This report suggests that Democrats are getting closer to the 11 Republicans they need to pass a defeatist resolution.

My interview with House GOP Deputy Whip Eric Cantor doesn't give much grounds for confidence with those Republicans either.

When the bottom falls out of RNC/NRCC/NRSC fundraising, they won't be able to say they weren't warned.  the insainty is that the only way some senators could lose in 2008 is by going defeatist on the war and embracing "benchmarks."

The  contact list in the Senate:

Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499E-mail here.

Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.

Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.

Senator Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.

Senator McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here.

Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.

Senator Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.

Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.

Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here

 

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold was my guest today.  His riveting new book on the attempt to discredit the historical truths of the City of David is The Fight For Jerusalem: Radical Islam, The West, and The Future of The Holy City.

You need to read this book.

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive responds to the WaPo's William Arkin's slam at active duty military speaking their mind about the war.  Arkin, very representative of the anti-war MSM, wants to shut down military speaking about the war --it gets in the way of the defeatism overwhelming the Beltway.

Uncle Jimbo does use traditional military language, so the faint hearted are forewarned..

Here's the original Arkin column.  Keep in mind that Arkin is the Post's national and homeland security columnist.  Arkin's bottom line: Shut up and serve.

Powerline's John Hinderaker has more.

Here's a piece I wrote on Arkin from early 2003.

I will replay an October 16, 2003 interview with the old leftist Arkin on today's program so the audience can hear how he sounds.

More from Op-For

Quin Hillyer has a fine idea, whether or not John Warner wants to retire.  I doubt that Tony would be sponsoring many defeatist resolutions.

The e-mail from the Staff Sergeant I read on air is available here from Blackfive.

Instapundit on Slow Joe Biden --God's gift to pundits.

 

1) FOR SOME REASON, I CAN’T get myself all riled up over the fact that Joe Biden has yet again revealed himself to be a few Jews short of a Minyan. We don’t call him “Slow Joe” around these parts for nothing. Lost in all the ballyhoo of what he said about Obama, it should not be lost to history that in the same interview he also took shots at his other Democratic rivals (giggle) for the nomination:

On Hillary:

“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”

The result of Mrs. Clinton’s position on Iraq, Mr. Biden says, would be “nothing but disaster.”...

On Edwards:

“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.

“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no."

The interview excerpts are stolen from the TPM café, where a thousand Josh Marshalls bloom. Thanks are due to Josh’s minions for slogging through the Observer piece where Biden dropped all these bombshells so the rest of us don’t have to.

2) J-POD QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

Somehow, this e-mail to Andrew Sullivan was diverted to me, so I'm publishing it. Because Andrew would.

Thank you so much, Andrew Sullivan. You are the light that illuminates the path to reason. You are, in fact, the reason that the light shineth at all. Because of you, I have come out of the closet. Because of you, I oppose outing. Because of you, I voted for Bush. Because of you, I voted for Kerry. Because of you, I supported the war in Iraq. Because of you, I oppose the war in Iraq. Because of you, I have sleep apnea. Because of you, I have cured my sleep apnea. Because of you, I believe in a conservatism of doubt — although because of you, I must of necessity doubt the conservatism of doubt that represents the doubtful provenance of my conservatism. Because of you, I have entirely jettisoned my sense of humor, as it gets in the way of my self-regard. I owe it all to you. Or, should I say, You.

3) IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE Iraq war and its larger context, this Fouad Ajami piece from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal is must reading. It’s nothing short of brilliant. In addition to having insights into the Middle East that few others have, Ajami has the additional gift of being a wonderful prose stylist. The piece was worth every one of the 55 column inches the Journal dedicated to it.

4) HOW DID I KNOW IT WAS 55 COLUMN INCHES? Because I watched this really neat video of the Wall Street Journal board convening. While watching the video, two things struck me: First, I couldn’t believe how young everyone in the room was besides Camp Counselor Paul Gigot. I’m 39, and I’m pretty sure I would have been the oldest guy there besides Gigot.

The other thing is I’m pretty sure I spied Joe Rago sitting there. Rago (or the guy I think was Rago) was disappointingly silent. I kept praying for him to leap up and say, “Don’t you understand!? What’s wrong with you people? You’re not refracting today’s events through the prism of history!!”

