If, as John McCain insinuates, Obama's policies of diplomacy in the middle east and withdraw from Iraq are a sign that Obama would rather lose the war than the Presidency, what does that say about the Bush Administration's sudden interests in diplomacy and withdraw?

There has been a lot of attention paid to John McCain’s apparent flip-flop yesterday on timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, and given his frequent attacks on Barack Obama’s call for a 16 month timetable (or if you prefer, horizon), McCain’s words were rather stunning:

BLITZER: So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?

McCAIN: He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.

But why don't we just add this to his ever growing list of flip-flops since McCain will dismiss any questions on this about-face and the media will go along with whatever he says because he is the foreign policy expert (despite his confusion or outright lies about his past statements on the war, Sunnis, Shiites, Iran and the Anbar Awakening). But since McCain has spent the past week whining about the press, perhaps the media could oblige him with some primetime coverage and ask him to clarify a couple of other comments he made during yesterday’s interview. None that would call into question his foreign policy expertise, of course. After all, he was a P.O.W. nearly 40 years ago. But just to have him clear up a couple of points he made. For instance, at McCain said:

I can only tell you, I will not discuss hypotheticals and I can’t.

But earlier in the day, McCain went über-hypothetical while imagining a world without the surge:

The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically," he said. "Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.

Perhaps the media can ask him why he will not, cannot talk about hypotheticals when it comes to foreign policy questions that concern all Americans, but he can describe a hypothetical scenario of the Middle East engulfed in flames if he thinks it helps him politically. And heck, maybe ask him what "victory" in Iraq means...hypothetically. After all, McCain keeps saying "we’re on the road to victory," so it would be nice to know if he knew where the hell that road is. And while they’re on the subject of Iraq, maybe they could have him clarify that whole birth of the secret surge thing.

And speaking of secrets, what I think all Americans would really be interested in is the secret, guaranteed plan to capture Osama Bin Laden that McCain mentioned to Blitzer yesterday.

BLITZER: You're President of the United States, you vowed that you will capture Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. Now we know that President Bush, since 9/11, has been doing the best he can. What would you do different?

MCCAIN: Well, I'm not going to telegraph a lot of the things that I'm going to do because then it might compromise our ability to do so. But look, I know the area, I've been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so we will capture Osama Bin Laden, or put it this way, bring him to justice. We will do it, I know how to do it.  [...]

It might be a good thing to reveal to the world the enormity of this guy’s crimes and his intentions which are still there and he’s working night and day to destroy everything we stand for and believe in

Leaving aside the fact that besides World War II, John McCain has never seen a war won, can the media ask him why he is keeping his sure-fire plan to capture Osama Bin Laden a secret? And perhaps more importantly, why he hasn’t shared the details with anyone over the past 7 years? He knows that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, he says Bin Laden is actively seeking to destroy us every single day, and he won’t reveal his plan unless he’s elected? Why, that almost seems like a terrorist threat. And if Bin Laden launches a successful attack against the U.S., can we hold John McCain responsible since he could have captured him but refused to do so? That's a discussion that I'd like to see airing from coast to coast.

John McCain wants more media coverage, so by all means, bring it on.

Are we only listening to the Pentagon's version of the surge?   Here's a different perspective and some alarming numbers.  

Ronald Reagan has become an icon in the Republican party, and among many independents.

This is in part because Reagan had the courage to stand against Communist totalitarianism, and to take action that bankrupted the Soviets.  Reagan famously said that, "the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."

In 2008, I believe that the central force of totalitarianism is not "Islamofascism".  They don't have the money or the military might.  The world will stand against them, and if we keep our eye on the ball, we'll get energy independence and stop funneling tens of billions to Muslim extremists with oil wells.

Continuing to play the victim at the hands of the American media that love him, on Friday John McCain bashed both Barack Obama and the press.  Appropriating Lance Armstrong's cancer awareness event in Columbus, McCain slammed the "throng of adoring fans" who greeted Obama in Paris.  Sadly for McCain, French President Nicolas Sarkozy's glowing reception of Obama probably has less to do with media bias than with the insults McCain hurled at France in the run-up to the Iraq war.

A couple weeks ago, over at the Progressive Future headquarters, a couple of us started wondering out loud how much of of our taxes went to fund the Iraq War. My colleague did a little research and found a formula for how to figure this out. After discovering that in 2007, I paid for $204 of war, my first thought was, "Dang. That money could have gone to pay a month of my health care premium."

