McCain-Palin '08

John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Though I was hoping he would pick Joe Lieberman, I have to say i am excited about Palin.

Shills for Obama

Note to Obama: You're Not Running Against George W. Bush...And Other Things I've Been Mulling Over

For months I have been making the argument that Democrats are making a mistake by literally running against President Bush. Obama has spent much of his time trying to tie John McCain to the failed presidency of George W. Bush. Listen to any Obama speech and you'll hear him use the term Bush-McCain just as much as, if not more than, John McCain alone. It seems that Democrats feel that they have to run against Bush because they feel that running on their own merits, even with a favorable electorate, will not result in success. Well, President Bush is not running for office. Obama is running against John McCain and whoever his VP candidate will be. A day will come when Bush will no longer be the antagonist and Democrats will have to stand for something rather than standing against someone.

Here is what Dick Morris had to say on this issue: "The truth is, of course, that McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senators. (When Obama's people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president." Morris went on to list key issues on which McCain has broken with President Bush and worked with the other party. (Read the article here.)

There will also come a time (and I hope it comes sooner than later) when many Americans will wake up and realize that the same old Democratic tactics and policies packaged as a "change we can believe in" is no change at all. If Obama really believed in bringing change to Washington, then why did he choose Joe Biden as his running mate? This is not change, Mr. Obama, this truly is more of the same old politics.

Obama, who just set himself up as the post-partisan candidate in his convention speech, is also giving Americans false hope of bi-partisanship. Bi-partisan means compromising your own beliefs from time to time if it is in the best interest of the country. For Obama compromise will come only from Republicans. For Obama bi-partisanship means forcing those with differing opinions into accepting his own views. For Obama bi-partisanship also means voting with his party the majority of the times he actually showed up to vote in the Senate. Out of about 500 votes between 1/31/07 to 7/31/08, he voted with his party about 275 times and for the majority of the other votes he did not vote at all. On just a few occasions he voted against his party. (These figures are are the result of rough count of the number of votes and my count can be checked here. Even though the numbers may not prove to be 100% accurate, my argument still stands.) This is not bi-partisanship and just plain deceitful.

Now, let's talk about fear-mongering. Yes it is true that Republicans have often resorted to fear-mongering, but to think that they are the only ones to do it is, well, stupid and misinformed. With the end of the Democratic National Convention I am left feeling that the Democrats have done a good job scaring the American people. They want us to be afraid of Republicans. They want us to think that Republicans are evil and greedy. They want us to think that Republicans are to blame for poverty. (As if poor and homeless people did not exist prior to the Bush administration) They want us to think that Republicans will take your jobs away. They want us to think that Republicans will take your health insurance away. They want us to believe that Republicans will end social security. They want us to think that unless we vote for Barack Obama and other Democrats, we will be held in virtual slavery to "evil" businessmen and oil tycoons. To put it bluntly: BULLSHIT!!!!

I am in no way saying that John McCain and other Republicans do not employ some of the same tactics. I am merely putting forth the argument that Obama is one of the most hypocritical candidates that has ever run for office. He scolds McCain for resorting to the politics of old as he is doing the same while preaching monumental change. After all, it will be hard for Obama to bring change to Washington when his running mate is the ultimate Washington insider. He preaches about the coming of a post-partisan politics while running side-by-side with one of the most partisan members of the Democratic Party. I hope that in November Americans will caste their votes wisely, but I can't say that I'm too optimistic that this will happen.

Democratic Contradiction Convention

This was posted by Michael Medved on Townhall this morning:

"Is the United States a land of limitless horizons, where hard work and big dreams enable people of humble background to scale dizzying heights of privilege and power? "

"Or is this a society of slammed doors and blocked opportunities, of a trapped middle class and shattered hope, where ordinary people can only provide a better life for their children with the help of an activist government and dramatic new policies?"

"The Denver Democrats insist that both descriptions are true, and they fail to acknowledge the obvious contradiction in the two primary messages of their convention."

"On the one hand, they want Americans to believe that we live in a dark, destitute moment in our history, with no chance for prosperity or progress unless a Democrat captures the White House. "

"On the other hand, they celebrate dozens of inspiring rags-to-riches stories (like those of the party’s sweethearts, Barack and Michelle Obama) proving that traditional American values still bring spectacular and gratifying results."