5) MATTHEW YGLESIAS IS A GIFTED WRITER, but he also seems to be dedicating a portion of his efforts to serve as living proof of the maxim, “You can always tell a Harvard man; you just can’t tell him much.” Follow the link, and be sure to read the comments following Matthew’s post to see how just ill-informed he was, and how blissfully unaware and unconcerned he was with the fact that he was ill-informed.

6) THE WEEKLY STANDARD HAS installed Michael Goldfarb as its in-house blogger. Mike has pictures and YouTubes and everything else a blogger needs at his disposal. The Standard has found its own Geraghty. Within three months, everyone will be punching up Mike’s blog three times a day. I suggest you go there right now and scroll down to read Mike’s dead-on observations on the Iraq Study Group’s latest incarnation.

7) LASTLY, AND CERTAINLY LEASTLY, I have a story on the ABC News website about the potential for a Curt Schilling/John Kerry Senate race. I think you’ll enjoy it – Kerry bashing and Schilling worshipping both never grow old.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

From the Marine Corps Times' report on this morning's debate:

A group of Senate Republicans is mounting a fierce campaign against any bipartisan resolutions opposing the Bush administration’s Iraq strategy, saying a nonbinding measure can only hurt the U.S.

Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina see an opportunity to block the Senate from voting on any of the growing number of resolutions that find fault with the Bush plan — already underway — to send an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq, most of them to Baghdad, in an effort to get sectarian violence under control.

DeMint said every injured soldier he has spoken with has had the same view. “The only thing I have had soldiers ask me is to win this thing, to just win,” he said.

“We all know the Iraqis are not ready,” he added, predicting the collapse of the Iraqi government unless U.S. troops levels in Baghdad are beefed up.

Having already reviewed “Dreams from My Father,” I wasn’t planning on offering a review of Barack Obama’s other book, “The Audacity of Hope.” Unlike his first book, “The Audacity of Hope” isn’t a serious book, and as such it doesn’t warrant being dealt with seriously. Besides, the incomparable Andy Ferguson has gone through the bother of reviewing it for us.

If you’ve read Obama’s “Dreams from My Father,” the politician that emerges on the pages of Obama’s more recent effort is predictable - cautious, introspective, a cipher who tries to reflect the views of everyone while having only a vaguely defined sense of himself and what he really stands for.

Here’s how Ferguson sums up the Obama we see in his current bestseller.

“I am new enough on the national political scene,” he writes in the book's prologue, “to serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” “The Audacity of Hope” can best be understood as an extended effort on the part of the first-term Illinois senator to keep that screen as blank as possible.

The one place I differ with Andy is that I don’t think Obama is really making an effort to keep the screen blank. I think the screen actually is blank. My impression having read both of his books is that by the scale applied to leaders, Obama is not a man of action and not a man of deep conviction. When he equivocates on the value of religion or the intrinsic worth of self-reliance and independence, he’s not doing so to effect a political straddle or to keep all his political doors open. Rather, his ambivalence on such fundamental matters is a reflection of who he fundamentally is. Obama is by nature a witness, not a player. When he enters the ring, he does so only half-heartedly and with one foot remaining on the outside.

Obama may well have the politician’s pathological need to please, and that might explain why he seldom risks saying anything that might offend anyone. Still, I have a feeling based on having curled up with over 800 pages of his ramblings, Obama’s just a compulsively non-judgmental and non-combative guy.

Before reading the following, bear in mind that I’m the guy who thought the Republicans would hold the House and Senate last November: Obama doesn’t have what it takes to be a successful politician at the presidential level. I predict that the Obama campaign won’t even make it to the Iowa caucuses. And if it does, it will have become a carcass of a campaign long before Iowans assemble at their little coffee klatches to anoint the next presidential nominees.

 

(Programming note: I have no intention of reviewing every book I read. I am, however, going to offer one review a week of books that I think are topical or timely. Hopefully, some of these books will even be good. These reviews will typically run on Sundays. Special note to publishers – feel free to send me free books! But be careful what you wish for!)

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

Imagine if Rush had called Obama the "first...clean African American."  Really, do you want Joe Biden overseeing the Iraq war?  Especially when you realize that Biden is ten times smarter than Leahy and a hundred times brighter than Boxer? (HT: Hawken.)

