McCain Wrong On The Surge, But Aren't We Missing The Point?

More "Surge" distortions from McCain. While he was in the midst of lying about the timeline of the so-called "Anbar Awakening" and the Surge (McCain claimed the Surge led to the Anbar Awakening, even though the Awakening began long before the Surge), he claimed that:

Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening.

And then:

The Arizona Republican's campaign went further the next day, claiming that the major figures that turned around Anbar province would have been killed had the surge policy not been in place. "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda,"

Only, the most notable of those figures, the Awakening's founder Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, was assassinated in September 2007, at the height of the Surge. So much for the "protection" of the Surge, and how Obama's policy would have resulted in their murder.

Oh, and while we are looking retrospectively at "what ifs" concerning who made the right decisions in the past, why stop at the Surge? Why don't we go back to a far more important choice, like invading the country in the first place looking for nonexistent WMDs? Hmmm...help me remember...who opposed this devastating war in the first place...? I'm pretty sure that was...Obama! Yes, it turns out if he had followed Obama's judgment in the past we wouldn't have to worry about the "Surge" because it would have never been necessary. Also, there would be over 4,000 more Americans alive today. There would be tens of thousands of less wounded Americans today. There would be thousands fewer suicides, there would be less broken families. There would be hundreds of thousands or possibly over a million more Iraqis alive today. There would be around 4.5 million less refugees in the world today. Afghanistan wouldn't be the mess it is today. Osama bin Laden probably wouldn't be free like he is today, and al-Qaeda probably wouldn't be just as strong, or stronger, than it was before 9/11. Oil prices wouldn't be at record levels. Our deficit wouldn't have exploded to historic levels. We probably wouldn't be facing a huge recession right now. The world wouldn't hate us (nearly as much).

I could go on and on and on. The point is, does John McCain really want to play the "what if" game? Does he really want to have a debate over who ultimately has better judgment?? Because I'd love to have that debate, and I'm sure Obama would too. Why is it that the media pretends that the past doesn't matter, that only the future matters, how long we will stay in Iraq? Why is it that the ONLY time they look back is to see who was "right" or "wrong" on the Surge, when a MUCH more important question is who was right and who was wrong at the beginning, when the decision was cast to invade and occupy Iraq? The single biggest decision of the last 8 years, the single best way to draw distinctions between the judgment of the two candidates, and we pretend it is ancient history that has no relation to the current election, or our current situation in Iraq.

I'm very much against single-issue voting, but if there ever was one, this would be a great candidate. How about single-issue voting on foreign policy? Do we really need to have a debate over foreign policy when McCain and Bush were so obviously dead wrong on launching this war in the first place, while Obama was absolutely right? That settles the foreign policy debate as far as I'm concerned. Why waste so much time on it, when the last 5+ years have done nothing but proven Obama right and McCain wrong?

But really, isn't it interesting the the media NEVER discusses the logic of the initial invasion? That they NEVER question what that says about McCain's judgment? All of this chatter about what every little statement or event means about Obama's judgment or whatever, yet on the single most important question McCain flunked and no mention of it? Seriously, how can this possibly not be an issue in this campaign? Why does the media pretend the history of our involvement in Iraq started with the Surge? I'll give you a hint:

♥ Media ♥ McCain ♥

John McCain Exploits The Holocaust As A Cheap Political Attack

Oh. My. God.

Today McCain has stooped to a new low, that is even shocking to those used to his typical Republican smearmongernig. Today John McCain jumped on Obama's words at the Holocaust Museum in Israel to score some cheap political point. How unbelievably shameless. Here was what Obama said at Yad Vashem:

"Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

Here's more:

At the Holocaust memorial, Obama wore a white skullcap as he laid a wreath in memory of the victims of the Nazis.

Later, he said: "I am always taken back to sort of the core question of humanity that the Holocaust raises. That is, on the one hand, man's great capacity for evil, and on the other hand, our ability to come together to stop evil."

He added, "So despite this record of monumental tragedy this ultimately is a place of hope because it reminds us of our obligations and responsibilities hopefully to raise a better future for our children and our grandchildren." He said he hoped he could bring his two young daughters with him on his next trip.

In signing the guestbook, he wrote, "May we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

So we have Obama at Israel's Holocaust Museum, solemnly speaking to the great loss during the Holocaust, and how humanity has a moral imperative to make sure those crimes against humanity are never repeated.

John McCain apparently saw this as something that needs to be politicized, and perverted into some cynical partisan attack. McCain tried to accuse Obama of "flip-flopping" on preventing genocide! Seriously! He attacked Obama because in responding to a question in 2007 about whether the US military should be used to prevent a "potential genocide" in Iraq, Obama responded:

Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done.

In response to this, as if this even deserves a response, I have just two points. First, this was based on a hypothetical situation in which there was some threat of "potential genocide" in Iraq, which there absolutely is not, and no one has claimed there to be any threat of genocide occurring there. Furthermore, US troops have been absolutely powerless to prevent ethnic cleansing all around the country, especially in Baghdad, which contributed greatly to the massive refugee crisis in Iraq, leaving around 4.5 million Iraqi refugees either displaced internally or in neighboring countries. That was with over a hundred thousand US troops on the ground. The number of troops on the ground isn't the problem here.

That leads to my second point, which is that "preventing possible genocide" is a false excuse to remain in Iraq, and that was precisely Obama's point. He was simply noting the double-standard of saying we need to stay in Iraq to "prevent a possible genocide" (that doesn't exist and isn't in danger of occurring), when the US isn't doing a damn thing about ACTUAL genocide which IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Sudan. Seriously, it is an asinine proposition that we are in Iraq because of "humanitarian" reasons, when the US has a great track record of ignoring genocide, and this isn't even a case of genocide.

So, simply put, Obama spoke some empathetic and solemn words about the meaning of the Holocaust to humanity, and McCain jumped on it in the most shameless and cynical way possible by distorting Obama's (very accurate and legitimate) comments on a completely different subject and using the occasion to inject political smears into remembering the Holocaust and the very serious topic of genocide.