Full article.

"Keith Olbermann and all the Ships at Sea"

This piece by Robert Ferrigno is quite amusing. Check it out here.

Good Blog: Battlefield Biker

Battlefield Biker is a really interesting blog and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in military history and historical touring. Check out this video.

Battlefield Biker Pilot from TJ on Vimeo.

Save Wilderness Battlefield! Stop Walmart!

This is from the Huffington Post:

"I'm a member of the CWPT, and have been for many years. It has done some excellent work in buying and preserving land that literally cannot be replaced--the privately owned battlefields of the Civil War. Now, I like to think of myself as a realist on things like this. We can't save every speck of land that a boy in Blue or Gray walked across, or for that matter, undo what has already been done."

"But what we, the American people, can do is stop any more of it being abused simply because it is available."

"In Spotsylvania County, Virginia, west and south of the town of Fredericksburg, sits the Wilderness/Chancellorsville Battlefield. In a pair of brutal battles (Chancellorsville in 1863, the Wilderness in 1864), tens of thousands of Americans were killed and wounded. In the Wilderness, the battle was fierce and confusing, as what was normally long battle lines of men standing shoulder to shoulder became more like organized human hunting. When the wounded were left by the opposing sides, and as it was a dry winter that year and the woods caught afire during the fighting, the screams of the men as they burned to death echoed throughout the woods. Veterans decades later would break into tears at the memories of the young soldiers, boys mostly, having to spend their last moments on Earth in a living hell."

"On this hallowed ground, that icon of American consumerism, Wal Mart, plans to build a 141,000 square foot SuperCenter. Where you can buy such things as Twinkies for 2 cents less, disposable cups with your favorite sports hero emblazoned on the side, all while being met by the greeter making minimum wage at the front door, helped by the stock boy who makes minimum wage, and checked out by the cashier who makes minimum wage. But hey, it brings jobs, right?"

"Wal Mart is building on sacred, irreplaceable land, where men in blue died to defend the Union and free the slaves, and where their brothers in gray died as well."

"Ooops. I shouldn't have said "Union" and "Wal Mart" in the same sentence."

"Perhaps that is why they are planning on paving our heritage. Support the saving of our heritage, so that decades from now, when a Wal Mart SuperCenter is finished sucking the resources and life from a small community and has moved on to another victim, we will still have a quiet piece of land where we can bring our children and remember what the cost of freedom truly means."

If you are interested in joining the fight to stop Walmart from destroying our history, then visit this site: http://www.civilwar.org/walmart08/ .

Obama's Speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention

In anticipation of Barack Obama's speech at his party's convention later this week, I decided to post his speech from the 2004 Convention. I will do the same next week for John McCain.

Lieberman For VP

I completely agree with William Kristol's op-ed piece in which he made the argument that McCain would be wise to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate. This would be an exciting pick and an excellent one for the country. Unlike Barack Obama, who has been preaching a change to a new politics, but decided to resort to old Democratic politics, this would really demonstrate a politics of change. It would also be a move toward a politics of unity, which Obama would just not be able to bring about. Hopefully McCain will pick Lieberman, but i fear he will pick a safer running mate like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty.

Here's some excertps from Kristol's op-ed:

"So what’s to be done? McCain could well decide the obstacles to Pawlenty and Romney aren’t insuperable, and pick one of them. He could choose a different Republican governor or ex-governor, senator or congressman. Or he could decide that Obama’s conventional pick of Biden allows him to seize the moment by making a bold choice. He could select the person he would really like to have by his side in the White House — but whose selection would cause palpitations among many of his staffers and supporters: the independent Democratic senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman."

"Lieberman could hold his own against Biden in a debate. He would reinforce McCain’s overall message of foreign policy experience and hawkishness. He’s a strong and disciplined candidate."...

"Obama and Biden will try to frame the presidential race as a normal Democratic-Republican choice. If they can do that, they should win. That would be far more difficult against a McCain-Lieberman ticket. The charge that McCain would merely mean a third Bush term would also tend to fall flat. And an unorthodox “country first” Lieberman selection would reinforce what has been attractive about McCain, and what has allowed him to run ahead of — though not yet enough ahead of — the generic Republican ballot."

Full op-ed.

