Former Politician Adopts Truth

Chuck Robb, former US Senator, former Governor of Virginia, and now national security expert gave a talk yesterday to a group of business and academic leaders in Southside Virginia. His talk was refreshingly honest in that it covered our greatest threat (nuclear Iran) and our greatest problem in responding to today's threats (not enough ground troops).

I say his talk was "refreshing" mostly because I find little "refreshing" honesty in the campaigns of our three Oval Office seekers, but then, Robb is a former politician.

cCain also talked yesterday and said we will win in Iraq by 2013. That's good. I want to  win and I like having a date. But what will we have won? Why are we there? What is our national security priority that makes us want to win and be there in 2013?

In short, what is the national security platform for McCain and the Republican Party? Where do you want to take this country? What are our goals for the world and why should we Americans want those goals? "To make the world safe for democracy," "to bring freedom to freedom loving people" are slogans, not answers.

I believe we should be in Iraq in 2013 and longer if necessary and I have reasons that may or not be the same as yours, but I am not running for President. Before you accuse me of siding with one or more Democrats, I ask similar questions of Clinton and Obama. Clinton leans to keeping troops in Iraq but with some kind of undefined timetable. Obama favors a rapid timetable to do something undefined at the end of that timetable. Neither has defined the role of the US in Iraq or the Middle East. Since our presence in the Middle East seems unavoidable, I'd like the next President to define our purposes and goals.

On the domestic side, McCain favors flat tax and more tax cuts, the first of which will never pass Congress and the second is just more voter candy like the gas tax holiday. Clinton returns to some kind of national health care but seems to have no other plans for the economy. Obama wants us to all work together to do what?

What Robb Said

ere's the gist of Chuck Robb's talk. Iran is developing nuclear weapons and would probably give those weapons to terrorists. This will be at the top of the next President's inbox and a solution can't wait. America's military ground force is stretched too thin, "almost to the breaking point." America is in a difficult economic position with having to increase its national security force and also paying for two financially crippling wars.

When asked if the political process was capable of electing a leader empowered to solve these problems, Robb answered, "Empowered, yes. Political will, no." (I would have given a reference web page but this report was in a local newspaper and I could not find a web news article reporting on the talk.)

We haven't heard much from Robb since 2004, his last year as Senator. Since then he has served as co-chair for the Iraq Intelligence Committee, as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the Iraq Study Group.

'm still working of the Fix Congress theme and plan on discussing earmarks next. Throughout this research, I am struck by the sheer complexity of the issues and the difficulty of presenting my findings in a brief, coherent post. The issues confronting America are, indeed, complex and the time for corrections in running out. The peace dividend after the Cold War came and went in a flash, terrorism continues to threaten us, our national debt increases as foreigners (with no personal ties to America) increasingly buy our debt, health care is near breakdown for most people, entitlement programs are running out of time for a fix, and our military is not prepared to defend America against virtually any kind of new threat.

And with all this, we have Presidential candidates who discuss none of these issues in any meaningful way. Perhaps part of the problem is the media that forces candidates to talk about old sermons of former pastors and a host of other trivial subjects that in no way resemble the issues facing this nation.

Could it also be that Americans do not want to hear or talk about the important issues?

30% Believe Bush is Doing a Good Job

resident Bush has an approval rating of around 30%, depending of the time of day and the barometric pressure. Since elections in most democratic countries are won by little over 50%, the low 30% approval is significant. However, I am struck by the fact that about one out of three people think Bush has done a good job.

Most of us are well beyond the point of denying that the Bush Administration either lied to or misled America on everything from the terrorist -Iraq connection and Iraq's WMD, to torture, and to the nature of spying on America. We really do have the facts on the lies or misdirection from Bush, Rove, and Cheney. I must assume that those who still believe in Bush do not believe any of these facts.

  am not talking about why Bush and his team did it. There are many reasonable conjectures on that subject. And I am not talking about why these Bush supporters deny the facts. There are many conjectures on that too.

I am talking about 30% of the population that is not susceptible to facts. Given that, am I hoping for the impossible that politicians might start campaigning on truth? If politicians were to present their plans for America, will the media destroy them with sound bite "journalism" directed to that 30% who do vote with passion.

If the last is true, then it will be because enough Americans prefer sound bites to complicated plans. It would be because too many Americans prefer simple, warm fuzzies to real plans.

ou tell me. Is our future to be a series of national disasters brought on by simplistic (and usually wrong) promises? Are we to worry more about the pastor Wrights and Hagees than about the need to increase our national security? Are we to worry more about Clinton's popularity with us old farts and Obama's lack of support from supposedly racially motivated (hint, hint) West Virginians than our financial futures? I'm afraid that, for the 30%, it's probably true.

I assume that most of you who read this post understand more of the complexities facing this nation. You understand that the media-driven news is not news. There are reporters and journalist who do try to cover the important issues. I believe that number actually increasing, but they are moving to the Internet where media corporations cannot control them. Newspapers, my newspaper in particular, are less and less a source of news. But now and then you find and interesting article like the one on Chuck Robb.