Please go watch this video of McCain talking about Surrendering and White Flags.

It just occurred to me what Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister of Iraq, President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain and the Republican Party may be up to with al-Maliki’s sudden demand for a withdraw date of American troops from his country.

Yesterday, Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister, who boasted last week that he had crushed terrorism in the country, ‘suggested’ that it was time to start setting time-lines.

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” Mr al-Maliki said during a visit to the United Arab Emirates.

This sudden demand comes before Iraqi provincial elections later this year, and may be a political strategy for the Prime Minister’s campaign to be reelected.  It also comes during Senator John McCain and the Republican Party’s fight to keep control of the White House in November.

Both parties benefit having their voters ‘thinking’ that the war in Iraq is about to come to an end.  Having the news media reporting that there are negotiations going on, discussing a ‘possible’ withdraw date from Iraq just before Election Day, can only benefit those currently in power or are hoping to be.

The Iraqi people will think that the Americans will finally be leaving soon.  Americans will think that our troops will be coming home soon. 

The Republican Party and Senator John McCain will say, “The Surge worked – we have a Victory in Iraq.”

A word of warning to my fellow Americans.  These negotiations do not have to be solved by Election Day in November.  The two governments have until the end of the year to settle.  In other words, don’t get your hopes up too soon.  This arguing back and forth about a ‘possible’ withdraw date -- could just be a political ploy. 

We’ve been ‘lied’ to before, remember.

I have a word of warning for the Democratic Party and Senator Barack Obama.  The Republican Party most likely has big plans for a large troop withdraw announcement right after the Republican Convention in early September.

What better way is there to get the Iraq war off the table politically, but to promise troops are coming home before Thanksgiving or Christmas?

What better way is there to bring Senator John McCain’s support for a troop surge in 2007, that to all appearances, seems to have worked, to the forefront of the news, ignoring of course, the fact that the real reason for the surge has ‘yet’ to be solved.

I have a suggestion for Barack Obama.  He should begin immediately the day after the Republican Convention demanding to know why our ‘surge’ troops are still in Iraq.

He should point out that if the President, Senator McCain and the Republican Party are correct in their assumption that the surge worked and if the Pentagon reports are correct that violence is down by 90% and if the Iraqi government is demanding a withdraw date from our government -- why are American troops still there?

Barack Obama should get 'his' foot in that door before it's too late.

In a rebuff to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Pentagon said Monday that any timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground there.

Maliki told Arab ambassadors on Monday he was pressing for such a timetable in negotiations with Washington on an agreement on the status of US forces in Iraq beyond 2008…

Maliki's comments to Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates marked the first time he has specifically demanded a timetable for a US withdrawal.

"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," a statement from Maliki's office quoted him as saying.

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," he added.

Remember President George W. Bush’s answer to a question by the media in May of 2007, about Iraq asking us to leave, whether or not we would abide by their request? 

Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: 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. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

Q -- catastrophic, as you've said over and over again?

THE PRESIDENT: I would hope that they would recognize that the results would be catastrophic. This is a sovereign nation, Martha. We are there at their request. And hopefully the Iraqi government would be wise enough to recognize that without coalition troops, the U.S. troops, that they would endanger their very existence. And it's why we work very closely with them, to make sure that the realities are such that they wouldn't make that request -- but if they were to make the request, we wouldn't be there.

Will the media and political pundits go after Senator John McCain and demand to know what ‘he’ will do as President if the Iraqi’s ask us to leave?  Will he accept a timeline for withdraw (which he calls “raising a white flag of surrender”) from the Iraqi government?  Or will he make threats if they insist on us leaving? 

This is not a minor problem for John McCain - it's a major one.  He calls withdrawing the same thing as surrender.  How will he convince the Iraqi's to allow us to stay?  Or will he play his negotiation cards, "You WILL let us stay or else......"?
 

Baghdad car bomb kills six, wounds 14

Seven killed in Iraq bombing

Militants shot dead two off-duty policemen

Iraqi special forces kill one militant, detained eight others

37 armed militants arrested, 24 bombs defused in Baghdad

Gunmen assassinate Shiite official in Iraq

Roadside bomb wounds Iraqi Islamic Party official

Two bodies found in Baghdad, one found in Mahaweel on Friday

Roadside bomb wounds policeman in central Baghdad

In April there were 52 American’s killed
In May there were 19 American’s killed
In June there were 29 American’s killed
A total of 4114 American’s have been killed since the war in Iraq began.

Could somebody please tell me exactly what it means when we hear the media and our government saying that violence is down in Iraq?

While I’ll agree that the amount of American’s killed has dropped since April; It’s also increased since May.

In 2007 we had 117 American’s killed in Afghanistan.  So far this year, in less than 5 months, we’ve had 67 American’s killed.  There have been 542 killed since the war there began.

I’m afraid we didn’t learn from other’s history there in the Middle East.

A refresher course:

The Iran-Iraq War was a war between the armed forces of Iraq and Iran lasting from September 1980 to August 1988.

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 Sept 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long suppressed Shia majority influenced by Iran's Islamic revolution.

Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years Iran was on the offensive. Despite several calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 2003.

 
Here’s a bit of history for you on the Soviet and Afghanistan war.
 

The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted 9 years.  Initially Soviet deployment of the Army in Afghanistan began on August 7, 1978. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the interminable and inconclusive nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the Soviet equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War.

Do you get the picture I’m sending you?

Either we decide to 'stay' in Iraq and Afghanistan 'forever' or we consider our successes as a victory and pull out while we can.

We've killed or captured thousands of terrorists and al qaeda.  We put them into a situation where they must completely rebuild to continue.
 
We've given Iraq time to rebuild their nation and government, along with a fighting machine of their own.  Same goes for Afghanistan.

It's time to pull out now, while we can still consider our mission accomplished.

Senator Obama, your words;

“ Your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
 
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny. 

After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

Senator Obama, you fail to see the real problem with your decision to vote for the FISA bill over what the ‘people’ want.
 
It’s not so much about what the bill will or will not do, while that is very important, what’s more important is your (and Dr King's), “the fierce urgency of now”, the American people need to feel like they are finally being listened to.
     
You just told them, while very eloquently I might add, why you disagree and thanks but I’m voting the way ‘I’ think is best.  In other words, you’ve just told us that ‘you’ will be our next “Decider” – not the American people!

Senator Obama, President Bush, his administration and the Republican Party have snubbed their noses at American’s for the past 8 years, now your are doing it again.
 
President Bush, like you, said that we American’s needed to hold our leaders accountable.  Bush, like you, said he loved hearing dissenting views and seeing demonstrations in the streets of America, after all, that’s what Democracy’s all about he said.

Dissent all you want folks; but I’m the Decider!

To repeat Senator, your words, “No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens……. if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.”
 
Senator, why should American’s stay “engaged” if their wishes are consistently ignored?  Why should they “come together to chart a new course” if that course will be 'decided' – by just President Bush or a new, President Obama?

You are right Senator, our goals this election or more alike than apart, however sir, on this issue -- you are wrong.

Three strikes you’re off the air or out of the news for seven days or more.

That should be the new rule for all those in the media business, including political pundits.  Whenever they report something that ends up being false information or pass along rumors without facts to back them up.

The FEC should force the ‘television or radio show, magazine or newspaper’ that made the mistake, to be taken off the air or out of print for at least seven days or a month depending the type of media, whenever they pass along bad information.

How many times have we been given information from so-called experts in the news, only to be told later it wasn’t true or completely true?

Enough already!

If we wrote or said something that wasn’t true about someone, that person could sue us.  The media it seems is getting blanket immunity for doing just that. 