How the South Was Lost

ONE

More on Biden

This is from Jennifer Rubin of Pajamas Media:

"What a difference a summer makes. Barack Obama began the summer as he began the campaign: the Agent of Change. With the summer drawing to an end, he has chosen a running mate who is as old school as they come and as familiar as a worn-out shoe."

"Joe Biden was born during World War II, was the fifth youngest man ever elected to the Senate (back in 1972), and has run for president twice. He is not known for discretion or staying on message, his questioning of Supreme Court appointees is the stuff of political satire, and he became infamous for his misbegotten plan to partition Iraq. But he is a grown-up, an experienced Washington insider, and one not known for political extremism. The image from this pick is: safe, comfortable, and knowledgeable."

"The pick raises several questions: Will it help? What does it say about the state of the race? And will it impact John McCain’s choice?"

"As to whether it will help, it is a truism that voters don’t vote for the VP; they vote for the top of the ticket. While it might be reassuring to have a steadier hand close to the Oval Office the fact remains that the presidency, despite the Clintons’ “two for the price of one” slogan, is a one-man job. We either trust the commander-in-chief or we don’t. A slightly more experienced number two on the ticket may offer some comfort, but it is Obama himself who must clear the hurdle of presidential believability. (There are also small matters such as Biden’s vote in favor of the Iraq war, but certainly an abject confession of error by him can cure that problem.)"

"Moreover, the selection of Biden as VP seems to cast doubt on the entire premise of the Obama campaign which is that experience doesn’t matter. If we are back to including that criteria why not select the more experienced candidate for the top spot? It won’t take very long for the McCain camp to point out that Obama’s own underwhelming record compares unfavorably to his own VP. (We will also be treated to a good share of “His VP is smarter than he” clips, highlighting the areas of disagreement such as the initial Iraq war vote.) And Biden is not exactly a “safe” pick. If a secret ballot were taken among pundits and politicial office holders asking, “Which politician is most likely to make a jaw dropping, news cycle-stopping gaffe?” Biden would like be the unanimous winner. For a presidential candidate with a gaffe problem of his own, Biden might magnify this unwelcome attribute. Late night comics and pundits are already tabulating their top ten list of favorite gaffes, but it is no laughing matter for Obama who is struggling to get back on message and convince the voters he is ready for primetime."

Full article.

Obama Picks Biden

Barack Obama has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate, which came after months of speculation. Already the 24-hour news media has labelled Biden the smartest VP choice in American political history. Biden is a good choice, but he is also a choice that could come back to haunt Obama.

Earlier in the week, Jim Geraghty wrote about Biden's uncontrollable and many times embarrassing words. Geraghty wrote:

"The fun thing about an Obama-Biden ticket is that the McCain campaign can point to a new awkward comment by Joe Biden — either on the importance of experience, in praise of McCain, or in support of invading Iraq — that contradicts the stands and qualities of the Democratic nominee for every day from now until Election Day."...

"ON OBAMA:"

"Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’”"

"Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing."

"Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”"

"Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”"

Full article.

Failed Presidencies

Here is a talk on the failed presidencies of U.S. Grant and Warren G. Harding. (click the image to view).

Military History Carnival

This is interesting. (click the photo)

More on the Georgia Crisis

Could the Tide be Turing?

David Gergen posted this on Anderson Cooper's blog this morning. Gergen made the argument that the tide of the presidential campaign may be turning in John McCain's favor. I found Gergen's post to be interesting because if you only pay attention to major media coverage of the campaign you would come away with the notion that Barack Obama is running unopposed. Or that he has already been appointed President without the formality of an election. However, since clinching the Democratic nomination, and with the luck of inheriting an electorate the should be favorable to Democrats, Obama has not been able to break way from McCain and has remained in a virtrual tie with the Arizona Senator. And this week, in the wake of the Saddleback forum, McCain has been closing the gap in many national polls. He has even pulled ahead in polls from key swing states. McCain could actually win this election, which, if I can be honest, I hope he does. I think that over the past sixteen years, America has had enough with superficial presidents that survive on meaningless symbolism.

Gergen wrote:

"Heading into the candidates’ appearances on Saturday night at Saddleback Church, the conventional wisdom in politics was Barack Obama should have a clear upper hand in any joint appearance with John McCain — one the young, eloquent, cool, charismatic dude who can charm birds from the trees, the other the meandering, sometimes bumbling, old fellow who can barely distinguish Sunnis from Shiias."