To say nothing of that fact that McCain is essentially saying Obama would let another Holocaust happen, which is an incredibly offensive and reprehensible accusation, no matter the context, and has absolutely no place in politics, let alone from a presidential candidate. Shameless.

Oh yes, and let's recall what Cindy McCain promised on the Today Show in May:

There are clear differences in this race between whatever candidates wind up against each other. That's the beauty of this race. What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all.

Really Cindy? Look at your husband now, who just used the Holocaust to attack his opponent. Is that not negative?? Furthermore, is that a great debate? Is that an honest discussion of the issues that matter to Americans? Is this what Americans deserve in this election??

Shameless.

Update: I should also point out that Samantha Power, the Harvard professor, Pulitzer-winning author of "A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide" and outspoken proponent of humanitarian intervention was singled out by Obama to join his campaign after he read her book, because he wanted someone with her values, opinions and expertise advising him on this very topic. To suggest that Obama is opposed to preventing genocide is to have no idea what Obama stands for.

Update #2: And as usual, it is only a matter of time after McCain attacks Obama that his hypocrisy floats to the surface, and this is no exception. Here is McCain back in 1994, talking about the ACTUAL genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, and how we shouldn't intervene:

I think it's unacceptable, the situation in Rwanda today. I think that it's unacceptable that in Bosnia there's ethnic cleansing going on. I find it unacceptable in many other parts of the world, terrible things that are happening, but it doesn't mean that we use military force to rectify the situation

Nice John, you are utterly shameless, and a gigantic hypocrite on top of that.

And here are pictures of Obama paying his respects at Yad Vashem:

McCain Screws Up More Facts About Iraq, And CBS Covers It Up

Ohhh I love Keith Olbermann, and I love how ignorant (or pathological) McCain is, because they provide entertainment like this:



Yes, McCain gets ANOTHER basic fact about the situation in Iraq wrong, WHILE attacking Obama and accusing him of not knowing what he is talking about! Yes, and these facts he can't get right are about the Surge, the very thing that has been the centerpiece of his foreign policy arguments, and he doesn't know the basics. Or, he knows he is lying. Who knows. Another reason this story is great, is because it shows the lengths CBS News went to to edit the interview and cut out McCain's lie/gaffe in order to protect him. Talk about a love affair.

Anyway, it is a great clip because Keith hits all the right questions. It is all probably a wash though, because the rest of the media (like CBS) will continue to carry McCain's water for him, and selectively report reality in order to protect McCain from the harsh reality of...reality.

Update: The Jed Report puts it together beautifully:



And here's another one, with video of McCain talking about the Anbar Awakening before the Surge, if anyone had any doubt:

McCain Employs Parlor Tricks For The Media While Obama (And Reality) Thumps Him On Foreign Policy

John McCain has been running around the media telling everyone that Maliki (and the Iraqis) endorsing Obama's withdrawal plan, and the fact that McCain has flip-flopped on Afghanistan to follow Obama's lead there, doesn't mean a thing, because according to him "the Surge has been a success." The media, dutifully nod their heads in agreement, as they hang on McCain's every word with love filled eyes.

The only problem is, the Surge hasn't worked. It hasn't worked by a long shot. Read my previous blog on this subject. Basically the drop in violence in Iraq can mostly be attributed to three things. First, "successful" ethnic cleansing in Iraq under our watch. The fighting decreased because the militias largely finished their job in killing or expelling the opposing ethnic groups from mixed neighborhoods and areas. The result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, and around 4.5 million Iraqi refugees. If that is "success", then pop the champaign, but it wasn't the doing of the Surge. Secondly, the US started buying off Sunni militias and arming them, to get them to fight against al-Qaeda. Yes, we gave our previous enemies weapons and money in exchange for their temporary support. And when they eventually want to use those weapons and that money against us, or against fellow Iraqis again, I guess that'll be written off as an "oops". But certainly that wasn't part of the Surge. Thirdly, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared a unilateral cease-fire to regroup, but has always remained on the verge of returning to violence, and it is certainly able to at any time.

For more on those, read my previous blog where I outlined the non-success of the Surge. What really led me to write this post, however, was how the media is eating all of this pro-Surge nonsense up. A fellow Kossack wrote an epithet-laden diatribe against the media, specifically aimed at Andrea Mitchell, and I think it was absolutely appropriate. He or she, like many others, including myself, is absolutely sick of how absurdly biased in favor of McCain. This Kossack shares my exasperation. It is beyond ridiculous. It is insanity at this point.

Luckily not everyone on MSNBC is as incompetent, so I'd like to give kudos to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who both hit the nail on the head on Countdown just now when reviewing how wrong McCain has been on Iraq and Afghanistan, and really how perfectly everything is falling behind Obama during his trip overseas. Keith made an excellent point when he highlighted the paradox that McCain insists that the Surge has been a success, yet we can't withdraw for years to come, even though the very goal of the Surge was to be able to leave a sovereign Iraqi government in place! He can't have it both ways, yet the vast majority of the media seems to want to let him have it both ways. Maddow quite aptly pointed out that McCain and Bush are now defining success in Iraq by us staying in Iraq, while Obama is defining success by getting out of Iraq.

Perhaps the best part was Rachel Maddow pointing out exactly what I pointed out on Saturday, that both Bush and McCain have previously committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq when a sovereign Iraqi government tells us to leave, which is exactly what their Prime Minister just said the Iraqis wanted. I'd like to think she reads my blog, but that probably isn't very likely (psst, Rachel, leave me a blog comment if it's you!). Looking back, here was Bush:

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice," the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say 'leave', we would leave."

And McCain:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

Yeahhh....

