It's hard to ignore the reality that we have become a very bitter country. Politics is the means by which we address societal challenges. It is rarely a pretty process, and the rancorous tone of the debate has become dispiriting. Real change comes from us not from government. Ask yourself; what type of energy are you bringing to the world?
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
A little gem lifted verbatim from Salon.com’s War Room blog… (The only changes were to remove the name of the Alaska Governor and replace it with her Freak Politics name (i.e. The Rube)
Before even starting this post, can we just pause for a moment and consider what would have happened to that unpatriotic, American-hating Muslim the Democrats nominated for president if he had been part of a secessionist group led by a man who once said he was “an Illinoisan, not an American”? To borrow Clarence Thomas’ famous phrase, it would been a high-tech lynching.
But here comes the Rube, former member of the Alaskan Independence Party and current Republican nominee for vice president of the United States. ABC's Jake Tapper reports:
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that the Rube was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.
And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."
Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that the Rube and her husband, Mr. Rube, were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.
Oops. The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder clarifies that the Rube’s association with the AIP is not ancient history, either, for she addressed the organization earlier this year:
Basically, the AIP wants a vote on secession. According to the organizations' website. "[T]hough it is widely thought to be a secessionist movement, the Party makes great effort to emphasize that its primary goal is merely a vote on secession, something that Party advocates say Alaskans were denied during the founding of the state."
The AIP says that the Rube used to be a member of the party. Earlier this year, the Rube recorded a welcoming address to the AIP's convention.
This is a party whose founding member, Joe Vogler, said: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
Lee Atwater must be wincing in his grave right now. If he were alive -- in his pre-conversion/apology incarnation, that is -- and he found this on the résumé of a Democratic vice-presidential candidate, he would have attacked with relish. Unfortunately for the GOP, the candidate associated with people who want to bail on the other 49 states of the United States of America is the Rube.
The nomination of Governor Sarah Palin of the State of Rube to be John McCain's running mate is the gift that just keeps on giving. It was one big old nail in the coffin of the McCain campaign. They should start a John McCain campaign death watch calculator. I have to figure his chance is around 20% and slipping with each new scandal that gets surfaced on Sarah Palin (hence forth referred to on this blog only as "the Rube"). Other blogs are covering that, so I will refrain.
Maureen Dowd was right in asking why every time a woman is nominated to run nationally it is always part of a gimmicky Hail Mary throw? It is an insult to feminism and to the many women who are qualified, Democrat (Hillary Clinton) and Republican (Linda Lingle, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc.) alike.
This is where the Rube got the lion's share of her "executive experience"! Nice strip mall city hall Rube!!!
Well, if she can take down a caribou, she could probably take Putin...
...in a game of one-on-one...
...but then again...
Pretty tough! Let's compare...
and
naw, Putin is hard as nails! He'd take her down and then drink a bottle of vodka chased with her blood!
Nomination of the Rube is an insult! She is as clear evidence as anyone needs of the Republican Party's disdain for our government and the things our government does. I am sure that the Rube is a capable woman, but just appallingly unqualified for the job. The argument that she can identify with average Americans doesn't eliminate the fact that she doesn't have the intellectual curiousity to solve our challenges. The Republicans argue that the Rube has equal (more even) experience than Barack Obama. My reply to that is BULLSHIT (and you know I never swear on here)!
Here are more humorous pictures of the Rube for you to enjoy:
And of course, Papa Rube, the World Champion Snow Machine Racer:
John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Let's run this down real quick:
Sarah Palin 44 years old Elected Governor or Alaska in 2006 Prior political experience includes 6 years as Mayor of Wasilla, AK (population 7,738)
So, John McCain think that the person one 72 year old heartbeat away from the Oval Office is the Mayor of Wasilla, AK and two year Governor of Alaska. That screams foreign policy experience to me.
This pick was based on the belief that McCain can cut into Obama's 20 point lead among women and pick off skeptical Hillary supporters. The decision was not based on the ability to govern from day one. How could it be? This campaign knows no end to it's obvious desperation!