"Well, kiss that myth goodbye."

"McCain came roaring out of the gate from the first question and was a commanding figure throughout the night as he spoke directly and often movingly about his past and the country’s future. By contrast, Obama was often searching for words and while far more thoughtful, was also less emotionally connective with his audience."

Full article.

Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney, Brief Review

James F. Simon's Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney is an attempt to tackle two brilliant and worthy adversaries at the same time; Abraham Lincoln and Roger Taney. Simon centered the book around the three key issues of slavery, secession, and the President's war powers (this is actually the book's subtitle). The section devoted to the issue of slavery was interesting, but it offered nothing new to the existing historiography. Now, the section dealing with secession was, well, lacking. What was it lacking? Too much to list here. The most interesting section was devoted to the President's war powers and more specific the suspension of habeas corpus. Simon came down on Taney's side in this debate and held nothing back when criticizing Lincoln's war measures.

Overall, this book was an OK read, but did not add much to Lincoln studies. However, it does have some value. Books covering Taney's career and decisions (other than the Dred Scott decision) just are not being written. Simon has given readers a fuller view of Taney's life and work. His view of Taney is more sympathetic than most others that have been offered, but it is still more balanced than other works.

Has the National Security Gap been Reopened?

David Paul Kuhn has written on the security gap between Democrats and Republicans. He wrote:

"Less than two years after Democrats finally bridged the decades-long gap between the parties on national security issues, Republicans have opened it right back up — a shift likely tied to the party's new standard-bearer John McCain and the perception of improvements in Iraq."

"The reemergence of the national security gap comes amid the first headline-grabbing world conflict of the 2008 campaign — the Russian invasion of Georgia that highlights the potential for a dramatic military event to upend the political landscape, and likely aid McCain."

"July's NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that three in four Americans believe McCain can "handle" the role of commander in chief, while only 19 percent said he "cannot," compared to a 50 percent to 42 percent split for Obama."

"When asked which party is more capable of "dealing with the war on terrorism," 40 percent of respondents to the latest NBC/WSJ poll said Republican while 29 percent said Democrat. The parties had been effectively tied as recently as January of this year, and the 11-percentage-point gap is the largest since 2004, the last year these numbers shifted so dramatically and, not coincidentally, the last presidential election year. "

Full article.

Will the US Play by Putin's Rules?

Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Daniel Heninger asked whether the US should play by Putin's rules or its own?:

"Is it only a coincidence that Vladimir Putin launched a tank invasion of Georgia inside the week that Alexander Solzhenitsyn died? It was said countless times that Solzhenitsyn's truth-telling began the collapse of Soviet communism."

"As Vladimir Putin watched his tanks threaten Tbilisi yesterday, he must have thought that the post-Solzhenitsyn world is fine with him. He and the men in his orbit are unimaginably rich for seeing the world through the bloodless eyes of a Saudi prince."

"Unburdened of the exhausting task of enforcing Soviet ideology, Putin's Russia got its hands around the energy-needy throats of Germans, the French, Italians and many other Europeans. London's clubs and the sunshiny resorts of Europe make for pleasant Russian playgrounds. Europe's natural-gas users will pay the tab forever."

"The New Russians now in Georgia are shaping a new world with rules based on the old Russian brutalisms. Their political instruments include the eternal silence of murder, routine energy-supply blackmail, and this week a revival of the massed-tank strategies of 1956 and 1968."

Full editorial.

More on the Georgia Crisis

Updates on the Georgia/Russia Crisis

Bush's Statement to Russia

Has the Cease-Fire Ended?

Russia Halts Fighting in Georgia...For Now

Fighting Escalates in Georgia

"Witness Tree" has Fallen

Gettysburg's "witness tree" has fallen due to a recent severe storm. This tree "witnessed" both the battle of Gettysburg and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that "On Thursday (August 7) afternoon, a honey locust tree that had stood as one of the last living testaments to the Battle of Gettysburg cracked in a storm and crashed to earth." Read the Inquirer article.

