Today, President Obama will land in Norway, where he will officially accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Now that the President has committed 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, my mild annoyance and amusement about the Norwegian gag gift has sprouted into full-fledged outrage. How can a president who is not only managing but escalating unnecessary wars receive an award as an agent of peace? Even more absurd is the reaction from the Left, which has failed to call Obama on the carpet for the very policies and practices for which we lambasted President Bush.

Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policy is rooted in a belief that military escalation and indefinite occupation are the keys to global security and the expansion of democracy. Like Bush, Obama has refused to substantively invest in Afghani jobs, housing, and education, all of which are traditional keys to an effective counter-insurgency strategy. Like Bush, Obama has dipped into the reservoir of fear, scaring Americans into thinking that military aggression, even the pre-emptive sort, is the only thing that will keep Americans safe. Yet somehow, despite these and other eerie similarities to President Bush, the anti-war Left has sat on its hands while President Obama operates.

Even more disturbing than Obama’s warmongering is the blatant calculation behind it. Unlike Bush, whose wrongheadedness was at least borne out of a coherent (though perverted) set of principles, Obama appears willing to act out of pure political expediency. After getting public pressure from his generals and bloodthirsty Republicans for his “dithering” (a Bushian term used to mock the President’s audacious use of facts, evidence, and wise council) Obama finally caved to his rivals and sent troops. Then, in order to satisfy the anxious anti-war left, Obama promises a withdrawal date. Sound good? Sure, except for one catch: He never promised a completion of the withdrawal, which hinges upon the ability of a severely compromised Karzai government and woefully underprepared Afghani troops to take over the military reigns. In short, Obama, like Bush, has American troops and innocent Afghani citizens in harms way without a clear or reasonable exit strategy.

In fairness, Obama has never lied about his desire to go into Afghanistan. Despite what many Obamaphiles want to believe, the President was not “anti-war”, but rather “anti-Iraq war.” Now that Obama has fulfilled his hawkish promise, the ball is in our court. Were we against President Bush or were we against his policies? Were we against the war in Iraq or all unnecessary wars? When we elected Obama, were we looking for a new driver or a new direction? Based on what I’ve seen so far, the answer isn’t pretty.

Today’s video of the day comes from the O’Reilly Factor, where I discussed Obama, health care reform, and the immigration crisis.

Today’s video of the day comes from Stevie Wonder, who breaks down crying while singing Michael Jackson’s “The Way You Make Me Feel.” Powerful. We miss you Michael!

Once again, my strange little mind is filled with random questions. Here are some of them:

Do Bush haters feel better now that a smart Democrat prosecuting an unnecessary war?

Why do women upgrade from Bud Lite to Belvedere when you offer to buy them a drink?

Doesn’t the White House crasher scandal only increase our fears that President Obama isn’t being properly protected?

Didn’t we almost believe Tiger Woods wasn’t Black after he told the cops he wasn’t talking to them?

Didn’t we get a sharp reminder after yesterday’s media circus?

Isn’t it unfair that most of the people trashing Sarah Palin’s new book haven’t read it?

Doesn’t Obama’s notion of a “jobless economic recovery” sound as absurd as an “eggless omelet?”

Would anyone still be talking about Taylor Swift if Kanye hadn’t stolen her shine at the MTV Awards?

Isn’t it sad that liberal cities like New York keep rejecting gay marriage?

Wouldn’t it have been nice if Dick Cheney had been this vocal about war strategy when he was Vice President?

Since we’ve seen Dangerous Minds, Finding Forrester, Freedom Writers and countless other films about nice white people saving downtrodden Negroes, did “Blindside” really need to be made?

Now that Allen Iverson is back in Philadelphia, will stock in TGI Fridays, Spalding, and Trojan go up?

Wouldn’t it be great if 50 Cent’s music were still as entertaining as his extracurricular activities?

Where did all of these New Orleans Saints fans come from?

Doesn’t Precious feel a bit like “poverty porn”?

Are there any hip-hop albums better than Raekwon’s and Jay-Z’s this year?

Where was I the day they were giving late night talk shows to black people?

White people with dreadlocks… Why?

Has anyone seen Terrell Owens?

In light of World AIDS week, do you know your HIV/AIDS status?

Is Sarah Palin killing her political career by writing her new book and appearing all over television.

Absolutely not. After screwing the Republican Party in the NY-23 race and whipping the nation into an unnecessary frenzy over non-existent “death panels,” Oprah’s stage is probably the safest place in the world for Sarah Palin. In order to move into the next phase of her political life, however, Palin must do more than offer revisionist narratives about her time on the campaign trail. She must also develop a deeper understanding of domestic and foreign policy, find ways of reaching out to moderate Republicans, and convince all Americans that she is more than a political show horse. While none of these things are impossible, I’m not holding my breath.

Why would Obama allow Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried in New York civilian court, when even Muhammad himself wants to be tried in front of a military tribunal?

First, contrary to what the Right has erroneously stated, this decision comes from Attorney General Eric Holder, not President Obama. Second, why should we trust that Mohammed was being honest? Are terrorists known for their candor and sincerity when speaking to the Western media? Even if he is telling the truth, why should we base our criminal justice decisions on his desires? While I’m not convinced that civilian court is the right move, I have no doubt that we have the ability to keep New York safe, avoid a media spectacle, offer a fair and just trial, and secure an appropriate verdict. I say let’s celebrate the possible triumph of justice and not fall into the all-too-familiar game of “blame the opposition.”

What do you think about the rumors that the New York Knicks might pick up Allen Iverson?

As a die-hard Philadelphian, I hope that the Knicks are dumb enough to sign Iverson. A six-foot shoot guard who avoids practice, doesn’t pass the ball, and can’t guard anyone at his position, Iverson has always been a hard guy to play with. Now that he’s lost a few steps, Iverson is nothing more than an egomaniacal team cancer who isn’t worth a veteran’s minimum contract. That said, given the Knicks history, expect see Iverson in uniform next week.