So then, as a fun little game (yes, we over at Progressive Future have an interesting take on what's fun), we decided to make an internet tool that would not only calculate someone's contribution to the war from their 2007 income, but would also tell that person how many days that money could have covered their health care, education, powered their home with renewable energy, or paid for a veteran to receive higher education.

Turns out, any of those last four options would be the more lucrative investment (for those of us who aren't Dick Cheney).

The one thing that bothers me about political coverage is how little fact checking there is. Most news outlets talk about Keeping Them Honest, but far too often they don't. Sadly, in this day and age, truth has become a subjective thing. My truth might be different from your truth and that is so wrong, on so many levels. Truth should be verifiable with incontestable facts. It should not be subject to interpretation. As the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: "You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own set of facts."

I know that starting political discussions can be dangerous. I have also learned that just because you know someone casually, you can't assume to divine their political leanings from their general behavior. People whom I have respected as individuals and co-workers have left me dumbfounded with their political beliefs (let's not even bring religion into the picture). So I have to wonder where my views fall in the continuum of liberal thought. Are my facts truly facts, or merely opinions?

So I've decided to post my understanding of the issues we face in this election cycle, seeking to initiate a dialog to test my facts. What do you think?

Senator Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, has said that he wants to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq within about 16 months. Now it appears that political differences are narrowing and that a possible consensus is building for just that.

The Wall Street Journal in an article on 23 July by By John D. McKinnon, Yochi J. Dreazen and Elizabeth Holmes noted that President Bush had announced a week earlier that he would agree to a "time horizon" for withdrawal. The Prime Minister of Iraq is also pleased.

In the days that followed, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly endorsed a target date for withdrawal -- the end of 2010, roughly in line with the mid-2010 time frame advocated by Sen. Barack Obama.

[Updated to correct grammatical error]

John McCain apparently saw the writing on the wall, and it told him he had better change his position in regards to a timetable in Iraq or be left in the dust.  It was increasingly apparent that the sovereign Iraqi government were sold on Obama's 16-month plan, so McCain stopped criticizing it and jumped on board.  

"I think it's a pretty good timetable" stated McCain on Friday during an interview on CNN's Situation Room.  Of course he tried to provide some difference between Obama and him by saying that it depends on conditions on the ground, though Obama has always maintained that as well.

The Examiner is a newspaper to which I am endlessly grateful because it gave me the opportunity to publish letters on immigration that liberal and Hispanic publications denied me despite The Examiner's very conservative position. Nevertheless, even though you can find interesting articles by Irvin Stelzer in the same newspaper or by David Brooks or George Will, there are authors like Jay Ambrose whose work should have earned them a place in The Onion. In this entry we will see Jay Ambrose's evolution (sic) on two issues through the letters I sent to The Examiner about Ambrose's articles. Some of these letters were published. The dates and titles to which I refer are those of my responses but Ambrose's articles could be found in The Examiner's editions previous to those dates.

Cody Lyon
It brings tears when ribbons hanging from an old iron fence just blocks from the Empire State building represent prayers for precious souls, souls taken so unfairly, so early. It's not fair that they can no longer participate in conversations about tolerance while sitting under trees amidst buildings that touch the sky. Those ribbons remind everyone that there are millions of broken hearts across the world thanks to the horror that the un-necessary human behavior war is.

The phrase "Senator Obama you were wrong about the surge" looms in the balance of the 2008 election. It is basically the one "gotcha phrase" that the McCain camp has at its disposal that the Obama camp has not effectively neutralized.
Ultimately, the acusation will be delivered again and again throughout the campaign. Most importantly, it will be dramatically delivered during the first Presidential debate. How Obama responds will weigh heavily on the outcome of the debate. In the mean time, the Obama camp must work hard not to vacillate and sputter on thier response.

I work with survivors of torture and trauma, mainly with women survivors, from all over the world.

Recently, we have begun to see Iraqi refugees.  Every immigrant group has its challenges.  However, among some of the Iraqi refugees we have begun to work with, we are encountering a sense of entitlement that we have never seen before.

This of course, is not true of every person, but among quite a few I have encountered:

a.  requests for teeth whitening
b.  requests for money for breast augmentation
c.  refusal to accept used furniture...insisting on purchasing new
d.  having the money and resources to shop at Neiman Marcus, Saks, etc. and other luxury outlets.
e.  a tendency to be aggressive toward other cultural groups (one iraqi boy recently killed a Somali)and elitist in attitudes

All that's needed is for something to happen to rile the 'mahdi' army and the ceasefire will end, as well as some Iraqi leader to demand "America tear down these Walls!" and the Real Purposes for the 'surge', i.e. Escalation, will be no more!