New Book on Muqtada al-Sadr

I'm looking forward to reading Patrick Cockburn's new book Muqtada. Here's the publisher's description:

"Time magazine listed him as one of its "100 People Who Shape Our World." Newsweek featured him on its cover under the headline "How Al-Sadr May Control U.S. Fate in Iraq." Paul Bremer denounced him as a "Bolshevik Islamist" and ordered that he be captured "dead or alive." Who is Muqtada al-Sadr, and why is he so vital to the future of Iraq and, arguably, the entire Middle East?"

"In this compellingly readable account, prize-winning journalist Patrick Cockburn tells the story of Muqtada's rise to become the leader of Iraq's poor Shi'ites and the resistance to the occupation. Cockburn looks at the killings by Saddam's executioners and hit men of the young cleric's father, two brothers, and father-in-law; his leadership of the seventy-thousand-strong Mehdi Army; the fierce rivalries between him and other Shia religious leaders; his complex relationship with the Iraqi government; and his frequent confrontations with the American military, including battles that took place in Najaf in 2004. The portrait that emerges is of a complex man and a sophisticated politician, who engages with religious and nationalist aspirations in a manner unlike any other Iraqi leader."

"Cockburn, who was among the very few Western journalists to remain in Baghdad during the Gulf War and has been an intrepid reporter of Iraq ever since, draws on his extensive firsthand experience in the country to produce a book that is richly interwoven with the voices of Iraqis themselves. His personal encounters with the Mehdi Army include a tense occasion when he was nearly killed at a roadblock outside the city of Kufa."

"Though it often reads like an adventure story, Muqtada is also a work of painstaking research and measured analysis that leads to a deeper understanding both of one of the most critical conflicts in the world today and of the man who may well be a decisive voice in determining the future of Iraq when the Americans eventually leave."

An excerpt from the book.

The Postmodernist Obama

Writing for USA Today Jonah Goldberg made the argument that Obama should be considered a Postmodernist. Here's what Goldberg had to say:

"Asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied that sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Statements such as this have caused many people to wonder whether Obama has a God complex or is hopelessly arrogant. For the record, sin isn't being out of alignment with your own values (if it were, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't be a sinner because his values hold that it's OK to eat people) nor is it being out of alignment with Obama's — unless he really is our Savior."

"There is, however, a third possibility. Obama is a postmodernist."

"An explosive fad in the 1980s, postmodernism was and is an enormous intellectual hustle in which left-wing intellectuals take crowbars and pick axes to anything having to do with the civilizational Mount Rushmore of Dead White European Males."

""PoMos" hold that there is no such thing as capital-T "Truth." There are only lower-case "truths." Our traditional understandings of right and wrong, true and false, are really just ways for those Pernicious Pale Patriarchs to keep the Coalition of the Oppressed in their place. In the PoMo's telling, reality is "socially constructed." And so the PoMos seek to tear down everything that "privileges" the powerful over the powerless and to replace it with new truths more to their liking."

"Hence the deep dishonesty of postmodernism. It claims to liberate society from fixed meanings and rigid categories, but it is invariably used to impose new ones, usually in the form of political correctness. We've all seen how adept the PC brigades are celebrating free speech, when it's for speech they like."

"Obama gives every indication of having evolved from this intellectual soup. As a student and, later, a law school instructor, Obama was sympathetic to Critical Race Theory, a wholly owned franchise of postmodernism. At Harvard, Obama revered Derrick Bell, a controversial black law professor who preferred personally defined literary truths over old-fashioned literal truth. Words are power, Bell and Co. argued, and your so-called facts are merely myths of the white power structure."

Full editroial.

Georgia Invaded by Russia...Is This the Beginning of Another Cold War?

James Traub of the New York Times reported on the invasion of Georgia:

"The hostilities between Russia and Georgia that erupted on Friday over the breakaway province of South Ossetia look, in retrospect, almost absurdly over-determined. For years, the Russians have claimed that Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has been preparing to retake the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and have warned that they would use force to block such a bid. Mr. Saakashvili, for his part, describes today’s Russia as a belligerent power ruthlessly pressing at its borders, implacably hostile to democratic neighbors like Georgia and Ukraine. He has thrown in his lot with the West, and has campaigned ardently for membership in NATO. Vladimir V. Putin, Russia’s former president and current prime minister, has said Russia could never accept a NATO presence in the Caucasus."

"The border between Georgia and Russia, in short, has been the driest of tinder; the only question was where the fire would start."