Obama Health Reform Plan: 1. - “Play or pay” employer mandate requiring businesses either to offer workers insurance or to pay a tax (very small businesses would be exempt)
2. - Creation of a new national health plan (similar to Medicare) for the uninsured and small businesses
3. - Establishment of new national health insurance exchange that would offer choice of private insurance options for the uninsured and small businesses
4. - Mandate that all children must have coverage
5. - Subsidies for lower-income Americans to help them afford coverage
6. - Expanded coverage financed through the payroll tax, letting tax cuts for families making over $250,000 expire, and savings from electronic medical records, disease management, and other system reforms
7. - Regulation of all private insurance plans to end risk rating based on health status
8. - Establishment of federal reinsurance program to insure businesses against the costs of workers’ expensive medical episodes
9. - Other proposed measures to control costs and improve quality: - Reduction in the administrative costs of private insurance - Accelerated adoption of electronic medical records - Promotion of disease management - Emphasis on prevention and public health - Payment of providers on the basis of performance and outcomes - Reduction in excessive payments to private plans contracting with Medicare - Allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies - Establishment of a comparative-effectiveness research institute
McCain’s Health Reform” Plan: 1. - Elimination of current tax exclusion for employer-paid health insurance premiums
2. - Using revenues generated from eliminating tax exclusion, provision of refundable tax credits ($2,500 for individuals, $5,000 for families) for all persons obtaining private health insurance; if insurance costs less than the value of the credit, remaining funds can be deposited into health savings accounts
3. - Creation of guaranteed access plan to provide insurance pool for persons who are medically uninsurable on the individual market
4. - Promotion of individually purchased insurance and less comprehensive insurance policies
5. - Deregulation of insurance markets
6. - Reform of Medicare to make bundled payments for episodes of care and to pay on the basis of outcomes
7. - Other proposed measures to control costs and improve quality: - Enhanced competition - Faster introduction of generic drugs - Emphasis on prevention and better management of chronic conditions - Greater use of health information technology - Medical malpractice reform
These body blows were long overdue. John McCain got what he had coming to him for selling out Kerry in 2004. Good speech that said what others feared to say!
There are a lot of news stories and articles talking about Hillary Clinton’s supporters that are bitter that Barack Obama didn’t choose her to be his running mate.This bothers me a bit.I have to say something loud and clear so the “Clintonestas” hear this.YOU LOST!You gave it a good run, you fought hard and tough and LOST.What part of lost do you not understand?The winner chooses the terms.Barack Obama won the primary battle (regardless of margin).Therefore he is entitled to choose the running mate that he wants.It was never going to be Hillary Clinton.
Let us dispense with the suspense.She wasn’t even considered!Why, you may ask, not?She was never seriously considered because it is simply not possible to muzzle her husband.Don’t get me wrong.I love President Clinton.He is going to give a fantastic speech at the Convention, but he is all about Bill and refuses to play second fiddle.He would not do it for Al Gore, he would not do it for John Kerry and, most appallingly, he would not do it for his own wife.Why would Barack Obama willingly invite the Clinton’s into his administration?Give me one good reason?So a bunch of feminists will vote for him isn’t good enough.
If Clinton's "kool-aid drinkers" are really that miffed, then I am sorry.I have compassion for that level of jaded resentment.But get over yourself.Gaul did not dictate terms to Rome! John McCain’s campaign is trying to stir up controversy with this ad and this ad.The second add is particularly atrocious. Anyone who claims to be a “Hillary Clinton Democrat” and can then find clear to vote for John McCain is a liar.No Democrat could look at John McCain’s platform and think… “he better represents Hillary Clinton’s goals and aspirations.Someone who was supporting Clinton and is now support McCain doesn’t care about issues at all and is voting blindly.That is a bit sad and a bit pathetic.
Go ahead, pull the lever for Angry McCrazy, but it won’t be a voting machine, it will be a slot machine.Do you really want to gamble on this?
"32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.” – Acts 4:32-35
See, that wasn't so bad. Was it? A biblical reference support social democratic policy priorities.
