First Door on the Left

Yep. With less then two months until the elections, I think the gloves are finally coming off. The McPalin campaign is screaming “victim” every time they turn around, and the Obama campaign is finally giving the Republicans a little taste of their own medicine. This is starting to get interesting. And fun.

Here are the two new ads the Obama campaign came out with today. The first defines what change really is and the second explains why we cannot have a president, especially in this day and age, who is technologically illiterate…

I’ll let Pickler tell you all about them (in her usual bipartisanical fashion).

P.S. Remember up top about how I mentioned the Republicans crying “victim” all the time? Well… the latest ad from the McCain camp is nothing but a big whine about how Barack Obama has “disrespected” Sarah Palin. Give me a break! What was that line Hillary Clinton used on Senator Obama back in January? Wasn’t it something about getting out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat? Perhaps it’s time for Johnny and the Republicans to get out of the kitchen.

(That ad, by the way, was about as racist as you can possibly get. Are they seriously accusing a black man of “disrespecting” a white woman? Is there supposed to be some kind of secret code in there for us “gentlemen of the south?” Senator McCain approves this message? I think Senator McCain owes Senator Obama an apology. Big time.)

Update: From Obama campaign manager David Plouffe…

“Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign, and today we are releasing two new ads that go directly at the fundamental issue in this race: John McCain is out of touch with the American people and unable to address the challenges facing the country in the 21st century and bring about real change, and that Barack Obama is the candidate who will bring about change that works for the middle class.

We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain’s attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people. We will not allow John McCain and his band of Karl Rove disciples to make this big election about small things.”

Jed Lewison (The Jed Report) has put together another excellent video. If you are even thinking of voting for Johnny McCain, you need to watch this video. If you know anybody who is even thinking of voting for Johnny McCain, you need to share this video with them. John McCain’s Neverending War…

(I have closed the comments on this post. If you have a comment about this video, please leave it on Jed’s blog. It’s okay, however, if you tell him that I sent you.)

P.S. Videos such as the one posted above really do make stories such as this one appear all the more ludicrous. Besides, does anyone actually watch “World News with Charles Gibson?” (Do any of the major media outlets have anybody on staff who is not receiving a weekly check from the RNC?)

Was it really a mistake, or is somebody in the Bush White House looking out for the future of the country? Perhaps we’ll never know…

White House Tips Press Off to Maliki Interview

WACO, Tex. — The White House is quick to distribute its point of view in e-mail messages with headings like “News You Can Use,” “In Case You Missed It,” and “Setting the Record Straight.” So it was a surprise on Saturday morning when the White House distributed an article by Reuters that offered an endorsement of Senator Barack Obama’s Iraq policy by the leader of Iraq.

“Iraq PM backs Obama troop exit plan,” the headline read over a story about an interview of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he expressed support for the senator’s plan to withdraw American combat brigades from Iraq over the next 16 months.

“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months,” Mr. Maliki told Der Spiegel, Reuters reported. “That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Turns out it was a mistake by the White House clipping service, which had intended to distribute it internally but instead sent it to thousands signed up to receive the administration’s press releases, transcripts, statements and other documents, drawing attention to an interview that might otherwise have received less.

The timing compounded the mistake. It came a day after the White House announced that President Bush, in a significant shift, had agreed to a “general time horizon” for withdrawing American forces, though not on the strict timetable Mr. Obama favors. Mr. Maliki’s remarks suggested a position not entirely in line with President Bush’s, despite Friday’s announcement.

Troops meet future Commander-in-Chief

Related: “Obama Opens a Foreign Tour in Afghanistan.”

Barack Obama delivered a major speech on Iraq and national security this morning. It was entitled “A New Strategy for a New World.” I’m not sure that it was his best oratorical effort. In fact, judging from the video, I’m not even sure the audience was awake. Having said that… there was a lot of meat to the speech and quite a bit of policy and information to digest. You can read the speech (as prepared for delivery) here.