"It’s scarcely clear yet how things will stand between the two when the smoke clears. But it’s safe to say that while Russia has a massive advantage in firepower, Georgia, an open, free-market, more-or-less-democratic nation that sees itself as a distant outpost of Europe, enjoys a decisive rhetorical and political edge. In recent conversations there, President Saakashvili compared Georgia to Czechoslovakia in 1938, trusting the West to save it from a ravenous neighbor. “If Georgia fails,” he said to me darkly two months ago, “it will send a message to everyone that this path doesn’t work.”" (Full article.)

James Sherr, writing for theage.com, put forth the argument that the West must not show indifference about Georgia's fate. He wrote:

"Russia's brutal demonstration of power in South Ossetia, a breakaway region of its southern neighbour Georgia, marks the latest — and most alarming — sign of the Kremlin's determination to reclaim control over former Soviet states."

"These former satellites have been left in no doubt that Russia must be regarded as "glavniy", or No. 1, if they wish to avoid the fate of Georgia. Central to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's nationalistic policy is a conviction that the power of the West — seemingly unassailable at the end of the Cold War — is on the wane. The current crisis demonstrates that the Cold War has not been replaced by common values between East and West, but by the revival of hard realpolitik."

"Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's President, might have been profoundly unwise to employ massive force against the pro-Russian separatists in South Ossetia last Thursday, but his poor judgement is not the point. The commanders of Russian forces and their political masters in the Kremlin hoped he would behave exactly as he did."

"The aim of Russia's policy, succinctly expressed in 1992, is to "be leader of stability and security on the entire territory of the former USSR". What has changed in recent years is not the aim but the "correlation of forces". As Boris Yeltsin declared to Russia's intelligence services in 1994, "global ideological confrontation has been replaced by a struggle for spheres of interest in geopolitics". Back then, Russia had little to struggle with. Today, that is no longer the case."

"If Western interests are not to be irreparably damaged, we will need to understand that they are being tested on three overlapping levels: local, regional and global. Georgia is not just a square on a chessboard, but a country that is extremely important in its own right. For two reasons, the West cannot be indifferent to what happens there. First, despite the uncultivated instincts of its President, Georgia's political culture is fundamentally democratic, its people (80% of whom support NATO membership) profoundly pro-Western, and its sense of national identity almost indestructible. Georgia can be defeated by Russia, but it can no longer submit to it, and therefore war between Georgia and Russia would be a frightening prospect even if no wider interests existed." (Full article.)

Third Copy of Lee's Surrender Found in Philadelphia Civil War Museum

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 1918-2008

On Sunday Russia lost one of its true patriots, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn was a powerful voice of dissent during the last decades of the existence of the Soviet regime. His writings, most importantly The Gulag Archipelago, opened the world's eyes to the crimes of the Soviet Commissars. He was a tireless crusader for freedom.

Anne Applebaum, writing for the New York Times, discussed the impact Solzhenitsyn's writings had on the Russian people. She wrote: "In the week of his death, though, what stands out is not who Solzhenitsyn was but what he wrote. It is very easy, in a world where news is instant and photographs travel as quickly as they are taken, to forget how powerful, still, are written words. And Solzhenitsyn was, in the end, a writer: A man who gathered facts, sorted through them, tested them against his own experience, composed them into paragraphs and chapters. It was not his personality but his language that forced people to think more deeply about their values, their assumptions, their societies. It was not his television appearances that affected history but his words...His manuscripts were read and pondered in silence, and the thought he put into them provoked his readers to think, too. In the end, his books mattered not because he was famous or notorious but because millions of Soviet citizens recognized themselves in his work: They read his books because they already knew that they were true." (Full article)

The editors of National Review Online stated: "The hope Solzhenitsyn gave to millions is immeasurable — but we can measure some of it. There is a woman, Youquin Wang, who chronicles China’s Cultural Revolution. She does this from the safety of the United States. But, as a girl, she was less safe. Back in the PRC, she found two authors who changed her life: Anne Frank and Solzhenitsyn. After she read The Gulag, she knew what she would do with her life: commit the lives of the lost to historical memory....National Review is grateful to have had a relationship with Solzhenitsyn. Mainly, we admired and cheered him. But occasionally we published him — he once sent us a piece over the transom, which is to say, unsolicited. No magazine could dream of more....Malcolm Muggeridge called him “the noblest human being alive.” After passing away yesterday, he is now one of the noblest human beings on earth or in heaven. He is one of the greatest witnesses in all history. And, like all great witnesses, he was inspired by love, the crowning quality of his work and life." (Full article)

Good Blog

I urge anyone who has an interest in World War II, history, and politics to visit Digital Survivors. This is a fascinating, entertaining, and informative blog.

