I wonder if it’s being around my family where the women are Democrats, the men Republicans that has made me less inclined to write about politics. To be sure, when we do get together, there is often much political banter, though others might use a stronger word to describe our exchanges.

Just over five years ago, during all the hoopla over the release of the Lord of the Rings movies, my passion for the story (and its surrounding mythology) was rekindled (well, it had never been extinguished). I re-read the trilogy, the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales while exploring the various volumes of his notes, drafts and sketches.

I bought the box set of The History of the Lord of the Rings even as I had previously perused the volumes, thought I would never read them as they were merely his original drafts of the story, never fully fleshed out. When I was cleaning my apartment at the beginning of 2007, I decided to give these to a local thrift store, given that I already had the hardcover editions.

Well, a few weeks ago, while browsing in an LA bookstore, I chanced upon the first volume, I chanced (if chance it was) on the first volume of that set, The Return of the Shadow, and started reading. I was fascinated both by how much of the original story was there in Tolkien’s original drafts, yet how much of the tale’s essence had yet to emerge. I wanted to read on.

Feeling I owed something to the bookstore for allowing me the pleasure and privilege of perusing their treasures, I decided to buy the book and have been hooked ever since. Normally, I read the trilogy (or listen to it in my car) every year or so. This reading will be a bit different as I’ll be reading the drafts rather than the final version.

What an amazing story–how it stands up over time. Much like the great myths that I have been studying in my graduate work.

While I had become interested in War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism when I read reviews of this new book written by the Bush Administration’s former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on Powerline (here and here), I didn’t resolve to buy it until I caught this Corner post where Rich Lowry observed:

I’m told that the Washington Post won’t be reviewing Doug Feith’s book. And the New York Times hasn’t reviewed it yet either. I know as conservatives we always complain about MSM outfits not reviewing our books, but this is truly outrageous. Apparently it’s OK to heap every failure in Iraq on Feith’s head, but then to turn around and pretend he’s a figure of no consequence when he writes a book.

If they wanted to criticize the decision to go to war and the execution of that decision, it would be helpful to hear what a chief figure in setting the Administration’s war policy had to say, particularly when that figure includes numerous documents related to that policy. But, I guess their interest wasn’t in presenting an honest portrayal of Administration policy-making.  If the MSM was going to try to bury such a book, I would buy it to prevent them from doing so and to learn what this former official had to say.

Upon learning that Feith would speaking at the Santa Barbara Retreat of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, I bought my copy there so I could get his signature. So impressed was I when he spoke that evening, I asked if he would send me a copy of his remarks so I could excerpt them in a post promoting his book.

I wish more Administration officials had spoken as lucidly–and in fora more public than a gathering of conservative intellectuals and policy wonks.

Feith began by addressing the questions Horowitz had asked him:

Why did the President decide to go to war in Iraq –despite Saddam’s not having been a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attack? And the second is why did I write my book War and Decision?

He answered by pointing out that Bush “‘inherited the problem of Iraq and had two choices either “overthrow the regime” or “try to contain the danger.”  Neither choice was free from peril.

What struck me the most about Feith’s remarks was not his thoughts about the choice the president would make, but a choice he made in writing about it, not to denigrate those with whom he disagreed: (more…)

Reading Hugh Hewit’s post this morning where he discussed his appearance yesterday in the Campaign 2008 panel at this week’s Los Angeles Book Festival of Books, I realized I had intended to blog on both and the fair.

Building on his point (which I referenced here) about the weakness of the two leading Democratic candidates, Hugh writes the “Dems look more and more like Thelma and Louise headed for the cliff.“

More on that panel anon. First, about the fair itself. Given my love for books, I expected to leave with an armful, but surprised myself in buying only one–and that deeply discounted.

Every time I go to such gatherings or just visit to a large bookstore, I am impressed by the diversity of the offerings. I saw booths selling books (in one case, offering free Qu’rans) about Islam, others specializing in fantasy (and science) fiction, others in graphic novels, several in Buddhism and related themes, a number selling mysteries and other detective stories. The list goes on. And on.

I took note of at least four booths hawking left-wing books and information, ACLU of Southern California, Haymarket books, Leftbooks.com and the Nation Magazine. Puts truth to the left-wing lie about the “fascism” of the Bush era. If our nation were becoming fascistic, then such booksellers would not be able to display their anti-Administration, in some cases, anti-American, wares so openly.

In the aforementioned panel, the LA Times (the organizer of the event) offered a platform to outspoken Bush critic Robert Scheer. Neither the former Times columnist’s mean-spirited rhetoric nor his frequent misrepresentations of fact deterred the paper from inviting this left-wing blogger and columnist.