 

Oh, you mean like the troops, our Iraqi allies, and the enemy might be watching?

The New York Times'  story on the Senate's dance of the resolutions throws the paper behind John McCain's and Lindsey Graham's "Gang of 14," er, "benchmarks" draft in an attempt to leave the impression that the McCain resolution is the one favored by people serious about victory.

It isn't, of course, and won't be so long as it telegraphs contingent support for victory, which the langauge of "benchmarks" does.  "Benchmarks" is Senate code for "we are out of here" later rather than sooner.

If Senator McCain insists on "benchmarks," the damage to his 2008 presidential ambitions will be lasting, as the significant majority of Republican voters don't want to be 50% for failure or 50% for victory.  "We win, they lose," is the preferred resolution of the GOP's base.  See ThePledge for background.

Here's the key passage of the story intended to help McCain out of another McCain-created political jam:

In advance of a possible Senate vote on the resolutions, Republican senators now appear widely divided over how to proceed. In trying to head off the resolution supported by Senators Warner and Collins, allies of the White House appear to be trying to muster at least the 41 votes they would need to prevent a vote on the measure under Senate rules. Mr. McCain is sponsoring the competing resolution that would establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government. He said the proposal also could be fashioned to give Congress more oversight.

Republicans were viewing Mr. McCain’s plan as a way to deter Republicans from joining in the resolutions more critical of Mr. Bush, and many Republicans said that would be preferable to one criticizing the troop buildup outright. Senators also said they were beginning to realize that the vote, while nonbinding, would be an important statement on Congressional sentiment regarding the war.

Lousy reporting if you want specificity as to which Republicans were supporting McCain's resolution --Lindsey Graham, yes, and who else?--  and no mention of where the leader of the Senate's victory Republicans, Jon Kyl is. (See Kyl's piece in the Christian Science Monitor today.)  The story's sentence "The senators have been joined in their effort by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana" purposely misleads as it gives the impression that these three have thrown their support behind Senator McCain's resolution, when the Washington Post accurately reports that Senator Cornyn has his own draft (as does Senator Gregg and Isakson.) But then the Times' story isn't designed to accurately report what is going on in the Senate GOP caucus.  It is designed to rally a handful of GOP senators to the McCain resolution despite the obvious demand from the Republican base that they not side with either the Warner or McCain resolutions.

I wonder who provided the details to the "reporter?"

Republicans up for re-election should remind themselves of the wonders Senator McCain did for Mike DeWine with the Gang of 14 "compromise."  Senator DeWine never recovered from that miscalculation.  Ohio was tough on Republicans last year, for plenty of reasons including the incompetence and corruption of the Taft administration.  But Mike DeWine never had a chance because he burnt his bridges in 2005 to conservatives serious about the courts.

Senator McCain faces a choice.  He can resume his prior role as one of the Senate's leaders on the war, or he can continue his new role of leading benchmarker  --a benchmark on his way to a huge repudiation in the Republican nominating process.  Senators signing on to Warner/McCain also have to recognize that they are joining the new Gang of 14, and taking themselves out of contention for serious leadership in the future.

It is a defining moment, one of many that the Democrats will force on republicans in the months ahead unless Petraeus begins to bring order to Baghdad and stability to Iraq. Then the Democrats and the Republicans who sided with them will have to find a new story line.  The Democrat's base won't care.  The GOP's won't forget.

Note in the Times' piece Senator Collins' complaint that “There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us.”  Where that pressure is coming from is left unspecified, but it is of course coming from voters across the country outraged that Republicans are considering collapse as a legislative strategy, and doing so days after confirming General Petraeus without a single "no" vote.  Republican senators up for re-election are beginning to figure out that you can't win with just the supporters of victory in Iraq, but you surely can't win without them.  Throwing in with Warner, McCain or any resolution that equivocates on the necessity of victory or implies contingent as opposed to enduring support for victory will not be forgotten by the GOP activists and contributors.

Senator McCain needs to hear from you, again.

His Senate office phone is:  (202) 224-2235

His Senate office fax is: Fax (202)-228-2862

His Senate office e-mail is here.

His campaign phone is: (703) 418-2008

His campaign e-mail is here.

And here is the expanded list of contacts of other key senators:

Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499E-mail here.

Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.

Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.

Senator Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.

Senator McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here.

Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.

Senator Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.

Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.

Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here.

Finally, here is the contact information for Senator Brownback, who is about to completely dash his already small hopes of becoming the conservative alternative for GOP primary voters if Romney falters.  Senator Brownback is not mentioned in the Times' story, but earlier reports had him somewhere in the Warner/McCain camp.  You can contact his presidential campaign here, or call his Senate office at  (202) 224-6521.  He has been trying to build his campaign on the idea of protecting human life from womb to death, and across the globe.  That agenda cannot advance by retreating from the field on which the most pivotal of the current battles is being waged.  Perhaps Senator Brownback will also recognize that in the days ahead and back victory in Iraq.

 

The Congressional Republicans' demand for "benchmarks" is becoming the GOP's equivalent of Al Gore's demand years ago for "lockboxes," --an empty term originally intended to convey seriousness of purpose while disguising empty policy prescriptions, but which, by the sheer implausibility of the pose, became a term attracting  deserved disdain.

Republican resolutions calling for "benchmarks" are being understood by people serious about victory in the war as a no confidence lite.  To align with a call for "benchmarks" is to leave the victory caucus.  The Republican leadership should figure this out in a hurry and drop the idea as the genuinely bad idea it was and remains.

Bizzyblog notices.

UPDATE: The Senate GOP still can't agree that victory would be a great option.

The indifference of various Republican senators to the victory wing of the party --which is about 70% of the party, and 90% of the activists-- is nothing short of astonishing.  Senator McCain's decision to abandon his previous unqualified commitment to looking forward and demanding victory will be the first great blunder of Campaign 2008, though there is still time for him to put down the benchmarks and return to his admirable insistence on winning.

Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499E-mail here.

Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.

Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.

Senator Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.

Senator McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here.

Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.

Senator Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.

Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.

Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here.

Major Mike McBride's latest is up at Townhall.com.

Writing a memoir can be a dicey thing, doubly so when the author of the memoir is around 30 years old as Barack Obama was when he wrote “Dreams from My Father.” Your typical 30 year-old hasn’t lived enough life to justify penning an autobiography, and any remotely self-aware 30 year-old knows this. Obama certainly did; his modesty is apparent on every page.

A present-day review of “Dreams of My Father” should tackle two separate issues. First, the book ought to be judged on its own merits. Next, since it’s the question that's probably on everyone’s mind, the book should be looked at from the perspective of what it might tell us about its author who, 12 years after writing it, is a top tier contender for president.

AS FOR THE BOOK ITSELF, it falls somewhere in the fair-to-good range. There’s no doubt that Obama writes very well for a politician. But that’s faint praise, the rough equivalent of saying that a house pet plays volleyball very well for a golden retriever. As we are painfully aware, politicians seldom read books, let alone write them.

In truth, Obama writes only okay for a writer. Often, his prose drifts dangerously close to a needlessly purple territory. He describes the onset of a Chicago winter by pronouncing, “Winter came and the city turned monochrome – black trees against gray sky above white earth. Night now fell in mid-afternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds.”

Such excerpts may leave some readers screaming, “Poetry!” Me, I was closer to screaming, “Get to the point!” Such florid passages litter virtually every page. And there are 444 such pages, primarily because there was no detail so pedestrian that Obama declined to spend a clichéd paragraph or two describing it. This book should have been half as long as it was.

But Obama’s life is definitely a good story, and he certainly has a keen writer’s eye. While he does spend a lot of time on prosaic details, he also sees the telling details. The book’s main problem is more one of authorial discipline and editing than anything else. The details regarding his grandparents were fascinating; the details of wind whipping off the lake less so.

“Dreams from My Father” traces Obama’s unique background and upbringing. His father was a Kenyan who got a PhD. from Harvard, and met Obama only for a brief time when his son was ten. Obama spent formative years in Hawaii, Indonesia, Chicago and Harvard. His parents between them had I think 7 spouses. (I lost count during one of the extended passages describing a tree or something.) He was also partly raised by his maternal grandparents, white natives of Kansas who moved to Hawaii and accepted and loved their bi-racial grandson unconditionally.