Here is the video (all 36 minutes and 24 seconds):

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What’s missing in our debate about Iraq – what has been missing since before the war began – is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

Meanwhile, Johnny McCain today claimed “I know how to win wars.” Really? What wars has Johnny McCain won? Why didn’t anybody in our so-called liberal media ask him? “Excuse me, Senator, what wars have you won?” It sure wasn’t Vietnam. He sat that one out in a POW camp. In what other wars has he participated? Where, and how, did he learn to win wars?

Inquisitive minds really would like to know. (Though, apparently, not our so-called liberal media.)

Senator Barack Obama in today’s New York Times:

My Plan for Iraq

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

Click on the headline to read the entire column.

Senator McCain, your rebuttal please?

The Republicans (and some Democrats) are attacking Barack Obama for, they say, changing his position on the war in Iraq. But did he?

Here is what is on his campaign website:

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Here is the New York Times report on what he said today…

Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline

FARGO, N.D. – Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country. He stressed that he has long called for a careful and responsible withdrawal of American forces, but he declined to offer a fresh endorsement of his plan to remove one to two combat brigades a month.

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”

He added, “I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

I don’t see a whole lot of difference between what he said today and what is posted on his website. He just fleshed it out a bit today.

But, you know what? Even if there is a difference, I am not really all that upset about it. It is, in my opinion, better to have a Commander-in-Chief who is willing to evaluate conditions and adjust his policies accordingly than one who stubbornly insists on “staying the course” no matter how things may change.

I have opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. So has Barack Obama. I’m still voting for him. He remains light years ahead of the alternative.

There is no need to be alarmed. The Bush/McCain Surge in Iraq is working marvelously…

Diplomats Told to Take Cover in Baghdad

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department has instructed all personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad not to leave reinforced structures due to incoming insurgent rocket fire that has killed two American government workers this week.

In a memo sent Thursday to embassy staff and obtained by The Associated Press, the department says employees are required to wear helmets, body armor and other protective gear if they must venture outside and strongly advises them to sleep in blast-resistant locations instead of the less secure trailers that most occupy.

“Due to the continuing threat of indirect fire in the International Zone, all personnel are advised to remain under hard cover at all times,” it says. “Personnel should only move outside of hard cover for essential reasons.”

“Essential outdoor movements should be sharply limited in duration,” the memo says, adding that personal protective equipment “is mandatory for all outside movements.”

“We strongly recommend personnel do not sleep in their trailers,” it goes on to say, offering space inside the Saddam Hussein-era palace that is the embassy’s temporary home as well as room at an as-yet uncompleted new embassy compound and a limited supply of cots.

In a separate public notice to American citizens in Iraq, the embassy said the restrictions would remain in place “until further notice.”

The staff memo says all personnel under the authority of the chief of mission “are required to wear body armor, helmet and protective eyewear any time they are outside of building structures in the International Zone. In addition, chief of mission personnel in the International Zone have been advised to remain inside of hardened structures at all times, except for mission essential movements.”

We really have a lot to show for five years, don’t we?

You can forget about the 4,000 American soldiers who have given their lives for George W. Bush’s war in Iraq. Never mind the thousands of others who are crippled or maimed for life. Their families and loved ones count for nothing. According to Dick Cheney, the biggest burden in Iraq belongs to George W. Bush. All those other people volunteered, after all. Poor George just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cheney on Iraq: Bush Has Greatest Burden

Dick Cheney

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney was asked what effect the grim milestone of at least 4,000 U.S. deaths in the five-year Iraq war might have on the nation.

Noting the burden placed on military families, the vice president said the biggest burden is carried by President George W. Bush, who made the decision to commit US troops to war, and reminded the public that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan volunteered for duty.

“I want to start with the milestone today of 4,000 dead in Iraq. Americans. And just what effect do you think it has on the country?” asked ABC News’ White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz, who traveled with the vice president on a nine-day overseas trip to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.

“It obviously brings home I think for a lot of people the cost that’s involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Cheney said in the interview, conducted in Turkey. “It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think — it’s a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who’ve sacrificed as they have.”

