In the heat of an ambush in Afghanistan's most lawless province, 19-year-old Lance Cpl. Richard S. Weinmaster threw himself in front of a grenade to shield other marines in his platoon. Weinmaster was critically wounded by the blast, but the bloodied Nebraska native stayed in the fight, firing his weapon at the enemy position until he collapsed from his wounds. Looking back at the July 8, 2008, engagement, Weinmaster says, "I didn't do anything special. Everyone on my left and right would have done the same thing. I was just in the right place at the right time." For extraordinary heroism while serving as automatic rifleman, Weinmaster was awarded the Navy Cross.

Notice that Kutcher doesn't say "...of service to my country, or "...of service to my fellow Americans," just "...of service to our president."

Propaganda, anyone?

And I wonder how much Kutcher would actually inconvenience his Hollywood lifestyle to really be "of service" to anyone, anyway. During WWII, Hollywood actors his age, and older, were actually signing up to serve in uniform when we were at war. Clearly, "they just don't make them like they used to."

And I may be wrong, please correct me if I am, but I think about the only USO type of event that Kutcher has done was for the Coast Guard, at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station at Ellington Field, Houston, Texas, and it was Kutcher, Kevin Costner and their movie director appearing there in conjunction with the making of their movie "The Guardian" about the Coast Guard Air Rescue Service.

So, who's your role model? Who's your hero? This guy, or this guy? You can probably guess who mine is.....and who mine is not.

So, with Category A, it's either usually something so professorial, convoluted, theoretical, ideological, word-parsed, esoteric or ephemeral -- the White House spokespersons like to say "nuanced" -- as to wind up being meaningless. (Poof! Words just disappearing into thin air. Quick, try to grab their meaning before they're gone.)

Or, with Category B, it simply just flies in the face of all known facts on whatever the subject is. (The bigger the lie, the more believable it becomes if stated with authority. After all, Republican Congressman Joe Wilson's unfortunately not everywhere all the time to shout out "You lie" at most of the venues at which the president speaks, you know.)

"Now, let me be clear,” Obama said as part of his long-awaited and much deliberated Afghan War speech, using the West Point Corps of Cadets as a photo op backdrop (while some of them appropriately nodded off during his dispassionate delivery, either because they were bored or because it was getting close to their normal "lights out" bedtime of 2200 hours (10PM) and they normally would've been busy staying awake by studying or polishing something between 8PM and then, instead of sitting crammed together in an auditorium, listening to a monotone, toward the end of their day.

But, back to Obama's "Now, let me be clear.”  “There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.”

Well, this particular "Let me be clear" falls into Category B above, the outright lie which flies in the face of facts. Al Gore would call them "inconvenient truths" of the non-warming kind. In fact, near the end of 2008, now a year ago, the Bush administration gave Obama a detailed proposal for a similar troop surge in Afghanistan of the type which General McChrystal subsequently requested in August 2009 and which Obama has now, finally, at least partially approved in December.

Obama also said that "Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive."

This statement is not only another (still -- yet -- always -- and apparently forever more) "oh, me, poor me" dig at "the mess" Bush left him but also another Category B, one that is simply a straightforward lie, if "straightforward" and "lie" together is not too oxymoronic for you.

The historic record shows that George Bush never denied commanders in Afghanistan any of the support they requested, and Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's former SECDEF, has now challenged Team Obama to prove, rather than just claim, otherwise. Obama's press secretary Robert "frat boy" Gibbs' response to that was to "clarify" that Obama meant that was true only in 2008. But, oops, that was when Robert Gates, Bush's former successor to Rumsfeld but also Obama's current SECDEF was in charge. So, when challenged by Rumsfeld yet unable to adequately respond to that, did Gibbs intentionally throw Gates under the bus, or was he just "thinking on his feet," being glib.....and being stupid at the same time?

“I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships,” Obama said. “And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world, one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.”

Obama himself may actually believe that, somewhere up in his ivory towered and naive thought processes, so perhaps this "Let me be clear" is one of those in Category A, so highly "nuanced" that we ordinary human beings simply can't grasp its multi-dimensional complexity. In fact, however, although Obama has made near-obsequious overtures to Muslims in speeches, in meetings, during America-is-a-bad-country apology tours and in literally bowing to a Muslim king, nothing much has changed.