From Joe Klein's blog "Swampland" on the Time website:
"But there is no excuse for what the McCain campaign is doing on the "putting America first" front. There is no way to balance it, or explain it other than as evidence of a severe character defect on the part of the candidate who allows it to be used. There is a straight up argument to be had in this election: Mcain has a vastly different view from Obama about foreign policy, taxation, health care, government action...you name it. He has lots of experience; it is always shocking to remember that this time four years ago, Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently, though, McCain isn't confident that conservative policies and personal experience can win, given the ruinous state of the nation after eight years of Bush. So he has made a fateful decision: he has personally impugned Obama's patriotism and allows his surrogates to continue to do that. By doing so, he has allied himself with those who smeared him, his wife, his daughter Bridget, in 2000. Those tactics won George Bush a primary--and a nomination. But they proved a form of slow-acting spiritual poison, rotting the core of the Bush presidency. We'll see if the public decides to acquiesce in sleaze in 2008, and what sort of presidency--what sort of country--that will produce."
Pandering and campaigning.No one does it nearly as impressively as the United States.Campaigning is the art of using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of substance.I read the draft of the Democratic Party Platform, entitled Renewing America’s Promise.There is a lot of rhetoric that it is easy to get behind.But, as always, it is the standard “America is great”, “teachers are great”, “protect the environment”, “health insurance for all” document that promises a whole lot of values but doesn’t put any meat on the bones.It is a steady diet of ribs that have already been stripped clean.It is clear that McCain is far more apt to blither, but Obama panders as well.The difference is that McCain and his Party disdain government and wants to choke it to death.Obama wants to continue the work the Al Gore undertook while he was Vice President to make government efficient and accountable.I recommend listening to the Fresh Air interview with Thomas Franks from August 4th.Franks, a Wall Street Journal columnist, has written a book called The Wrecking Crew, which demonstrates the pattern of Republican Presidents putting incompetent people in government positions because they want to create a legacy of public sector ineptitude.
In addition, Franks seeks to illustrate a systematic suppression of public sector salaries in an effort to ensure that government cannot recruit “the best and brightest”.It has, by and large, failed because the GOP have never understood that to some people public service is more important than wealth.But I digress…
The problem with this pandering is: it is our own damn fault.We have been brainwashed into believing what oil companies, health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and large financial institutions say, as if they have no stake in the outcome.Namely that alternative energy is not price competitive, socialized medicine will result in waiting lists and ultimately worse health outcomes, competition in the drug market will suppress research and development, regulation will cost the American people huge sums of money.What we are slow in learning is, this is all BS.Ultimately, no one in this country is interested in making the commitment necessary to change.We are afraid of the unknown.
We are told that reforms (reforms that would bring us toward the mainstream of developed nations) run contrary to our libertarian spirit.Americans aren’t libertarian, we have been fed a steady diet of misinformation which make us afraid of perceived outcomes from proposed progressive reforms.
The failure of the Democratic Party is the common thread with my peeps.They are a bunch of pansies and are afraid of being called out.They try to play the game by the rules laid out by conservatives.I am here to tell you that it is a recipe for disaster.We may win elections, but we will never win our progressive policy revolution because our victories will be built on a foundation of misinformation, half truths and all out lies.Like the Siberian apartment building, built without a foundation on the permafrost, as the Earth warms, it will all come crashing down.
If we are interested in real change, and not just winning elections, we need to challenge the conventional "wisdom".We need to set the record straight on policy.We may well lose the election, but we can’t lose the larger struggle.
Not everything has a public solution.Government should not be involved in all aspects of our society.I do not believe in pure nationalization.Likewise, I oppose pure privatization.The invisible hand of the market functions best when regulated to remove the possibility of abuse by people who are solely concerned with financial outcomes regardless of the impact on society.
I believe that we should respect the American people. We need to present them with the truth. The situation is dire. The challenges we face are immense, but all is not lost. This is no time to panic. Sticking our head in the ground like an ostrich is a form of panic. Some become indiscriminately hysterical when faced with dire challenges and some avoid the situation. Neither does anything but delay the inevitable. We will have to address energy challenges. Delay only makes it more difficult.
Here is a table from The Tax Policy that makes it all a bit more clear.(Click to view full size) Here is how your tax bill will change based on income brackets.Just for the record: only 2% of American households earn over $250,000, so any claim of a huge tax increase on all Americans by the McCain train wreck (it isn’t really a campaign anymore, is it?)