Objectively speaking, it’s an interesting saga. For a young guy, Obama had a wealth of unusual experiences. What we don’t ever get from the book is a sense of the author. While ostensibly the book is the story of his life and he is indeed present in every scene, he’s seldom more than a witness. It’s always someone else doing the talking, someone else acting, someone else stirring deep thoughts in the author.

We get no understanding of how the self-described pot-head high school student that Obama was transformed himself into such a successful young man. By the time Obama was commissioned to write “Dreams From My Father,” he had graduated Harvard Law School magna cum laude and been the first black managing editor of the school’s Law Review. These are both magnificent accomplishments, yet accomplishments that he neither mentions in the book nor explains how he made them happen.

The book starts out strong. By the last part where he visits Kenya and meets family members he had never known, it has long since become draggy. Though the author is the protagonist, we learn little about him; Obama was apparently reluctant to write about himself. We hear about few of his actions, and we get a look at even less of his thoughts. Because the protagonist remains a cipher who neither does nor thinks anything, the book has no narrative thrust.

Thus, in the end, the book disappoints. It could have been a fascinating story of self-discovery and accomplishment. Instead, it is an ultimately exhausting recollection of Obama’s many varied family members and acquaintances. Some of the anecdotes are interesting. But for a book to maintain its momentum for over 400 pages, it needs some uniting narrative thread. This is what “Dreams from My Father” lacks.

SO WHAT DOES “Dreams from My Father” tell us about the man who would be president? Not much, I’m afraid. If you’re looking for any bombshells about his personal life, you’ll be disappointed. He does confess to smoking weed and snorting cocaine while in high school, but I don’t imagine those revelations will be a factor in the campaign to come. For what it’s worth, the passages about his time in an Indonesian madrass should end any controversy about his religious identity: Obama is not, nor has he ever been, a Muslim.

What struck me about this book is how modest an effort it was for a future politician. Throughout the book, we get the picture of Obama as a supremely talented but ultimately passive guy. Stuff just seems to happen to him. Some of this is really interesting stuff, like being born to parents who each went through multiple spouses and left Obama with half-siblings scattered across the earth. But it’s almost a little disconcerting that Obama didn’t trace his path from Hawaii to Occidental College to Harvard Law to managing editor of the Law Review.

One thing that was crystal clear from his book that Obama has a unique ability to serve as a vessel for the ambitions and dreams of others. Whether it was his grandparents or his mother or his far-flung African family, they all had a lot invested in their hopes for “Barry.” Suffused in the book was the unstated fact that Obama has an innate characteristic that makes others project their dreams onto him.

Interestingly, on Sunday the New York Times ran a story on Obama’s time at Harvard Law, a subject that both “Dreams from My Father” and Obama’s more recent “The Audacity of Hope” hardly addressed. I found this passage telling:

People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words. Earlier, after a long, tortured discussion about whether it was better to be called “black” or “African-American,” Mr. Obama dismissed the question, saying semantics did not matter as much as real-life issues, recalled Cassandra Butts, still a close friend. According to Mr. Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.

Having read Obama’s first book, I’m convinced that this trait has been the key to his political success to date. Others invest their hopes in him, and he rides their investment to victory. In many ways Obama is a pedestrian and orthodox politician; no grand plans or displays of leadership have marked his public life. His ideology is the most hackneyed form of liberalism, the kind that stopped being progressive over a generation ago.

In some ways, Obama almost seems like an accidental presidential candidate. His Senate seat was almost bequeathed to him; his top-tier presidential status was definitely bequeathed to him. On paper, there is nothing that this man has done that would make you say, “He should be president.”

I’ve come away from reading “Dreams From My Father” feeling that Obama is probably a good man, definitely a magnificently gifted man, but also a passive man. The latter characteristic will be his undoing in presidential politics. Bill Clinton was also magnificently gifted. But were it not for his hunger, drive and willingness to do whatever it took to get what he wanted, Clinton never would have become president.

There may be accidental Senators, but no one gets accidentally elected president.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map, returns for part 4 of our eight hour conversation on the realities of the world in which America is attempting to secure its national security and encourage the spread of freedom.

The transcript of our brief introductory talk is here, and the audio here.

The transcript of part 1 is here and the audio here.

The transcript of part 2 is here and the audio here.

The transcript of part 3 is here, and the audio here.

The transcript and audio of today's interview will be posted later this evening.