Fouad Ajami of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal: "It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations.”

It's true that liberals incessantly pointed to such indicators as the Pew Global Attitudes surveys to prove that Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" and "my way or the highway" unilateralism were destroying our reputation around the world, and especially among Muslims. Of course, now you don't hear much about liberals ranting and raving about the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey, I guess because Bush is gone now, so there's no point -- the surveys can't be used to Bush-bash.

But wait...

Mr. Ajami continues, “Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama.”

Ohhhhhhhhhh, snap! Whatcha gonna say 'bout THAT, Mr. Narcissus Nuance?

Bush's so-called "cowboy diplomacy" and apparently "shoot from the hip" decision-making style were never really either. His so-called "unilateralism" and "my way or the highway" about Iraq was, in fact, based on a U.S.-led 33-nation coalition. And his comment about being "the decider," although ridiculed by liberals and certainly less than articulate, was, in fact, true. He was decisive, and you could usually count on his meaning just what he said, too, whether you liked whatever it was or not.

On the other hand, Obama's American apology tours, his bowing and scraping (literally), his talking, talking, and still more talking, his seemingly forever outstretched hand of "the power of soft diplomacy" (Huh?) and his dispassionate, deliberative, almost professorial, dithering over hard decisions haven't really improved things for us so far.

Yes, the Europeans and many socialists and tinhorn dictators around the world like him better than they liked Bush.....because he is more like them than Bush would ever be. But they also like him because they perceive him as indecisive, weak and naive, perhaps even feckless. They think Obama is the neighbor's nice, sleek and friendly doggie, which when petted wags his tail and is no threat to the trespasser in the yard. Bush, on the other hand, was more like the Texas rattler which would leave you alone if you did the same but which would first rattle and warn but then bite you in a heartbeat if you messed with him too much. And other world leaders knew it, too. They may not have liked it, but they knew it.

So, let me be clear about this, what this all equals, so far at least, is that our friends and foes around the world may "like" Obama but don't like us, that's us, as in the U.S., and what we stand for, any better and, even worse, the worst among them now respect, much less fear, us even less.

A Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox News, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again.

He said the call had an intimidating tone. The message was, "We better not see you on again." An implicit suggestion, the strategist said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. This from a woman who lumps mass murderer Mao Tse Tung and Saint Mother Theresa together as her two favorite political philosophers and who does strange things with her tongue when giving a public speech. Maybe that's because it's forked, but I don't know for sure.

So, when she was asked about it, maybe she just checked with those "colleagues who deal with TV issues" that she already knew had not told people to avoid Fox. That way, her statement would be "technically true," don't you see? This president and this White House play that "technically not lying" game all the time. With them, and some other liberals, prevarication by parsing words is not a past-time; it's a passionately practiced procedure.

Oh, and in a related matter:

POLITICO's Michael Calderone reports that President Obama met with several journalists for lunch last Friday at the White House.

Administration officials David Axelrod (Senior Advisor), Anita Dunn (Communications Director), Bill Burton (Deputy Communications Director) and Robert Gibbs (Press Secretary) also attended. (Hey, why not? Free lunch, literally.)

The off-the-record lunch lasted about two hours, and included a green salad, halibut and a pear tart for dessert.

How nice! Well, first I'm just "dying" to know what they had to drink with that delicious sounding lunch. Kool-aid, perhaps? And did NYT's David Brooks check out the sharp crease in Obama's pants again -- to make sure he's still going to be an excellent president? No, don't tell me.

Second, I'm wondering why they all met in a government building, ate a meal prepared and served by government employees, at taxpayer's expense, and several government employees (yes, I mean the prez and gang) were present, yet the meeting was "off the record"? I'm guessing that's the only way they could ensure the White House talking points that were passed out would not have to be reported on, but I could just be being cynical again, as is sometimes my wont.

