For many Americans Colin Powell's trip to the UN solidified their support for the Iraq war.  I needed no such reassurance.  John McCain supported the war and so I felt comfortable and confident.  In 2002, it seemed unimaginable that John McCain would follow President Bush blindly.  Those of us who campaigned for McCain in 2000 fought on the front lines of the first battle to stop the Bush regime.  

I don't want to get into the details of the decision to support the war: the influence of September 11th and politics, the capitulation of Democratic critics, or the silencing of dissent by the media.  I was a victim of and accomplice to all of that.  

What I do want to talk about is the tragedy of post-2000 John McCain.  This is not to say that the reality of pre-2000 McCain is as impressive or positive as I felt it was when I supported him, but instead to show how cold heartedly and cynically he betrayed those who eight years ago looked to him for leadership.  

I LOVE the rawness of this:

"He's welcome to our war-torn city," said Habibullah Hamdard, a 42-year-old teacher. "If he has loved his children, he should love the Afghan children who are dying around the country every day. The white guy couldn't do anything, let's see what the black guy can do."

On the Subversion of Constitutional Protections...

Joe McCarthy once menaced political opponents with a list of names that incited a witch-hunt in Washington over Communism.  This list was not assembled to hunt witches, but to draw attention to legislative positions that aim to disassemble the Constitution of the United States of America.  The goal of this entry is to provide an accurate report of critical votes in the US Senate on questions of executive power, congressional oversight, and constitutional rights granted to citizens. The laws referenced in this article pose grave threats to freedom by creating an extra-legal framework in US law that allows the executive to monitor electronic communications without record or oversight, declare citizens as enemy combatants in the War on Terror, detain suspects without charge or trial, deny suspects access to lawyers and interrogate suspects using whatever methods the president personally deems "not torture."  In the interest of time and space, this entry will focus only on the votes of Senators.

A recent UPI poll showed that half the country believes obama would be a good commander-in-chief, still trailing McCain by 24%.

72% of respondents said McCain, the likely Republican presidential candidate, would be good commander-in-chief of the military. By contrast, 48 percent said Obama, McCain's likely Democratic challenger, would be a good commander-in-chief

However, as terence I think correctly comments in the "Obama wins the presidency" diary, "times they are a changing".  And Obama is gaining credibility on the commander in chief and experience front at the same time McCain is being exposed for his poor judgment.

So what will happen next and what does it have to do with the drat Newt movement?  follow me on the flip..

Remember all those silly foreign affairs positions held by Barack Obama?  You know, like meeting directly with our enemies, which showed that Obama was naive and inexperienced?  Like setting a timetable for Iraq which was not important but on the other hand could lead to chaos and genocide?  

Over the last couple of weeks, conservative Andrew Sullivan notes that the lines between Obama's positions and those of McCain and Bush are starting "to blur."  Only, that blur seems to be moving in a particular direction.  

Iran

Obama has famously argued that the US should deal directly with the mullahs, negotiate the nuclear question and have talks without the precondition that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment. This was a clear and vital difference, we were told only a short time ago, between a reckless, appeasing Obama and the resolute, Churchillian Bushies.

And yet last week Bush authorised William Burns, a high-level State Department official, to attend talks with Tehran’s representatives on the Iranian nuclear question.

Iraq

Obama’s position has long been that troops should be withdrawn expeditiously but with care, and that the US military should shift its emphasis towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, lo and behold, last week we were also told that Bush was considering accelerating the exit of Iraq troops to beef up the Afghan mission.

For good measure, McCain also gave a speech backing what he calls a "surge" in Afghanistan, with more troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in the style of General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces.

And that's before McCain has made any response to Iraqi President Maliki's agreement with Obama's timeline.  Sullivan notes that the candidates are now sounding an awful lot alike, and that they're having trouble "putting blue sky" between their positions.

One thing he doesn't make clear: the lack of sky is because McCain and Bush have adopted more and more of Obama's "naive" positions rather than his bowing to their towering experience.

Blurry.  It's all so blurry.  Sure, Obama has a timeline, but now Bush has a "horizon," and by tomorrow McCain will probably have a purview, or a vision, or a vista.  It's all the same.  Right?

It's sad that words like this even have to be said aloud.

From TPM:

In a sign that senior Democratic officials remain deeply concerned that post-primary bitterness could imperil Barack Obama's chances, two top Democratic officials have emailed a sharply-worded letter to major donors and other leading Dems confessing "fatigue and irritation" at those withholding full support from Obama and demanding that they get behind him "without conditions or demands."

Here's the letter:

By Jwilkes from Eyes on Obama:

Democrats haven't always been particularly successful in the West. But with current polling numbers indicating a strong preference for Illinois Senator Barack Obama over John McCain, 2008 may be a different year entirely. Polling shows that Obama is faring well in as many states in the West as any Democratic candidate since 1964.

I recently gave an update on my PCS move to 82nd Airborne. I've learned that I am definitely deploying to Iraq "sometime around November."

We're about to leave for dinner so this Diary will be short and sweet.

UPDATE: I just got back from seeing a the play Peter Pan in Raleigh. I didn't expect this to make the Rec list! Thanks, everyone for such an overwhelming show of support. And the select few who had something negative to say is no skin off my back, so no worries. I'm not leaving until around November so I'll still be around for a while. Between now and then I'll periodically be sent to various different training sites and schools.

