

So now, with his European tryst with the worldwide media mercifully over, we have a man who wants to be president of the United States making statements that clash directly with previous statements and positions he has made and held. His certitude a year ago that the surge had no chance for success notwithstanding, it's his reason for believing so is what's pertinent. He said, unequivocally, that sending in 20 to 30 thousand more troops would only increase the level of violence in Iraq and that the only option was for us to leave, and leave quickly. He was dead wrong.

Now, back from the love affair abroad, he tells the people that things are looking pretty good in Iraq but that Afghanistan needs help. How does he propose that we make that situation better? You guessed it; more troops!

Color me confused. And confounded...

-Woody

Sphere: Related Content