It all started, it seems, with the Clinton administration.  Lies and rumors were repeated constantly on the news.  Along came the Bush administration and the media completely ignored their jobs and allow the administration to take us to unprovoked war in Iraq.  It doesn’t matter that American’s at the time supported President Bush.  What matters is, the media and press report the ‘facts’ – they failed to do this.

To this day they continue to report rumors.  They don’t bother getting two or more sources before reporting a story. 

The story about Barack Obama turning down an offer from a kid to hand bump is a pure example.  The story that Obama doesn’t put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance was also ignored and allowed to spread. 

These stories, while minor in content, can actually hurt the candidate.

Just this week I watched a video on CSPAN of Peter Hart (pollster) interviewing a voter's focus group of the general public on all the presidential candidates and the issues of today.  There were three men that actually believed Barack Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge.  They also believed Obama was a Muslim.  The pollster didn’t bother correcting the men’s views.

Now if the media were doing their jobs, and I mean all of them, including your local stations and newspapers, Americans’ would know the above three accusations were false. 

It took almost a full day for the story about the fist bump to be debunked.  By that time of course, I’m sure another thousand people turned against Obama, politically, for being so rude to that child – missing the stories that it was a false report.

Three strikes you are out for at least 7 days or a month depending on what kind of media your work in – period.

Without having to face consequences, how else will they learn to ‘trust but verify’ their stories?

One way for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to help save American’s money for their health care, is by making sure that each city has at least one prompt care clinic for patients to go to, for non-major emergency health issues like kids ear aches, rashes, chest colds, sinus infections, cuts, broken fingers or toes, etc…

I’m not sure how it can be forced, but perhaps the Federal government can mandate that States provide such clinics, one per so many thousand residents in each city – if they want to continue receiving federal dollars for Medicare? 

Preferably, one would hope that each hospital in each city would be willing to provide such a clinic(s) – perhaps if they are given something in return?

Larger cities have them.  They give a patient a place to go to when they can’t get in to see their own doctor.  These clinics are open 24/7.  They can save the patient time because they won’t have to take time off from work to get examined, unless the problem is during work hours of course.   It saves the patient money because it’s not as costly as taking up time at an emergency center where major illnesses and injuries are handled.

By cutting the amount of patients going to ER every day, American’s as a whole save money.  As do insurance companies.  As do hospitals. 

Insurance companies are no longer paying the expensive dollars to take care of minor cases in ER, so the cost of insurance will drop too.

These clinics could either have a doctor or a physician’s assistance in charge.  As an incentive for a person to work in one of these clinics, perhaps they could be given a discount in their own insurance or perhaps they could be given extra tax breaks.

I truly believe that providing these clinics (even without doing anything else) could indeed help lower the costs of health care across the nation.

Where did Governor Mike Huckabee go?  Governor Mitt Romney was appearing every once in awhile in the media; but now we're seeing New York's previous mayor, Rudy Guiliani out on the campaign trail instead of Huckabee and Romney. 

Now there's a rumor the Romney may be McCain's VP nominee.

What's McCain doing, testing the waters?  Is he sending out each man to see which one does the best to combat the issues and media's grilling questions?

I sure would be curious as to how Americans, not just Republican's, feel about each of these men being Senator John McCain's running mate.  Anybody seen any polling done on them?

I for one think American's, not just Republicans, would probably like either Governor Mike Huckabee or Mayor Guiliani the best.  They are, in my opinion, the most likeable and down to earth speaking candidates.  They're both very intelligent and have their own flaws; but who in America doesn't?

John McCain has very little money to spend introducing a VP candidate or trying to do any damage control before November, so he will need to pick someone that American's already know and feel 'safe' with.  Who is that?  Mayor Rudy Guiliani of course.  He's America's Mayor.  He was there when American's needed a shoulder during the aftermath of 9/11. 

There's probably not one voter out there that doesn't know wo Rudy is.  His history is also well known.  Yet American's still leaned toward him when they feared the worse.

I may be entirely wrong; but I'm predicting that John McCain's VP nominee will be Rudy Guiliani. 