(Cross-posted at Raising Kaine and Cobalt6)

...I was volunteering in Phase I of the Virginia Democratic Party's ground game.  I laugh at myself and think of it as "Webb 2.0" (heh), because my first protracted and sincere canvass efforts were for Jim Webb two years ago.

Today, I joined the ranks of the very early canvassers and it was absolutely fascinating.  Details over the fold.

With today's news that Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki agrees with Barack Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months, the McCain campaign has so far failed to comment on the story. But McCain did have something to say about it in 2004:

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

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

Prepare yourself for spinning of Linda Blair-like proportions.

...you may have been right, damn you. I have been one of those supporters that still carry lots of suspicion when it comes to the Clintons. When news hit that she was asking her donors to let her keep the money for 2012, I went bananas. When I hear about groups buying a website to support a 2012 effort, I get pissed. I would love for Hillary to come out against this sort of stuff, but I think (and rightly so) that she is holding all of these events as cards to get on the ticket and keep her power. That is how the game is played and I should know. Now, I believe that the reason the whispers are out, are because the Republican Party has targeted this as their swift boat attacks. A few post ago, some SUPER-TROLL (if I am a regular troll) posted a remark about Obama tricking him, or some crap. Obama missed on FISA, but this MSM and Republican myth about Obama moving to the center is bull-shit.

And now, as we get closer to the general election, the media will once again blur the lines between Obama and McCain and their stances. This is the way the always get those, "well, aint nothing gonna change so I may as well...." folk. I will do my best not to fall for the republican tricks, trying to divide the Clinton form the Obamas.

More.....

[From the diaries - BarbinMD]

Stupid is as stupid does.

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine."

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel that "he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months ... ‘U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,'" the prime minister said.

The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

My take: The WH was obviously freaking out after the announcement that al-Maliki supports Obama's plan, and of course was planning to email this around internally get some some advice from advisers and get their talking points together. This also ensures additional coverage of this issue. The Obama camp of course has already pounced on this:

The national security adviser to the Obama campaign, Susan Rice, said the senator welcomed Maliki's support.

"This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan," Rice said in a statement Saturday.

This is just starting to hit the media; unlike McCain leaking Obama's travel schedule, this is just too big to ignore. The implications are huge, when you consider what would have happened had the opposite occurred:

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

Indeed.

Update: I just had to relay this post on what the al-Maliki statement means for McCain (per Ambinder):

Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked." No response yet from the McCain campaign, although here's what McCain said the last time Maliki mentioned withdrawal: "Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’'ve had."

DIGG IT UP!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!  This race is over.  Pack it in John McCain, no one will ever take you seriously anymore.  The president of your own party is doing exactly what Barack Obama has been saying all along!!!  "General time horizon" for troop withdrawal and now this?  And then the White House sent out an email accidently reporting this story to every news outlet in the country!! HA!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

In the NSN article listing McCain's foreign policy errors there was this one quote from 1996 that caught my attention.

"Motivated by romantic, anachronistic notions of Irish republicanism, some prominent Irish-Americans persuaded the president (over the objection of the State Department) to jump headfirst into the Northern Ireland problem, severely straining our relations with London." McCain that by President Clinton's "mistaken involvement in the Northern Ireland problem, President Clinton has deepened the risk to his credibility and further damaged relations with our British allies." [Foreign Policy, Summer 1996]

What can I say, I like this guy. No, I'm not crazy, nor have I suddenly sold out to the gang at Swindlers' Inc (aka the current Republican Party).

As I write this, Lawrence Lessig is giving his talk at Netroots Nation.  As usual, it is extraordinary.  If you didn't get a chance to see it in person or online live (as I am from San Francisco), it will be archived (and I'll update this with a link).

But even before he started speaking, I got the email I'll post in full after the jump from Japhet Els (who is also at Netroots Nation).

 Change Congress has an Act Blue page and Lessig wants at least 500 of us to give contributions ending in .09 (the current approval rating of congress) to at least one of these candidates

http://www.actblue.com/...

Update: Right after I posted this, Lessig used a photo I took in his presentation.

John McCain still hasn't given up on his idea of a gas-tax "holiday:

The Republican told an estimated 1,200 people at Union Station that suspending the federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuel would help put millions of dollars into the hands of businesses and lower-income Americans.

And he's still the only one who thinks it's a good idea:

The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.  [...]

Depriving the 52-year-old Highway Trust Fund of $9 billion at a time when it is heading into the red doomed the notion of a gas tax holiday in Congress.

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. James Oberstar, and the chairman of the highway subcommittee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, presented fellow lawmakers with a list of how many jobs and how much money each state would lose. It ranged from $30 million and 1,000 jobs in Vermont to $664 million and 23,000 jobs in California.

But still McCain presses on. Never mind that "only about $27 billion in federal money will be available next year to states and local governments for new infrastructure investment even though the current highway act calls for spending $41 billion a year," McCain thinks he's latched onto something that will resonate with the public, so damn the consequences.

A blogger in my local paper, Aubrey Marron, wrote today with some awesome insight tying John McCain's comment against Cindy McCain's makeup wearing habits, her addiction to pain killers, and how it might all tie into John McCain, the tortured "war hero".  

It's an excellent, yet scary read. What initially looks like yet another opinion of McCain's nasty screed against Cindy, it's much better. It is a look at Cindy McCain's drug abuse in a different light.

The meat of the article, below the fold