And Scheer did not disappoint, offering servings of angry rhetoric laced with regular distortions of the Bush record–and of conservatives in general. And he repeated the liberal/MSM notion that Hillary’s campaign tactics are right out of Rove’s playbook. Original these people aren’t.

I thought Hugh and co-panelist American Enterprise Institute fellow and National Review blogger/columnist David Frum had the better of the argument, but will give credit to the other liberal on the panel, blogger and former Howard Dean webmaster, Garrett M. Graff, for at least attempting to keep the conversation civil and not engaging in the kind of factual fantasy and rhetorical overkill which characterized Scheer’s comments.

(more…)

In the first few months of this year, I have read broadly, to prepare to write my dissertation, to sate my own intellectual curiosity and to understand the forces at play in the world as our nation responds to the ever-increasing threat of Islamofascism. As part of that last quest, I have recently completed the second of two books, each essential to developing responses to that threat and recognizing the challenges to implementing those responses.

The first (and easier read of the two) was Norman Podhoretz’s, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. In this relatively short book (just over 200 pages), he looks how the challenges have changed as we move from success in the Cold War (which he dubs World War III) to the challenges of the struggle against Islamofascism (World War IV). Podhoretz praises President Bush for his aggressive actions in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and shows how his policies are appropriate response to the threat we face.

Not only does Podhoretz defend the president, but he also dissects the criticisms leveled against the his policies by a variety of groups and interests, including the far left, the mainstream media, liberal internationalists and realists. Finally, he compares the current president to two of his predecessors who, like him, set our new direction for our nation’s foreign policy, Harry S Truman and Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The book is typical (Norman) Podhoretz well and often pithily written, offering many insights from his long experience covering American foreign policy and international affairs. This neo-conservative does not mince his words, never hesitating to take on his ideological adversaries and and ever eager to offer his own strong opinions. I only fault the book for its absences of footnotes. While with google, we could track down some of the articles he cites, we might face more of a challenge tracking down the books he references.

The second book, John Bolton’s Surrender is not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations is a slightly more difficult read, but demonstrates the real obstacles facing a diplomat trying to promote the policies Podhoretz advocates in our own government and international organizations.

Despite my criticisms of each book, I recommend both highly. The real challenge to reading Bolton’s memoir is that he details the many negotiations he had while at the United Nations. But, in sense that tedium serves an important purpose; reading those descriptions helps show the incredible patience required of a diplomat. And the challenges facing someone trying to advance America’s interest in international organizations.

As I noted in a previous post, given the endless give-and-take of those negotiations as he attempted to pass resolutions responding to the threats of international terrorism, I’m surprised that he did not blow his stack on a more regular basis. The constant parleying (with other nations), consultation (with other government officials and our allies) and compromise would try the patience of the most level-headed human beings.

(more…)

When I had a few moments to myself during my sister’s wedding weekend in San Francisco, I did something I love to do when visiting another town, visit a bookstore. And there was a delightful independent bookstore not far from my hotel, Books, Inc in Laurel Village.

This smallish (compared to the chain stores) shop reminded me how much I enjoy browsing in an “old-fashioned” bookstore. Here, instead of immersing yourself in one section, you find yourself starting in one section, then moving without thinking into another.

This store was one of those “independent stores,” you know, those who complain how they are losing business to Amazon and the chain stores.  I sympathize with this bookstore’s complaint.

I have tried to frequent such stores because the staff there tend to know and love books, but find that at some shops, the highly literate clerks have an attitude or lean far, far to the left and their store’s selection shows it.

Not so at Books, Inc. While I chanced upon a number of left-wing books on the shelves, I also saw offerings from Bruce Thornton (colleague/ideological ally of Victor Davis Hanson), David Frum and William F. Buckley, Jr. Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism was prominently displayed.

Not only that, The staff could not have been friendlier. As a result, I felt compelled to buy a book (always nice to find a reason to add another volume to my collection).  I don’t mind paying extra for a book when I buy it at a store with supportive staff and unbiased offerings.

If Independent bookstores are to survive, they will be places like Books, Inc. in San Francisco’s Laurel Village where you have a friendly staff and a selection which includes a panoply of political perspectives.

I had forgotten the pleasure of browsing in a smaller store where one section just flows into another. And the delight in perusing volumes which cover the gamut of American political opinion — as well as mythological texts, collections of poetry and bound reflections on human kindness.

So next time you’re in the Bay Area, pay a visit to Books, Inc.  And if the shop’s selection is as diverse as that I observed, buy a book and tell the clerk there you appreciate their inclusion of conservative tomes.  That is, if you think the market should reward broad-minded booksellers.