Anyway, I'm going to watch Maddow tear McCain up on his lies about oil prices... (You see, McCain is blaming Obama for high gas prices because he doesn't support offshore drilling, never mentioning that HE didn't support it either, until his recent flip-flop, and never mentioning that every economist and even Bush acknowledges that drilling out have no effect on gas prices for many many years, and even then it would have no effect. This is a perfect example of how the mainstream media gives McCain a free pass on his absurd lies and distortions, while only a very few, like Maddow, actually set the record straight. This isn't anti-McCain or pro-Obama, it is pro-reality. Sadly most of the media is committed to expunging all reality from their reporting. Oh, and for the record McCain, the price of oil increased nearly 600% since Bush took office, after being relatively flat for decades. Now who is responsible? Furthermore, who supports the exact same policies that led to those skyrocketing oil prices? Here's a hint: It isn't Obama.)

I'll put up some video if I can find it. (Got it:)



Now THAT'S journalism (disregard Howard Fineman's fallacious conventional wisdom about the Surge "working", and once again, read my previous blog on this, because "improvements" in Iraq have next to nothing to do with the Surge). And here's some more journalism:







It is time for MSNBC to get rid of Joe Scarborough or David Gregory and give Rachel Maddow their time spot, because neither of them hold a candle to Maddow, especially Scarborough, he himself is a former Republican congressman, so it is not surprising he is nothing but a Republican shill pumping the GOP propaganda on MSNBC. In fact, be proactive, sign the petition calling for MSNBC to give Maddow her own show!

McCain vs Geography (Round Two, or Eight)

I wrote this as an update to a story from a week ago, but I don't want this to get overlooked, so I'll note it here. For the THIRD time in a week, despite all of the ridicule, John McCain referred to the non-existent country of Czechoslovakia. It is unbelievable how incompetent this guy is, yet you wouldn't know it by watching the news or pundits. Anyway, read all about McCain's war on geography.

Update: On Good Morning America this morning he managed to screw up geography again! This time he referenced the non-existent Iraq-Pakistan border. Yes, those who know even a little bit about the Middle East might be aware that Iraq doesn't even come close to sharing a border with Pakistan, indeed the entirety of Iran is between them. What an idiot. And this guy is supposed to be Mr. Foreign Policy? C'mon media, enough with the crap, can we give up the charade now?

Iraqi Prime Minister Supports Obama's Iraq Plan, Not McCain's (Republican Strategist Says "We're Fucked")

So Obama is now on his world tour, which will take him through the Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Europe, among other places. John McCain has of course been attacking Obama on the fact he hasn't been on one of these trips for two years (he has been campaigning for the presidency for one and a half years, that doesn't leave much free time). McCain asserts that Obama hasn't met with Gen. Petraeus so he can't possibly know what is going on in Iraq. This, despite the fact that Obama met with Petraeus while he was testifying before Congress a few months ago. Apparently it isn't the actual meeting with Petraeus that is important, it is the longitude and latitude of that of that meeting. Somehow meeting with him in the US yields different results than if that meeting occurred in Iraq. Perhaps Obama should also meet with him in Antarctica, because who knows what he might say there.

And of course Petraeus has his own agenda, which closely reflects Bush's agenda. After all, Petraeus has misled Congress before. And Obama has made it clear that the military doesn't shape US foreign policy, the president does, yet he will take what they say under consideration. Of course McCain seems to think that this country is ran by the military, and that by talking to the military we can understand the big picture of our foreign policy. This, of course, helps explain why McCain and Bush have been so wrong on virtually everything. Obama, it turns out, has been right again and again, from Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan. Yet despite this, the media buys into this false characterization of McCain as foreign policy expert, juxtaposed with Obama the neophyte. Talk about media bias. It takes quite a leap to view the person (and the party) who has been wrong about so much as the expert, and the person who has been right about so much as the newbie. But hey, that's the media for you.

So anyway, Obama is starting off his trip in Afghanistan today. And today we also got news that already one person supports his Iraq plan: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Yes, probably the only people that you need to go to Iraq to hear, the Iraqis, agree with OBAMA, and think it is best for the US to pull out sooner rather than later:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Maybe McCain should spend a little less time hanging on the every word of military leaders, and a little more time actually listening to the people who run the country we are occupying. What a crazy idea! It has been obvious for a long time that there is no military solution to Iraq. And McCain, Petraeus said that too.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget this little gem from Bush last year:

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice," the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say 'leave', we would leave."

Hm, seems that we should be listening to what Obama has been saying, and start packing our bags.

[Update: And let's not forget this little gem from John McCain himself, it'll be fun to see him spin (flip-flop, flip-flop) his way out of this:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

Well said John, well said.]

It is almost comical how Obama is always right on these things, yet never gets credit. He is constantly being criticized by Bush and McCain. He was criticized for saying he would make surgical strikes at terrorists within the borders of Pakistan if their government is unwilling or unable to do it themselves. Yet then Bush did exactly that, and killed a high ranking al-Qaeda official. And then as violence has risen in Afghanistan, and the Taliban has made gains while al-Qaeda has continued to go free, Obama (oh, and military leaders) called for troops to be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, and McCain opposed any more troops for Afghanistan. Yet since then things have gotten worse with no new troops, and now McCain supports more troops for Afghanistan. And Obama has supported withdrawing troops from Iraq for a long time, yet Bush, McCain and the Republicans have called that "surrender" and "cutting and running" and opposed any "timelines", only now the military is sounding the same alarms as Obama has been about our military being stressed to the breaking point, and we've reached a point where we have no choice but to withdraw troops because our military simply can't handle it anymore. And of course the Iraqis agree with Obama. And now Bush and al-Maliki are discussing a "time horizon" for withdrawal of US troops. [Update: I almost forgot, Obama has said for months and months now that we should talk to foreign leaders like Ahmadinejad, the Republicans (and even Hillary) have attacked him for it relentlessly, comparing him to Nazi appeasers, and now the Bush administration is finally starting to open diplomatic channels to Tehran.] Time after time Obama has led on these issues, and been right, and McCain and Bush have followed, slowly, and grudgingly. Bush and McCain and the Republicans have been dead wrong from the beginning. And yet the media pushes this "Obama is inexperienced" nonsense, paying absolutely no attention to his vastly superior judgment. It is insanity that the same idiots that got us into this mess to begin with are treated as the smart ones. Our media has absolutely no hindsight. All of the focus is on the future, what we do with the mess now, with absolutely no acknowledgment of who's fault the disaster was to begin with. Bush and McCain should have absolutely no standing to discuss these issues, they should have zero credibility. They made the mistakes that Obama is going to have to clean up. Obama has the answers, it is time the media stop pretending he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Ezra Klein points out the pro-McCain, anti-Obama double-standard in the media, and he is absolutely right:

To really understand the importance of Maliki's comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, "at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves." It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about "Obama's Iraq Problem." Obama would probably lose the race.