“The president carries the biggest burden, obviously,” Cheney said. “He’s the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm’s way for the rest of us.”

In stark contrast, here are the statements from the Democratic presidential candidates…

Barack Obama:

It is with great sadness that we have reached another grim milestone in Iraq, with at least 4,000 of our finest Americans having been killed. Each death is a tragedy, and we honor every fallen American and send our thoughts and prayers to their families. It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future. As we do, we must serve the memory of all who have died as well as they served our country, by providing support for their families, caring for our troops and veterans, and upholding the American values which our fallen heroes exemplified through their service.

Hillary Clinton:

Five years after the start of the war in Iraq, there have now been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. On this solemn day, we remember the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform. We honor the tens of thousands more who have suffered wounds both visible and invisible, wounds that scar bodies and minds, and hearts as well. We honor the sacrifices of their families, a price paid in empty places at the dinner table, in the struggle to raise children alone, in the wrenching reversal of parents burying children.

In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: “They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.”

I recall the great honor of meeting many of our brave men and women who have served our country. In meeting them, I am always struck by how, no matter how great their suffering, no matter how grave their own injuries, they always say the same thing to me: “Promise that you’ll take care of my buddies. They’re still over there. Promise you’ll keep them safe.”

I have looked those men and women in the eye. I have made that promise. And I intend to honor it by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely.

There are those who believe there is no great difference between Republican and Democrat. They need to think again.

It seems that we don’t hear much about these days, given all else that is going on (like Obama’s preacher and what not), but George W. Bush’s and John McCain’s war of choice in Iraq wages on…

Militants target Green Zone in Baghdad

BAGHDAD - Rockets and mortars pounded Baghdad’s U.S.-protected Green Zone Sunday and a suicide car bomber struck an Iraqi army post in the northern city of Mosul in a surge of attacks that killed at least 57 people nationwide.

The latest violence underscored the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups as the war enters its sixth year and the U.S. death toll in the conflict approaches 4,000.

Attacks in Baghdad probably stemmed from rising tensions between rival Shiite groups — some of whom may have been behind the Green Zone blasts. It was the most sustained assault in months against the nerve center of the U.S. mission.

Spare a thought today for our brave men and women who are caught up in this fiasco, won’t you? Perhaps soon we can start bringing them home to their families where they belong.

If this is a preview of what we have to look forward to in the general election debates, then I say “Bring it on!”

McCain, Obama Tilt Over al-Qaida in Iraq

McCain / Obama

TYLER, Texas (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Barack Obama’s view of al-Qaida in Iraq, and the Democratic contender responded that GOP policies brought the terrorist group there.

The rapid-fire, long-distance exchange Wednesday underscored that the two consider each other likely general election rivals, even though the Democratic contest remains unresolved.

McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night’s Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act “if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq.”

“I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It’s called ‘al-Qaida in Iraq,’” McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama’s expense. He said Obama’s statement was “pretty remarkable.”

Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. “I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that’s why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets,” he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus.

“But I have some news for John McCain,” Obama added. “There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. … They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.”

Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq “so we actually start going after al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place.”

While he praised McCain as a war hero and saluted his service to the country, Obama said the Arizona Republican was “tied to the politics of the past. We are about policies of the future.”

Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he’d follow Osama bin Laden to the “gates of hell” to catch him, Obama taunted: “All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq.”

I love the fourth paragraph… “drawing laughter at Obama’s expense.” Were they laughing with him or at him? Or is this just proof that Republicans will laugh at anything, no matter how inane? (Considering that a lot of them think Chris Muir’s cartoons are funny, my guess would be the latter.)

More here.

John McCain:

(Why is it that Republicans have such a hard time understanding that Democrat is a noun and Democratic is an adjective? It’s “I was not interested enough in this election to watch the Democratic debate last night” not “I am unembarrassed [unembarrassed?] to tell you [though I should be] that I did not watch the Democrat debate last night.”)

Barack Obama: