1) From the New York Times, “No Substitute for Victory” by William Kristol In discussing the portion of Barack Obama’s road show that will soon stumble across Germany, Kristol avoids any pettiness regarding the campaign’s choice of venue for Obama’s benediction/mass leper healing session. Instead, he optimistically focuses on what Obama could say:
One thing you have to understand about the Boss – he is by nature an optimist. So when presented with the question of whether Obama will be able to turn his back on the irresponsibility he has shown on the campaign trail regarding the war, the Boss will of course answer with an emphatic “Yes He Can!” But I’m sure Kristol would agree that to date, “victory” hasn’t exactly been an Obama preoccupation. Take the ludicrous “16 Months to Victory Plan” Obama has been aggressively peddling regarding Iraq. Eagle-eyed observers will note that Obama was also proposing a 16 month withdrawal plan when the war was at its nadir back in early 2007. It would be a helluva coincidence if two such wildly divergent sets of circumstances such as the grim facts we confronted 18 months ago and the much more promising scenario we face today demanded identical American tactics and strategy. For Obama, “victory” has never been anything more than a shorthand for ending American involvement in Iraq. His indifference to what actually might happen in Iraq has at times been almost astonishing. In July 2007, the then second place Democratic candidate stated preventing genocide wasn’t a good enough reason for America to stay in Iraq. As remains the case today, Obama’s sole strategic concern was comprehensively removing all American troops within 16 months. It would be nice on a variety of levels if Obama commits to victory when he heals the Germans. It would indeed be a swell thing if the world realized that America won’t potentially be tossing out its leadership resolve next January. 2) From Political Diary, “Just Another Pol” by John Fund More polls! The latest shows Obama leading McCain by three which is pretty much in line with what everyone else is getting. But as Fund notes, there’s still big news to report. The swooning has ended.
What’s most amazing about this scenario is that Obama’s wounds have all been self-inflicted. And as he thrashes about, returning to his silly original positions like the audacious 14 Month Surrender Plan, he only further compromises his campaign. 3) From the Wall Street Journal, “Let’s Have Some Love for Nuclear Power” by William Tucker Many of you reading this are probably too young to remember the No Nukes movement. Thank your lucky stars. In the dark days of the late 1970s/early 1980s, Hollywood-types and flat-earthers were able to use their combined muscle to damage our energy situation for decades. At least the current energy crisis will cause us to revisit and likely redress such past foolishness:
Right now, everything’s on the table. One would hope a proven technology with minimal downside would have a seat at the head of the table. On a related subject… 4) From the New York Times, “Yes We Can” by Bob Hebert Sometimes in politics, just as in life, you get lucky. Could Republicans have gotten a bigger break than Al Gore emerging from his massive house (which consumes more energy in a month than most American homes do in a year) last week, strolling out of his SUV and hectoring the country on how it should embrace his vision of tough love while ditching the fossil fuels that Gore consumes so profligately? In spite of the rank foolishness of the Gore endeavor, Bob Herbert positively swooned:
One might ask, easy for whom? I would imagine someone with Al Gore’s wealth could make the transition from filthy, environment-despoiling oil to solar powered wind turrets with greater ease than a family of four struggling to get by on the median American income, So as a Gore naysayer of long-standing, let me officially offer my “nay.” What I don’t understand about people like Gore and Herbert is that, being liberals, they’re supposed to be obsessed with the plight of those who live on the economic margins. And yet Gore proposes tossing an umpteen trillion dollar monkey wrench into the American economy, and the issue of who such economic dislocation will most affect doesn’t warrant any consideration. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the benign indifference/barely hidden enthusiasm that the intellectual chattering class had for $4 gas. And why wouldn’t they? When you have an adequate bank roll and you ride public transportation or your tricycle to your blogging job, $4 gas is an abstraction. Of course, for the tens of millions of non-wealthy people living in rural areas for whom biking 80 miles to work isn’t a feasible option, $4 gas is a somewhat more concrete matter. So let Al Gore utter his sweet nothings about how “we need to make a big, massive, one-off investment to transform our energy infrastructure from one that relies on a dirty, expensive fuel to fuel that is free.” Americans will know who’s going to pay for that pie-in-the-sky one-off investment. And they’ll also know that even Gore’s wildly optimistic not to mention scientifically unfounded promise of energy price relief in a mere ten years is still completely unacceptable. 5) From the New York Times, “Surge Protector” by Admiral William Fallon The left’s favorite admiral issued a betrayal of the cruelest sort yesterday. In the pages of the Grey Lady, Fallon urged something that virtually every serious military and international affairs analyst agrees with – the remarkable gains of the surge shouldn’t be sacrificed on the altar of trumped up timetables and domestic political ambitions: A long-term arrangement with the United States is key to Iraq’s future security. Reasonable objectors to the security pact, in both countries, must jettison the rhetorical and emotional baggage of the recent past. Forget the errors and bad decisions and deal with the present. Real progress has been made, and this positive momentum must be maintained. Compromise, of course, will be essential. But confidence will be, too. The Americans need to trust Iraq’s security forces, and the Iraqis need to trust America’s intentions. The United States must give the Iraqi government an opportunity to demonstrate sovereignty over its territory while the government of Iraq must recognize its continued, if diminishing, reliance on the American military. If Barack Obama were to return to his real original position, i.e. “I don’t care what happens in Iraq – I just want the troops home,” such a stance would at least have the benefit of intellectual honesty. But Obama is by nature a straddler. He wants to hold both sides of the issue, namely a rapid surrender combined with a lionhearted commitment to victory. This untenable silliness has already damaged his reputation. Unless he can use this week’s voyage to clarify his position, the bleeding will continue.