Would I vote for John McCain if he nominated Rudy?  Nope. 

Would I have voted for Rudy if he were the presidential nominee?  Nope. 

However, many American's would - that's the point.

Taking bets....?

For months we’ve heard political pundits and the media complain that Senator Barack Obama, the ‘change’ candidate, was all ‘talk’ and no action.  He’s just a good speech maker, they said.  They complained that Obama never gave the ‘meat and potatoes’ of just what his ‘change’ candidacy, really meant.

After finally giving us some of those details of what his administration would look like (faith czar, more military, poverty czar, energy, asking for more volunteerism from American’s, etc..),  political pundits are now labeling Senator Barack Obama, the ‘typical politician’.

For months we heard political pundits saying Barack Obama needs to show he’s not just the 'typical politician' by standing against his own Party on some issue; but after announcing that he, Obama, has decided to vote for the FISA compromise bill, because it requires the courts to again be in charge of oversight (his number one desired result), pundits and the media are accusing Obama of ‘shifting’ to the middle – he’s risking the loss of his ‘change’ candidacy, they say.

Senator John McCain attacked Barack Obama awhile back for not going to Iraq often enough, even to the point of offering to travel there with him to see that the ‘surge’, has worked.
 
Now that Obama has announced his plans for traveling abroad this summer, including Iraq (he’s been there before), John McCain claims Obama’s doing it just for political reasons.

It seems that no matter what Barack Obama does, he’s dammed if he does and he’s dammed if he doesn’t.

As for shifting to the middle, how can someone ‘shift’ their views, when they have never, reportedly, been known – if we are to believe the pundits?

Here’s another theory to consider. 

The Bush administration and the oil executives have been working together to put in place in the minds of American’s this year, the ‘fear’ of having to pay extremely high gas prices (which has a trickle down effect on the economy), they’re doing this to eventually have a ‘reason’, with the American’s backing it, to start a war with Iran.

I just read the following story on; you guessed it, Fox news:

The U.S. Navy and its Gulf allies will not allow Iran to seal off the strategic Strait of Hormuz if the country is attacked, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf said Wednesday.

The warning comes as Iran's oil minister vows that any attack on his country by the United States or Israel would provoke an unimaginably fierce response.

The announcement by Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the 5th Fleet, came as he was holding talks with naval commanders of Gulf countries at a conference in the United Arab Emirates capital of Abu Dhabi. The one-day meeting was to focus on the region's maritime and trade-route security and the threat of terrorism.

The 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Gulf from Iran. Cosgriff said that if Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, it would be "saying to the world that 40 percent of oil is now held hostage by a single country."

"We will not allow Iran to close it," he told reporters….
Cosgriff said that if Iran moved to choke off Hormuz, the "international community would find its voice rapidly" against Iran…

Earlier this week, Cosgriff said in Bahrain that such an Iranian move would be viewed as an act of war.

They start it all by putting the squeeze on gas prices this past spring and summer.  Forcing the economy slow down, putting millions of American’s in financial jeopardy with the cost of high gas prices, food prices, traveling, etc...

Would you go to war with Iran if gas prices were still $2.50 per gallon?  Neither would I.  But if I’m told prices could jump to more than $10 per gallon (as some have predicted) – I might be more inclined to ‘fight’ for more oil.

Opinions?  Am I reaching?

Barack Obama said during a debate and a speech in August of 2007,  the following about Pakistan:

"Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains, that murdered 3,000 Americans," said Obama during the counterterrorism address.
 
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-valued terrorist targets and if President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Other candidates during the primaries, including  Hillary Clinton and John McCain, tried to make hay over those comments back then, remember?

John McCain:

"Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?" asked the Arizona senator.

McCain later reiterated his criticism.

The next day, he said, “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is.  You don’t broadcast and say that you’re going to bomb a country without their permission.”

Well, it appears that our nation already had ‘permission’ to use drones and missiles in Pakistan – way back when the war first started.