The Media's Crush on Obama

Here are some excerpts from Romesh Ponnuru's editorial on the Media's crush on Obama. Ponnuru wrote:

"Why are the media so smitten with Obama? Journalists have an affinity for the Democratic nominee in part because he is a wordsmith and they make a living manipulating words and symbols, so they have a special appreciation for his gifts. But another part of the reason is, yes, plain old liberal bias. McCain was a press darling when he was a maverick dissenting from the Republican Party from points left. Obama has become one by succeeding as a down-the-line liberal. When McCain decided this time around to court conservative Republican voters as much as liberal reporters, the coverage of him became more critical. Notice a pattern?"

"At this point, denying that the press has a liberal tilt, particularly on social issues, is like denying that the universities have one. Surveys of reporters show that they have more liberal views than the public; surveys of the public show that readers and viewers pick up on it."

"The silver lining for McCain is that the media's bias has sometimes backfired on liberals. One reason gun control and abortion have repeatedly been land mines for Democrats is that reporters never issued any warning signs. The press has long underestimated the political risks in liberalism. Obama's Reverend Wright fiasco was a case in point. Even though the two men had close ties, the press gave little scrutiny to the radical preacher for a year after Obama's campaign began. When attention finally came, Obama gave a speech that tried to shift the focus from their relationship to the rest of the country's racial wounds. He was rewarded with rapturous coverage. The next day, the New York Times ran a "news analysis" calling the speech "hopeful, patriotic [and] quintessentially American" and comparing him to John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. It took a few more weeks for Obama to realize that he had to take the final step and repudiate Wright."

"Media bias poses only one serious danger to McCain. One of Obama's standard tactics has been to predict that McCain would "play on our fears," "exploit our differences" and stir up "fake controversy" to win this fall. It's a clever move; it simultaneously paints McCain as a brute while making him think twice about hitting back--the harder McCain hits, after all, the more it will look as though he is stirring up fake controversy. Too many reporters have bought that spin, and that's a problem. McCain doesn't need reporters to fall out of love with Obama. But he does need to be allowed to make the case against the Democrat."

Full editorial.

The Civil War and the Limits of Destruction, Brief Review

Mark E. Neely's The Civil War and the Limits of Destruction has provided a much needed challenge to Civil War studies. The book's central argument is that the Civil War was not as destructive as most historians would have you believe. By comparing the Civil War to other nineteenth century conflicts (The Mexican War, Mexican Civil War, and the Plains Indian Wars), Neely effectively argued that there were limits to the destructiveness of this war. Unlike the Civil War those other wars could properly be labeled as orgies of violence. What made these other wars more destructive than the Civil War? In a word; race. Race played was a factor in the level of destructiveness and unbridled violence that were characteristic of those other wars. In the Mexican War, Americans were fighting Mexicans who were deemed an inferior race. The same can be said of the U.S. Army's image of their Native American foes during the Plains Indian Wars of the latter half of the 1800s. In the Civil War white Americans were fighting other white Americans, which meant that both sides were more inclined to follow the rules of civilized warfare. There were few instances during the Civil War in which military forces strayed from those rules of engagement. When confronting Confederate irregular or guerrilla forces (often seen as beasts in the shape of humans) regular Union forces would often resort to less than reputable means to combat those forces.

Neely also counters the arguments that the sheer number of deaths during the Civil War (about 620,000) is proof positive of the destructiveness of the war. It is his contention that the other war that he examined actually resulted in more battlefield casualties. Most of the dead of the Civil War died as a result of disease and infection.

Anybody interested in the Civil War should read this book. Neely has offered up an important revision of the history of the Civil War that may eventually become essential reading for any student of the war.

And Yet More on Buchanan and World War II...Defending the Good War

Here's a discussion between Peter Robinson, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Davis Hanson on Pat Buchanan's book on Winston Churchill's unnecessary war with Hitler.

Part I.

Part II.

Part III.

Part IV.

Part V.