If something like this happened that boosted McCain's position and made Obama's look bad, the media would tear Obama apart. When it happens to McCain...*crickets*. Thanks media, hopefully SNL will make fun of you at some point so you'll start doing your job. There never was a pro-Obama bias in the media, but the pro-McCain bias has been staggering from the very beginning.

Update: Marc Ambinder puts al-Maliki's announcement in context:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Maliki isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here.

So how will the McCain campaign respond?

Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked." No response yet from the McCain campaign.

Never fear, we're all counting on the media to sweep it under the rug for you McCain, as usual. Let's hope I'm pleasantly surprised for once..

Update #2: A White House employee screwed up while forwarding the article titled "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine" internally (undoubtedly so the Bush administration could start with damage control), and accidentally sent the email to their huge media distribution list! Hahahaha. You can't make this stuff up.

Update #3: The Obama campaign has released a memo highlighting pretty much the exact same things I just highlighted in this blog. Here is the intro, check here for the whole thing:

RE: Obama Leading on Foreign Policy, McCain Following

There are two problems with John McCain’s political attacks on Barack Obama’s foreign policy. First, on the biggest foreign policy questions of the last eight years, Barack Obama has made the right judgment and John McCain has sided with George Bush in making the wrong one. Second, the failure of the McCain-Bush foreign policy has forced John McCain to change his position, and to embrace the very same Obama approaches that he once attacked.

Just this week, Senator McCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack Obama’s position on two fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and more diplomacy with Iran. On both issues, Obama took stands that weren’t politically popular at the time – opposing the war in Iraq as a diversion from the critical mission in Afghanistan, and standing up for direct diplomacy with Iran – while John McCain lined up with George Bush. Time has proven Obama’s judgment right and McCain wrong.

The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq "surrender" – even though we’d be leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Now, the Bush Administration is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government – a position that Senator Obama called for last September, and reiterated on Monday in the New York Times. And now, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports Barack Obama’s timeline, telling Der Speigel that, "Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months."

Update #4: This is great, so after the buzz over Maliki's statement, the White House got involved, had the US Embassy in Iraq contact Maliki to "express concern" with his statements, and then an "Iraqi official" released a retraction of his comments from US Central Command (hmm...) saying, that Maliki's statement was "misunderstood and mistranslated" and "not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq" although the Iraqis never mention what was "mistranslated" or "misunderstood", in fact Maliki's comments really leave absolutely no wiggle room, they were clear as day, and Der Spiegel stands by their reporting. Let's review what Maliki said:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Yeah, I don't see how you can mistake that. It doesn't seem like anyone is buying the coverup. Pretty ridiculous.

Update (7/21): Now McCain is directly disputing the translation of Maliki's comments, even though the New York Times has independently verified the translation as accurate. Oh yeah, and then the same Iraqi spokesman who came out yesterday (from US Central Command) and said Maliki's comments were "mistranslated" and "misunderstood" after the White House threw a fit, came out today and said he hopes US troops can be out by 2010, which is essentially the exact same time frame Obama is pushing for. So much for "mistranslated" and "misunderstood". Yet McCain is still trying to refute this is what the Iraqis want. Keep digging McCain, keep digging.

Does McCain Advocate Jihad Against "The Muslims"? [Update: Yes, He Does]

If there is one thing we don't need, it is a religious war between the world's two largest religions, which include half of the people on this planet. The last thing we need is to inflame the Middle East, where our policies (notice, not our "freedom" or "love" or "liberty" or even our culture) have made us a source of hatred, by taking the conflict from the level of conflicts over foreign policy to global religious crusade.

Yet that seems to be what the McCain campaign (just like Bush and most, if not all, Republicans) seems intent on doing:

One of John McCain's fellow POW's in Vietnam defended the war in Iraq [on an official campaign conference call], saying, "The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us."

In a phone call with reporters arranged by the McCain campaign, Colonel Bud Day added: "I don't intend to kneel and I don't advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn't advocate to anybody that we kneel."

So the guy makes it obvious that he is speaking for McCain (on a first name basis no less). And this just isn't any surrogate, he is a major McCain surrogate. The guy is mentioned on McCain's website at least 143 times. He was one of the Swiftboaters against Kerry. He was recently rolled out by the McCain campaign to attack Gen. Wes Clark. This guy speaks for McCain, he talks about foreign policy and military matters for McCain. And here is he saying that "the Muslims" are trying to kill us, and we are, ostensibly, left with no other choice but to kill them first.

As Ben Smith notes, this "seems to have cast McCain's foreign policy in stark, religious terms". It isn't that we are at war with a predominately Muslim country because we invaded it without reason. It isn't that al-Qaeda attacked us because we had military bases set up in Saudi Arabia, and give weapons to Israel, which they use to kill Palestinians. Those are the foreign policy issues Osama bin Laden himself cited when explaining his opposition to the United States. Notice, he didn't say it was a religious war between Islam and Christianity (because according to the Republicans we are a Christian theocracy), that can only be solved by over a billion people dying on one side or the other. His beef isn't with our culture (he may not like it, but it isn't in itself justification for terrorist attacks), it isn't with our religion, it is with our foreign policy. He has specific and very real policy goals.

So why the hell are the Republicans intent on making this about religion? Why do they want to turn this into a clash of civilizations? Why are they constantly making this a war against Islam, or "Islamofascists" (which not a single GOP operative can actually define)? What a sloppy, obtuse way to understand and develop a foreign policy. Seriously, are these people complete idiots? Can they not understand grownup problems like foreign policy and diplomacy? Does it have to be some idiotic, Manichean dichotomy inevitably resulting in some epic World War between major religions?