Refundable Making Work Pay tax credit of 6.2 percent of earnings up to a maximum of $8,100
Refundable Universal Mortgage Credit of 10 percent of mortgage interest for nonitemizers, capped at $800 ($8,000 of interest)
Eliminate income tax for senior making less than $50,000 per year
First-time buyers tax credit for new farmers
Small Business and Microenterprise Initiative tax credit of 20 percent on up to $50,000 of investment in small owner-operated businesses
Allow first-year deduction of 3 and 5-year equipment, deny interest deduction (expires)
Reduce maximum corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent
Increase the dependent exemption by 70 percent (phased in)
Suspension of the federal gas tax (18.4 cents per gallon) from this Memorial day until Labor Day
Adjustments to Existing Credits
Make R&D and renewable energy production tax credit (wind, solar) permanent
Extend childless EITC phase-in range and increase phaseout threshold, double the phase-in and phase-out rates for childless individuals paying child support, increase EITC phase-in rate to 45 percent for families with three or more children; increase add-on to EITC phase-out threshold for married filers to $5,000
Make CDCTC refundable and allow low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for child care expenses
Make saver's credit refundable and change to a 50 percent match of the first $1,000 of savings, phases out beginning before $75,000
Increase Hope credit 100% match rate to $4,000 for college education and make refundable, rename American Opportunity Tax Credit
Mandate automatic 401(k)s and automatic IRAs
Convert R&D credit to 10 percent of wages incurred for R&D, make permanent
Capital Gains
Increase maximum capital gains rate to 25 percent
Require information reporting of basis for gains
Eliminate capital gains taxation of start-up businesses and provide capital gains tax break for landowners selling to beginning family farmers
Keep the current rates on dividends and capital gains
Bush Tax Cuts
Permanently extend marriage penalty relief, adoption credit expansions, 10,15,25, and 28% rates, EITC simplification
Restore 36 and 39.6% statutory income tax rates, Restore PEP and Pease phaseouts for households making more than $250,000, increase in PEP and Pease threshold
Make permanent all provisions other than the estate tax repeal
Alternative Minimum Tax
Extend and index 2007 AMT patch
Extend and index 2007 AMT patch, further increase exemption by 5 percent in excess of inflation after 2013 (temporarily)
Estate Tax
Make permanent estate tax with $3.5 million exemption and 45 percent rate
Make permanent estate tax with $5 million exemption and 15 percent rate
Simplification
Give taxpayers the option of pre -filled tax forms to verify, sign, return to IRS
Give taxpayers the option of an alternative tax system with two rates and larger standard deduction and personal exemption
Revenue Raisers and Tax Havens
Eliminate oil and gas loopholes
Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay
Tax carried interest as ordinary, Increase the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends
Reallocate multinational tax deductions
Codify economic substance doctrine
Create international tax haven watch list
Other unspecified revenue raising provisions
Eliminate oil and gas loopholes
Unspecified corporate base broadeners
Eliminate earmarked projects from the budget, freeze nonmilitary discretionary spending for one year, eliminate programs.
Health
Income-related federal tax subsidies for health insurance
Replace exclusion from income for employer sponsored health insurance with refundable credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families
Other
Social Security/payroll taxes: increase the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security
Require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes
Ban internet and cell phone taxes
Higher premiums for Medicare prescription drug coverage for single people earning more than $82,000 and couples earning more than $164,000
The $2.8 Trillion Deficit Gap: Holtz-Eakin Responds
John McCain’s tax policy has come under fire in the past, particularly for its dependence on huge revenue windfalls to balance the budget. But now a new study from the nonpartisan TaxPolicyCenter (a joint venture between Brookings and the Urban Institute) suggests there’s another flaw: a rhetoric gap.
According to the study, the tax plan McCain’s campaign laid out privately is different from the one he’s selling on the stump. If you include the policies he has advocated publicly—such as repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, increasing the dependent exemption to $7,000 right away, and reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent immediately—then the deficit after 10 years would actually be $2.8 trillion greater than if you go by his private plan. There’s also a rhetorical gap for Obama, but in his case the public version generates more revenue than the private one, thanks to a suggested hike in payroll taxes for people who make $250,000 or more. (Read the full study here [PDF].)