The United States has a standing agreement with Pakistan that CIA -operated Predator drones may strike Osama bin Laden’s hide-out without prior permission from Islamabad, according to people familiar with the arrangement.

One source said the free hand - an exception in a country politically sensitive to U.S. counterterrorism operations - was granted by President Pervez Musharraf early in the war if the U.S. locates bin Laden in Pakistan's rugged tribal areas, where he is thought to be hiding.

Senator Joe Biden pointed this agreement out during one of the Democratic Debates, remember?

If a junior Senior from Illinois (Obama) knew this, it makes you wonder if Senator John McCain, a member of the Senate Arms Services Committee,  is paying attention to his own governments agreements with foreign nations.

Once again Senator John McCain says he didn't LOVE America until he was a POW.  This implies that while serving in the military, before being caught, he did not LOVE America.   He first made this statement in his book he wrote about his experiences.

Did you read anything about today's statement in the news today?  NOPE!

ABCNEWS today: "I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences," he said, noting that he has huge admiration for the "heroes" who served with him in the POW camp and said the experience taught him to love the U.S. because he missed it so much.

The news pundits and republicans keep talking about Michelle Obama's comment, about it being the first time she's loved America during one of hundreds of speeches - they're not willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as Laura Bush has.

Isn't it strange that these same people IGNORE what John McCain, the actual candidate, says about the America he wants to be President of?  McCain didn't love America for many years, even though he was serving in her military and got captured?

Wow - what a statement.

I can't wait to see the questions asked of McCain during a debate - Did you love America before you became a POW?  And do you think being a POW qualifies you to be our President?

While what Keith Olberman and John Dean said about this bill may be 100% true; I sincerely hope that Barack Obama will reconsider his thoughts about voting for it.

A short letter to Obama:

Senator,

You've ran your whole campaign telling voters that unlike the Bush administration, you would actually 'listen' to 'us' the 'Americans' when it came to being President and making your decisions.

Well Senator, now would be a good time to prove that.

It's been reported that there are many Americans pleading with you on your site to reverse your thoughts on the FISA bill.  Exactly what will it take for you to 'listen' to them?

I haven't got a clue if the telecom companies have committed crimes; but I do know that nobody should be above the law.  While perhaps adding words to the effect that the fact that their government 'asked' them to commit those crimes, should be included; they should not be given complete immunity.  Never.

Now sir - begin doing what you said you would.  Show Americans that you a man of you word.  Do not vote for the VISA bill.  It is bad for America.

General Wesley Clark was right about McCain's service not being a qualification for the office of the presidency.  Senator Barack Obama (my candidate) was wrong to denounce the general's comment.

Dem's need to stop backing away from comments, especially if they are true - when it comes to the military or our defense.

All the General said was, saying McCain is MORE qualified to be PRESIDENT simply BECAUSE he got knocked out of the sky by the enemy is like saying any fireman that goes into a burning home is also qualified to be Pres, or that any soldier that has seen combat is qualified to run our nation.

If you are going to nickpic words - then one COULD say that McCain is LESS qualified to be Pres because he DID get knocked out of the sky (flew badly) and he got caught and he ended up confessing to the enemy.

All true but sounds bad so people don't say those words.

The General is right about this race being about JUDGEMENT - not about someone's combat experience or lack there of.

I'm sure Obama is probably sorry he was so quick to respond in the manner that he did.  General Clark is not somebody that takes lightly a man's military service.  He would never degrade a person like the media are saying he did. 

The General could have attacked Obama back when being interviewed about it again last night; but he didn't.  Instead, he stood "by his man" (Obama for President).  I praise the General for that.

It would be nice if Senator Obama could make a statement about the General, something more personable, to point out that HE TOO is an American hero that has worked tirelessly to help his fellow soldiers -- that Obama knows the General didn't mean anything 'personal' toward McCain with his statement.  He was speaking on terms of qualifications to be President.