Talk about sloppy and ignorant. "The Muslims"? He does realize that we have allies in the region that are Muslim. We rely on military bases set up in Muslim countries. The Iraqis we supposedly went over there to "liberate" (well, after we supposedly went over there to protect ourselves from "WMDs") are Muslim. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans, are they trying to kill us? Must we kill them lest we be forced to "kneel"? There are two Muslim members of Congress, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, are they trying to kill us? Should our "Christian" members of Congress lynch these two terrorists on the floor of the House? After all, they are with "the Muslims", so they must be trying to kill us. Right? That is how it works when we view the world through the oversimplified lens of an eight-year-old, or a Republican, right? We should have Christians fighting Muslims in the streets, and vice versa right? There are 55 countries in the world with majority-Muslim populations, so which should we wipe off the Earth first? Should it be Indonesia? They have the most Muslims, so obviously since we are "at war" with "the Muslims" that must mean they are trying to kill us the hardest, right?

I think you get the point, it is appalling, and insane, that Republicans go out of their way to frame real, life and death issues in the world in fairytale terms that only confuse the issues in the minds of Americans, while exacerbating the hatred or distrust of the United States in the Muslim world. Do we really want a prospective next president surrounding himself with maniacs who want to make our foreign policy into a new Crusade? Do we really want to go there? Do we really want our next president to view foreign policy through the lens of religious war? Does that make us any better than those fringe extremists who believe in jihad? Because that is essentially what these people are trying to make this into, a Christian jihad against all Muslims, fueled by fanatics, American fanatics.

Now I won't even go into the bigotry and racism these comments were wrapped in, I'll just wait for McCain to denounce and reject his surrogate's comments, and end his role in his campaign. I'll wait for McCain to apologize to Muslims, or at the very least the hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans, and the two Muslim US Representatives who were undoubtedly offended by the McCain campaign accusing them of wanting to kill "us". I'll wait for McCain to make it clear that our foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia isn't framed in terms of an "us or them" religious war between the United States and the world's 1.5+ billion Muslims. That is what I expect from the McCain campaign, because with the tense relationship we have with the Middle East, there is no room for these beliefs to be tolerated, and there is no room for further worsening our standing in the Middle East.

And McCain can apologize for his "I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live" comments while he is at it.

Update: McCain's campaign definitely isn't denouncing or rejecting the comments, in fact they seem to agree, unsurprisingly. A McCain spokesperson responded with this:

"The threat we face is from radical Islamic extremism."

Yes, it has nothing to do with our foreign policy, or leaders or ideologues of various countries, or globalization, or poverty, it is apparently all about their religion. Their problem with us has nothing to do with their religious faith, which shares its origins and many beliefs with Christianity, it is about our foreign policy. Am I surprised that McCain shares the fanatical and completely ignorant beliefs of his surrogate and the vast majority of the Republican Party? Of course not.

Obama's Foreign Policy Speech

Today Obama gave a big foreign policy speech, complete with a history lesson, in which he laid out his vision of a strong foreign policy founded on peace and diplomacy. Give it a watch:



Transcript here.

And while Obama educates voters on the historical underpinnings of our foreign policy, McCain still can't figure out that Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country in 15 years, not to mention his notorious problems understanding the basics of Sunni and Shia.

It would be hard to find two candidates who are more different.

This election is a no-brainer.

John McCain's War On Geography

McCain really has no idea what is going on in the world. I still think a lot of his lies are lies, meant to deceive voters into falling for his version of reality, but there is definitely a large amount of ignorance mixed in. Sometimes it is hard to know which side of the line many of his false statements land, but in this case, there is no question: John McCain is incompetent. From Huffington Post:

At a press availability today, John McCain expressed concern about relations between Russia and a country that hasn't existed for quite some time:

"I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia. Apparently that is in reaction to the Czech's agreement with us concerning missile defense, and again some of the Russian now announcement they are now retargeting new targets, something they abandoned at the end of the Cold War, is also a concern."

Czechoslovakia, of course, split into two separate countries in 1993.

It isn't the first time McCain has made this mistake, as TPM's Greg Sargent points out:

Around three months ago, McCain told Don Imus that he would "work closely with Czechoslovakia and Poland and other countries" to install the European Missile Defense System in Poland, according to the Democratic National Committee. (The slip-up was referenced elsewhere, too.)
And during a GOP debate in October 2007, McCain said: "The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don't care what his objections are to it."

There are more: in 1994, he suggested NATO be expanded to include Czechoslovakia. At an IRI dinner in 1999, McCain "twice thanked the ambassador from 'Czechoslovakia' for his efforts," according to the Washington Post.

And here comes the best part...

In fact, George Bush himself dinged McCain for this blunder back in the 2000 primary. Steve Clemons writes:

Second, before Republicans condemn Dems for being picky on this, let's not forget that in the 2000 campaign, when McCain also screwed up Czechoslovakia, it was none other than George W. Bush who said it deserved to be a campaign issue: "A guy gets up and quizzes me [on world leaders] ... but John McCain says something about the 'ambassador to Czechoslovakia.' Well, I know there is no Czechoslovakia [there's a Czech Republic and a Slovakia], but yet it didn't make the nightly national news."

This longstanding confusion persists despite McCain's numerous visits to both the Czech Republic and Slovakia (he described his 2001 meeting with Czech President Vaclav Havel as "an Experience . . . I can tell my Grandchildren about.") In fact, the former U.S. ambassador to Slovakia endorsed McCain's candidacy for president. Maybe he should offer the candidate some geography lessons too.

Hahahaha, Bush even knows better, now THAT'S saying something. McCain, got schooled by the dumbest president in US history. The worse part is that McCain keeps making the same mistake, over and over and over again, no matter how many times he catches hell for it, even after Bush makes fun of him for it, he keeps doing it (kind of like when he repeatedly mixed up Sunni and Shia, even though his keepers kept correcting him--but hey, no big deal, it isn't like anything important happens in the Middle East). You'd think after getting called on it once or twice he'd make a mental note, "You know, John, make a mental note, Czechoslovakia is not a country!" But nope, keeps doing it. He's been going strong for almost a decade and a half now, and there are no signs he is going to stop. Talk about stubborn, in addition to dumb as a rock.

And this idiot is running on foreign policy??

One last thing, it is interesting that Bush mentioned this, because apparently he was as frustrated as Democrats are with the media's love affair with John McCain. He can screw up over and over again, continually proving he is ill-equipped to be president, yet the media is completely silent. That love affair has been going on for years and years, I wonder if it will ever end.

Update: I think a long time ago McCain hit a critical mass with his "misstatements", and I think there are so many that they definitely warrant a new term to describe them. So, for the sake of organization, I'm adding a new tag to my blog....as soon as I figure out a good one.

Update (7/15): McCain did it yet again today. He really is in his own little world, and his handlers are apparently asleep at the wheel because someone needs to be reminding him, daily, that Czechoslovakia hasn't existed since for 15 years. Maybe they could make a ritual out of it, you know, he takes his pills, brushes his teeth, and a staffer makes him repeat after him or her, "Czechoslovakia is not a country, Czechoslovakia is not a country, Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country in 15 years."

Update (7/21): I can't believe it (ok, I can), but for the third time in a week, John McCain brought up "Czechoslovakia" again. This time it was while he was trying to attack Obama's foreign policy experience while he is overseas touring the world. Instead of catching Obama in a gaffe, McCain is gaffing it up himself. Of course the media doesn't care. Can you imagine if Obama had made the exact same mistake THREE times in a week, no matter how much ridicule these mistakes create on the internet, and had a long history of making the exact same mistake? The media would be jumping all over him trying to paint him as inexperienced or naive. But when McCain does it, over and over and over again: nothing. Anyway, once again (and certainly not the last time), do we really want someone who CANNOT figure out that this country hasn't existed for 15 years as our president? How do you think he is going to handle the economy, or Iraq, or global warming or health care or anything when the man can't figure out this simple thing? And I can't imagine that after all of the ridicule he has received over time for this gaffe, from the left and even from Bush, that he hasn't been made aware of it. Could he seriously be so sheltered, so out of touch, that he is impervious to all the buzz about these mistakes? If that's the case then add an incompetent campaign organization to the list of problems, because he should have MANY people monitoring the internet and the news media and everything looking to pick up on what is being said about him, and they should be relaying that information to him so he can make changes accordingly. If that isn't happening, or if he just isn't getting it, either way, he is failing a basic test of basic Commander-in-Chief skills (and grade school geography).

Update (7/21) #2: On Good Morning America this morning McCain managed to screw up geography again! This time it wasn't Czechoslovakia; instead he referenced the non-existent Iraq-Pakistan border. Yes, those who know even a little bit about the Middle East might be aware that Iraq doesn't even come close to sharing a border with Pakistan, indeed the entirety of Iran is between them. What an idiot. And this guy is supposed to be Mr. Foreign Policy? C'mon media, enough with the crap, can we give up the charade now?

Bush's Big Farewell

Jesus Christ, just when you thought Bush couldn't embarrass the United States any more, he leaves this week's G8 meeting with the world's "top leaders" with these parting words:

“ Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter!

From the UK's Telegraph:

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Mr Bush, whose second and final term as President ends at the end of the year, then left the meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido where the leaders of the world's richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions.

One official who witnessed the extraordinary scene said afterwards: "Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about America's record on pollution."

Seriously? He is proud of America's unparalleled contribution to perhaps the worst global crisis in the history??

Urg, that piece of shit...

What else can you say at this point?


I couldn't find a picture of him "punching the air", but I think this sums up the mood.

John McCain Jokes About Civilians Dying, Again

There is something disconcerting about having a president, or a presidential nominee, who relishes the thought of killing citizens of foreign countries, largely their civilians, and even finds it appropriate to joke about them dying. That is what we have now in John McCain.

We all remember his "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" song, which highlighted how nonchalantly McCain views using the military, and indiscriminately killing human beings, especially civilians, who would no doubt wind up terrorized, if not dead, from McCain's bomb bomb bombing of Iran. It is pretty sick that someone who wants to be the "leader of the free world" seems to think bombing is the answer for everything. But let's see what bomb bomb bombing really looks like:


Is this a joke?

Is this funny?

Are you laughing yet??

McCain continued with his joking about the deaths of Iranian civilians yesterday. When asked about the fact that US exports to Iran have increased during the last 8 years, mainly from cigarette sales, McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."

After his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back, he added, "I meant that as a joke."

Yeah, funny joke. Explain to me again, how someone who wants to be president of the United States (repeatedly) joking about the deaths of citizens of a foreign country is a joke? How is that funny? I must have missed something. Is that the kind of thing McCain thinks represents presidential behavior?? And given that our biggest foreign policy challenges in coming years will be in the Middle East, how is it constructive for someone who wants to be the next president to already be wishing for the deaths of Iranians? Is that supposed to improve our relations with Iran? Is that supposed to fight anti-Americanism and extremism in the Middle East??

Let's face it, McCain is not presidential material, he isn't even fit for Congress. McCain is an braindead frat boy with a temper, who just happened to be the son of an admiral so he got his career spoon fed to him. He clearly isn't fit to be president, he clearly doesn't have the maturity to be president, even at 72. He is more reckless than Bush, which is an amazing feat. And the best part is that this was the best the Republicans had to offer. He is their finest.

McCain Got Into Tussle During Diplomatic Mission

John McCain's flash temper is no secret in Washington, in fact he is quite infamous for it. Well yet another episode of McCain blowing up on someone has come out, further highlighting the risks we'd face with McCain in the White House. And this is all from a fellow REPUBLICAN Senator, so this isn't something someone made up to attack him:

Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., told a Mississippi newspaper that he saw McCain, during a trip to Nicaragua led by former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., grab an Ortega associate by his shirt collar and lift him out of his chair.

"McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerrilla group here at this end of the table and I don't know what attracted my attention," Cochran said in an interview with The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss. "But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever ...

"I don't know what he was telling him but I thought, 'Good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission.' I don't know what had happened to provoke John, but he obviously got mad at the guy ... and he just reached over there and snatched ... him."

Yeah, and we thought Bush sucked at diplomacy. I guess now we know why McCain doesn't want to meet with unfriendly foreign leaders, he can't handle diplomacy, and he can't control himself. He is just afraid of the Hulk coming out. I guess this is one area where McCain isn't the same as Bush, he is actually worse, more reckless, more dangerous.

If McCain becomes president, I hope they rig the football with soothing music, so hopefully McCain will calm down before he finishes entering in the launch codes.

Rock-a-bye Johnny, with the laptop,
When the nuke blows, the world will rock,
When the peace breaks, the gauntlet will fall,
And down will come Johnny, country and all.

McCain Would Repeat The War All Over Again

John McCain said something rather shocking today, and I don't mean confusing Sudan and Somalia:

In an interview with reporters on the back of his campaign bus, the "Straight Talk Express" Monday afternoon, McCain said that even in retrospect he would still have voted to authorize the war, as he did in 2002.

"I think there's no question," said the Republican's likely presidential nominee. "I owe too much to these young people who are serving there to let political considerations interfere with what I know is right.

When asked if he would have pushed for the war to begin with, had he known everything he knows now, McCain said he would do it all over again. Let's deconstruct that:

• McCain would have authorized a war against a sovereign nation, in clear violation of the UN Charter, under the false assumption that it possessed WMDs, even if he knew with 100% certainty that there were no WMDs, thus stripping his only justification for invasion, yet he would do it anyway. (This isn't all that surprising, since that is essentially what he actually did, only it wasn't a 100% certainty, but the evidence was clearly not there to support the WMD claims)
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq even if he knew doing so would produce no benefits, and would take our focus off Afghanistan and allow Osama bin Laden to go unpunished 7 years after 9/11, and leave al-Qaeda to regain its previous strength.
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq, even though doing so would greatly increase Iran's power in the Middle East.
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq, even if he knew that doing so would greatly increase anti-American sentiment around the world and aid terrorist recruitment. (That is a no-brainer, he should have known that anyway)
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq even if he had known it would cost at least $3 trillion in taxpayer money that could have gone to universal health care, or improving our education system, or alternative energy research, or all of those AND not creating a record national debt.
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq even if he had known that it would cause gas prices to skyrocket and help put the US into a recession.
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq even if he had known that well over 4,000 Americans would die, and tens of thousand would be wounded, countless would live with PTSD for the rest of their lives, and then there would be many suicides on top of that, and thousands of American families would be torn apart, again, all with absolutely no gains or benefits coming from the invasion and occupation whatsoever.
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq even if he had known the invasion would have been followed by years of bloody civil war and ethnic cleansing, and eventually would have led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis, most of them civilians, to say nothing of the untold number of wounded.
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq even if he had known that it would created a huge refugee, and humanitarian, crisis with over 4.5 million people displaced.
• McCain would have still invaded Iraq even if he had known that directly after the invasion looters would steal or destroy almost all of Iraq's cultural heritage in a mass pillaging of Iraq's museums, libraries and archaeological sites, while American soldiers watched (and protected the Oil Ministry, and nothing else). Iraq, at the heart of Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, is a historical treasure, and it was destroyed, and meant absolutely nothing to Bush, McCain, or any of the rest of them. Turns out it meant a lot to Iraqis and others living in the Middle East.

The list could go on and on, but you get the idea: Despite all of the horrible things that have happened as a result of the unlawful invasion of Iraq, John McCain would have done it anyway, even though nothing good has came of it, and certainly nothing good enough to outweigh the limitless costs of the invasion. Words don't do this justice, it is insanity, it is so unbelievably reckless, evil, sociopathic, it is just mindboggling, that ANYONE could say this war should have been waged, that anyone could say that it was worth it, worth all of that. I mean really we should view these sort of comments as if someone had said the Holocaust never happened. No, think about it, that is how asinine and cruel his comments were.

This war is indefensible, PERIOD.

McCain/Giuliani Defend Bush's Failed Policies While Attacking The Basic Principles Of Justice

In response to the recent US Supreme Court decision upholding the Constitution and international laws by giving detainees captured by the US and held at Guantanamo Bay and other prison/torture sites the right of habeas corpus John McCain today started accusing Obama of having a "September 10th mindset":

Once again, we have seen that Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mindset. If Senator Obama did receive that 3 A.M. call, his response would be to call the lawyers in the Justice Department.

Sensing that someone almost said "September 11th", Rudy Giuliani couldn't help but jump into the fray adding:

Throughout this campaign, I have been very concerned that the Democrats want to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter rather than a clear and present danger. Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security.

See, Rudy "9/11 9/11 9/11" Giuliani seems to lack a fundamental understanding of what "justice" means. First, we have a little saying in this country, I don't know if you've heard it, "Innocent until proven guilty"? It is pretty central to our system of law, and to fundamental protections of people from the tyranny of an unrestrained abusive government. You see, included in with the terrorists held by the United States, there are MANY people who aren't guilty of any crimes or wrongdoing. There have been MANY instances of people being abducted by the US military by mistake, or on false intelligence, or just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time while Arab. These people have been held for years without any justification, they have been tortured, and the US government didn't even have to accuse them of any wrongdoing, or provide any evidence that they did anything wrong, all the US government had to do was say "We say you are bad, so you are bad, and now you have no rights and we can do whatever we want with you for as long as we want because as long as we say you are bad, you don't exist to the outside world." So, Rudy (and McCain/Bush), this isn't about "terrorists", because all of the people who have been denied any right to challenge their unlawful imprisonment weren't terrorists. There are innocent people there, and we can see this plainly because after months or years of confinement and torture/abuse, many have been released without charge. Those weren't terrorists (although some probably became terrorists soon after out of revenge for their mistreatment). So yes, these people should be treated not like criminals, but like human beings, and we have no right to hold these people indefinitely without justification.