1. ObamaCare alternatives?
Oh, I dunno, maybe some of the things the Republicans of the so-called "Party of No" have been proposing but which the Democrats have been ignoring, like:
Interstate insurance competition, medical savings accounts, tax free insurance or credits, tort reform, fee for service, rewarding outcomes, medical malpractice reform, prohibiting coverage denials based on preexisting conditions, guaranteeing portability, electronic prescriptions and medical records, streamlining billing codes and practices, price and quality transparency, pay-for-performance measures, one-stop primary-care “medical homes,” chronic disease management initiatives, tax equity for health insurance purchases, increased incentives for health savings accounts, or creating the ability to purchase insurance or form risk pools across state lines.
Our health care system and health insurance do need reform. Everyone agrees on that, But it's already the best in the world and just needs some tuning up, not a whole new and untested model of car. Especially when the federal government tends not to turn out Ferraris but Edsels, thank you very much.

2. Cap and Trade, Cap and Tax, Crap and Tax - what's the difference?
Once again, class: Everyone wants to ensure our kids grow up in a clean environment. Some just want to bankrupt us while doing it, and some of us would prefer a more logical approach. For the second group, The Heritage Foundation has some figures and charts that provide a helpful look at the immense costs associated with the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax plan to forcibly cap carbon. According to the new report, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," recently released:
a. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
b. Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
c. Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses would be 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
d. The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
e. A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
f. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.
So, Waxman-Markey's Crap and Tax Plan does sound like a PLAN, but not a very GOOD plan.

I know it may seem from entries here that I'm obsessed with Obama. Well, I am. But not in a good way. Or least not in the same way, much less to the same degree, as his adoring supporters -- to include the mainstream media. It's probably more accurate to say that I'm not obsessed "with" Obama so much as obsessed "about" him.

After all, he is running for president -- in a time of war -- with little national, much less international, experience. So, I try to see if he at least has real vision, core convictions, real leadership capacity, if his words and ideas make common sense to me and are congruent with his actions. It's an old saying that actions speak louder than words, or, as an ole Southern boy once told me, "If you come across a mean junkyard dog, don't worry about his growlin' or his barkin'. His growl or his bark won't hurt you. Watch what he does." I think that admonition applies well to politicians, too. In fact, perhaps especially well to politicians. 

Sometimes, I get tired of the whole presidential campaign thing. Sometimes, I try to go whole days without even thinking about Obama, but since I watch TV -- O-BAM-A! -- there he is again. And he's usually saying something which sounds good but which lacks something. I don't know, call it substance. So, even now, I find myself continuing to ask: Who is Barack Obama...Really?

Sometimes it's not Obama himself but the fawning, liberal press trying to pump him up that gets my goat. In fact, this particular diatribe was inspired by the Chicago Tribune's liberal Clarence Page in his recent article about Obama's whirlwind tour and especially his Berlin speech, which Mr. Page cleverly entitled: 'Ich Bin Ein'... Big Winner!

Au contraire, Mr. Page, I doubt McCain's kicking himself for goading Obama to visit Iraq for only the second time or Afghanistan for the first time (although Obama chairs a committee supposedly overseeing our involvement there and has yet to call any hearings). After all, the senior and experienced McCain probably recognized that the junior and inexperienced Obama needed to "get out more" and see some of what's really going on in the world, instead of just talking like he already knows all about it. However, McCain prompted Obama to go to Iraq and Afghanistan -- even volunteered to go along with him -- because Obama had not been in a long time to the one and had never been to the other. He did not prompt him to also preen around the Middle East and Europe as if he were already president. That part was all Obama -- all the time. But, yes, I agree Obama's tour was well stage-managed overall to maximize campaign photo ops. And, yes, I agree McCain's campaign during that same timeframe looked a little lame.

HOWEVER, it would have been nice, in addition to a staged hoop shots photo op with the troops, that when Obama first arrived in Afghanistan, if he had also, as alleged by an Air Force captain who was there, not totally ignored the throng of servicemembers who had been waiting near the tarmac to see him for hours prior to his arrival. But, no, I guess no real important enough photo op there, so deplane, bypass the waiting troops, get straight into the armored vehicle and go see the brass in the conference room. How about a quick working of the rope-line, just a quick smile and handshake to thank the troops for their service? Oh, no, not photo worthy enough, too busy a schedule -- or just not genuinely concerned enough to even think of it. Whatever. And the supposed instant-as-whipping-up-some-Kool-Aid confirmation of his "expertise" on what we need to do in Afghanistan after spending less than 24 hours there? Give me a break!

FURTHERMORE, his speech in Berlin? A big winner? I think not so much. First, it was advertised to the Germans, literally and at least in part, as a free rock concert, to ensure a good crowd. Then, after the bands played and got the crowd worked up, Obama gave another of his soaring-but-no-substance speeches, except to apologize on foreign soil for America's shortcomings, before an estimated 100,000-200,000 Germans (estimates vary, but some liberal TV folks now just "round it off" to a quarter-million, I guess because "it just sounds better"). Many in that audience were smiling and looking more adoring at the beginning of his speech than at the end, many had waited for hours to see him (oh, and the rock bands), but they all dissipated amazingly quickly thereafter (in disappointment?).

Oh, and he was on a stage with no US flag anywhere in sight. By the way, there's nothing in the US flag guidelines which prevented having the US flag displayed on the stage with him in Berlin, just as nothing prevented it when he subsequently appeared with Sarkozy in Paris. I guess having the US flag displayed during his overseas appearances just didn't fit with his "citizen of the world" theme. Or maybe he really does have issues with the US flag, wearing or not wearing a flag pin, rendering the civilian salute during the playing of the National Anthem, etc. We already know he's redesigned the Presidential Seal, albeit only once so far and briefly -- after being ridiculed for it. But, oh, wait, was he wearing his flag lapel pin that day? I watched the speech, but I forgot to notice. If he was, then that probably made up for not having the flag displayed anywhere else. Oh, and Team Obama gave out little US flags for the Germans to wave around, too, so I guess that covered everything about the flag nicely.

Add to that, after being refused the amazingly presumptuous request to speak at the Brandenburg Gate (uh, where only a few who were already US presidents got to speak, Barack), the absolute irony of Team Obama having to "settle for" the speech being delivered at the Tiergarten's Victory Column, which not only faces toward Paris (where Obama was going on the next leg of his trip) but which also was erected in the 1800s to celebrate Prussian (German) victories over, among others, the French! Truly delicious irony, but, of course, either a fact unnoticed and/or underreported back here in the States. (Hmmm, I can only hope that, after dealing with the presumptuousness of the Brandenburg Gate request, it was those crafty Germans who suggested that alternative location, with perhaps just that irony for a presumptuous pretender in mind. Those Europeans always seem to know more about history and deal with things in more subtle, multi-layered ways than we do anyway.)

However, most tracking polls show Obama has not gotten as much of a bounce or "bump" as Team Obama hoped for from his whirlwind "citizen of the world" tour (just as he got no real bump from clinching the Democratic nomination -- can we say, "Appears to have trouble closing the deal?")

Commonsense Americans, of whatever other ilk or ideology, can usually, sooner or later, spot a phony. So, maybe no "bumps" for Obama yet because many Americans are still wondering who he is, really, and what, if anything substantive, does he really have to offer? Or, instead of baker, banker or Indian chief, is he the slick snake oil salesman, the backlot used car dealer, the shady shyster, the presumptive but, without question, also the most presumptuous of presidential pretenders? To many Americans, the audacity of arrogance doesn't sell as well back home as it might abroad, nor does the effeteness of elitism. And while we don't deny that someone might be more entitled than another for one reason or another, we don't like someone who acts entitled, instead of paying his dues and earning his stripes.

UNRELATED -- RUMOR HAS IT (Tongue-in-cheek):
It's apparent that Team Obama doesn't like the recent McCain ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears -- the obvious subtext of which was not only humorous but also made the point that it takes much more than mere celebrity to know what you're doing and to lead. One reason is probably that it was just cleverly controversial enough to capture a good part of the news cycle and put Team Obama on the defensive and therefore "off message," especially in a week when he was trying to capitalize on his whirlwind tour and see if he could pump up some more of a bump for himself. But (and don't say you heard it here), rumor has it that the real reason Obama himself doesn't like it is that he just thinks he's prettier than either of them.