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic adviser, says the numbers he provided to the TPC aren’t secret—they’re the same ones he provides to anyone who asks. He also disputes the way the study takes suggestions McCain has made on the stump out of context. “This is parsing words out of campaign appearances to an unreasonable degree,” Holtz-Eakin said. “He has certainly I’m sure said things in town halls” that don’t jibe perfectly with his written plan. But that doesn’t mean it’s official. For example, the study compares McCain’s promises on the stump to reduce the corporate tax rate immediately to his plan’s more gradual reduction. Holtz-Eakin objects: “You don’t say, I’d like to reduce it to 28 percent, then 26 percent, then 25 percent, then—no one talks like that on the stump. [You say,] I’d like to get it down to 25 percent.”
In other cases, Holtz-Eakin says, the TPC filled in gaps where the McCain campaign didn’t provide specifics. For example, McCain’s proposed Alternative Simplified Tax, a plan that would let taxpayers opt out of the current system in favor of a simpler two-rate system: “We were honest about the fact that we don’t have a specific proposal,” he said. “They didn’t have one, so they made one up.”
The TaxPolicyCenter sent the campaign a copy of the study a day before they released it. “Had I read more carefully, I probably would have raised [objections],” Holtz-Eakin said. “But I didn’t.”
"While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it."
Hmmm... a statement that is just as bitter as the Sauerkraut that McCain had for lunch at Schmidt's Sausage Haus in Columbus, Ohio. Who thought that up? The guy who designed the green back drop?
Nothing quite like the symbolism of one energetic, eloquent and engaging man speaking before 200,000 people in the capital of Germany and one tired old crank in front of a schnitzel and wurst house in the Heartland. Oh yeah, that screams bold and dynamic American President. Are you trying to lose, John?
A apologize dear readers for having been away from the dance for a while. I must admit that the long primary season wore me out and I honestly don’t think anything of lasting substance is happening right now.I will say that Senator Obama’s world tour on the good ship lollipop must scare the wits out of the GOP.Nothing better than a youthful and energetic Obama traveling around the world, being welcomed like Patton in Italy.All hail the conquering hero!
A mini-flap arose yesterday when the Drudge Report announced that Senator McCain’s Iraq Op-Ed reply was rejected by the New York Times.This has given the vast right-wing idiocracy an opportunity to thump their chests like the modern day cavemen that they are and scream liberal bias.Liberal bias, liberal bias; the New York Times rejected the Op-Ed because they want Obama to win (like they don’t sell a whole slew of newspapers printing Maureen Dowd’s rants against Republican hypocrisy).
Could there be any other reason?The Op-Ed editor of the New York Times, David Shipley, stated that he would like to publish a piece from McCain but the draft submitted simply did not warrant publishing.He said that he would welcome another draft in the same format as Obama’s (i.e. outlining a plan going forward and defining what victory would look like).The McCain campaign took this as a rejection not of the writing and editing of the piece, but of the Senator’s position.I decided to do a little background research.I read the two pieces so I could judge for myself if one was worthy of publishing and the other not.
It will come as no shock to anyone that Shipley is right.Obama’s piece was newsworthy.He published ahead of a major speech on Iraq policy and a week before a major trip to the region.He spent the days before the trip outlining his thinking and wanted to communicate that with the voters of New York City (and educated people everywhere).
Senator McCain’s read more like a review of all the things he was right about (the surge) and all the things Obama was wrong about (everything, after reading the pieces I think Obama might have been responsible for the Lindbergh baby abduction).
The New York Times doesn’t exist to provide Presidential candidates with a tit-for-tat forum. They are in the business of printing All the News That’s Fit to Print.The McCain Op-Ed couldn’t reach the bar for that.Pretty sad considering the fact that Britney Spears smoking in front of her children qualifies in this day and age.They must have tripped over the bar.John McCain expected the newspaper of record to publish a piece which is not at all forward looking and simply attempts to trumpet the genius of John McCain.That isn’t even worthy of the Arizona Daily Star, get a blog for that bro!
I won’t pull a FoxNews and draw conclusions for you without providing substance to back it up.Here are the two pieces so you can do your own careful analysis.
Barack Obama’s Op-Ed on Iraq that appeared in the New York Times on July 14, 2008:
My Plan for Iraq
CHICAGO — 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.
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
John McCain’s rejected Op-Ed to the New York Times (as reported in the Drudge Report)
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