Now what McCain and Giuliani don't want voters to understand is that if the government actually has a reason to hold these people (in other words if they are actually terrorists), then their detention will be seen as lawful, and they will have to stay to face trial. The only people who this decision will help are the innocent people that the US government has no reason, and no right, to hold. The logic here is simple, if you have evidence against people, use it and give them a fair trial, and if the evidence indeed shows that they are guilty, then they will be proven guilty and can be locked up accordingly. If you don't have any evidence which would suggest these people have done anything wrong, and thus have no reason to be holding them, you should have to admit as much and let them on their ways, because holding innocent people for years for no reason, while abusing them, is NOT HOW AMERICA SHOULD ACT!

Giuliani and McCain also doesn't seem to understand what these unconstitutional and immoral arbitrary detentions and torture are doing to the image of America overseas, especially in the Arab world. People around the world, correctly, see the US acting as a tyrannical dictator, above the law, above remorse, above morality--because that is what we are acting like, that is the behavior that Bush/McCain/Giuliani are defending, and blasting Obama for not supporting, even though such behavior just fuels anti-American sentiment and terrorist recruitment and makes us all less safe. And apparently living up to the values of our Founding Fathers and the US Constitution is a "September 10th mindset"; in the post 9/11 world the US government plays the role of terrorist and dictator and rules with an iron, and incredibly counter-productive, fist. That's the Republican way.



Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism specialist most notable for warning the Bush administration of intelligence that predicted the September 11th attacks, and then subsequently being ignored by the Bush administration which then allowed 9/11 to happen, hit back at McCain/Giuliani and defended Obama:

"I'm frankly disgusted at my friends on the McCain campaign," Clarke said, perhaps being a bit optimistic in describing those folks as still being "friends" of his. Clark referred to the McCain camp's claim that Dems only favor a law enforcement approach to terrorism, and accused McCain advisers of "completely and utterly distorting the record of that party."

"They said that about Bill Clinton," Clarke continued. "They said that about John Kerry. And now they're saying it about Barack Obama. I'd like them to show where in the record Barack Obama has favored only a law enforcement approach."

The Obama camp hastily assembled the call after the news spread this morning about the McCain camp's attacks.

Clarke emphasized that Obama has unveiled a comprehensive anti-terror plan and has said that he would be willing to act on actionable intelligence to pursue Al Qaeda suspects in Pakistan. "This is the Karl Rove strategy of taking what the truth is, and stating the opposite," Clarke said of the McCain team's charges.

This is just pointing out the obvious, that just because Obama supports the US government following the Constitution instead of locking people up without cause and torturing them like a third world dictatorship, that doesn't mean that is his ONLY recourse against terrorism. Bush/McCain/Giuliani and the rest of the Republicans, as usual, are trying to play the voters for fools by distorting Obama's policies. In reality Obama has a much more intelligent and developed counter-terrorism plan than the Republicans have, and now that you mention it, it doesn't seem like the Republicans' plan has worked all that well...what ever happened to Osama bin Laden anyway...? Let's ask Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama rejected accusations from the McCain campaign that he is soft on terrorism on Tuesday, saying that Republicans who have failed to capture Osama bin Laden over the last seven years have little ground to criticize him for supporting some habeas corpus rights for suspects.

"Let's think about this: these are the same guys who helped engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11," Obama told reporters on his campaign plane. He said his statements about Guantanamo were intended to suggest that suspects have a right to be heard, not freed, and accused McCain of playing political games on national security.

"What they're trying to do us what they've done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid," Obama said.

Reminded that the Republican playbook worked in the 2004 presidential race, Obama countered: "Well, it's 2008."

"I'm looking forward to having a robust argument about this issue," he said. "I don't shy away from it. The way these issues have been framed have done a great disservice to America. They have not made us safer."

Oh yeah, that's right, the Republicans are defending failed positions that have left us more hated and less safe than ever! And they actually think that attacking Democrats on foreign policy and national security is a good idea, even though it failed miserably in 2006! So sad, the same tired old tricks from 2004, after 7 years of miserable failure. What it is that they say...?



Update: A nice catch by TPM. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the convictions for it in 1994, Rudy Giuliani had this to say about using legal (as opposed to illegal) means to combat terrorism:

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict "demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon -- the law."

Now isn't that interesting? Giuliani is running around saying we have to break the Constitution and violate the most sacred tenets of our justice system and American values to effectively fight terrorism, yet back in the 90s he said that the law was our greatest weapon in the fight against terrorism. Hmmmm. Yes, those terrorists are behind bars now, whereas with the Bush/McCain/Giuliani08 policies, we can't get anyone convicted of terrorism because we have so little evidence and we used torture to get unreliable information that would never hold up in court.

Update #2: Senator Biden, who has a lot of foreign policy experience, hit Giuliani over his new spokesperson role, and McCain over his support of Bush's failed policies, and he hit both nails squarely on their heads:

It's no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to defend the policies of John McCain and President Bush.

Sen. McCain insists that Americans must choose between our values and our security. That's exactly wrong. Our values reinforce our security. Our failure to live up to them has been Al Qaeda's biggest recruiting tool.

Update #3: It looks like former Navy secretary, and major McCain advisor, John Lehman doesn't think highly of Rudy Giuliani's disaster response planning:

It was Lehman who, during a Sept. 11 Commission hearing in NY City, took the Giuliani administration to task for the failure to have effective radio communications in place on Sept. 11, leading to chaos.

"I think the command and control and communications of this city's public service is a scandal," Lehman said at the time. In his most memorable quip, he said the city's disaster-response plans were "not worthy of the Boy Scouts, let alone this great city."

Funny how McCain is trying to turn Giuliani into a leading surrogate on national security now, even though his own advisors acknowledge he was asleep at the wheel when 9/11 happened.