The media, with prompting from the McCain campaign, wants Obama to admit that the surge worked and for him to admit that he was wrong to have not supported it. I think Obama is right to point  out that other factors have contributed to an obvious decrease in violence in Iraq, but the media has tried to compare Obama's  unwillingness to say that, knowing what he knows now, he still wouldn't have supported the surge to Hillary Clinton's unwillingness to say that, knowing what she knows now, her decision to have voted for the Iraq War was the wrong decision.

Whether or not the surge has worked, Obama had one very good reason above all others for having not supported the surge and I'm wonder why he does not point it out: the Bush Administration not only made the wrong decision to go into Iraq and lied to justify that initial decision but, most importantly, the administration planned that war incompetently. They wasted money and did not do the footwork to insure that the mission they gave the troops was well executed and did not give the troops the equipment they needed. With the track record of incompetency Bush and Co. had displayed, why would Obama agree to throw more money and troops into a sinkhole?

Senator Obama has had an amazing week outside of the U.S. He's helped to renew optimism and sense of mission in our brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and the commanders(not that they were deficient in either but a little boost never hurts) while meeting with the leadership of both of those countries as well as the leaders of Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians.  All parties seemed to have gotten a genuine boost from his visit with some uneasiness being assuaged and relationships being built.  All the leaders seemed genuinely pleased and impressed with Senator Obama who did a wonderful job or representing the US Senate to the Middle East.  He then gives a thoughtful and moving speech in Germany reminding both us and our European allies of our common strengths and beliefs, opportunities to improve and our historic partnerships in both war and peace that helped reshape the world for the better without coming across as petulant, arrogant or pandering.  All in all it was a wonderful blend of statesmanship, patriotism, diplomacy and character that to be frank, our allies have seen all to little of from us (if at all) for these past 7.5 years.

More below the fold

Ever since Nouri al-Maliki endorsed Barack Obama's plan to withdraw most US troops from Iraq within about 16 months, John McCain has been agitatedly trying to find a cloud in the silver lining. He's opted to belittle Obama's judgment for opposing the "surge" - implying somehow that the US has won the sectarian civil war by placing more troops in the middle of it. What we won is left unclear, but whatever it is McCain is keen to take the credit.

Speaking to Hispanic vets on Friday in Colorado, however, McCain moved beyond mere vaunting to full mouth frothing. In situations like these the temptation is always to rebut McCain point by point. But sometimes you have to resist the easy route. Sometimes, tactically, it's more effective to force yourself just to stand back and report the Berserk as you happen to find it.

Without further ado, then, McCain's insights on the Iraqi civil war:

McCain, a Vietnam War veteran, said if Obama had succeeded in his effort to prevent last year's boost in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, American forces would have had to retreat under fire, the Iraqi army would have collapsed and al Qaeda would have found a safe haven..."We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right," the Arizona senator added

Because drawing fire is more hopeful than evading it.

"We face another choice today. We can withdraw when we have secured the peace and the gains we have sacrificed so much to achieve are safe," McCain said. "Or we can follow Senator Obama's unconditional withdrawal and risk losing the peace even if that results in spreading violence and a third Iraq war."

'Unconditional withdrawal' - a cute turn of phrase. Makes you wonder whether McCain would prefer, say, negotiated violence.

"Senator Obama and I ... faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander in chief," McCain said. "America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe that Senator Obama's failed."

McCain doesn't grade on a curve, America! And just look how Obama even failed at his attempts to fail.

"Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops."

Boy is he lousy at predicting things.

"As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and ... villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse - worse! - not better."...

In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chose failure," McCain said. "I cannot conceive of a commander in chief making that choice."

Is John McCain trying to convince us that he's the smart one, or the angry one?

In 1967, John McCain was shot out of the North Vietnamese sky, crash landed in a lake, taken prisoner, and held in captivity for ... 41 years, so far.

No one can dismiss the unimaginable agony of enduring six years in an enemy prisoner of war camp. It is surely a brutal experience both physically and mentally. It is the sort of experience that never leaves you and, indeed, it seems never to have left John McCain. His entire post-POW frame of reference is shaped by what he went through, and also by what he missed as a consequence of his incarceration.