First let's watch a little film from a shaman in Utah, about the Hopi Prophecy and the collapse of the Mayan calendar in 2012.  There are various theories on this, but one thing is clear.  We need to pierce the veil of illusion and see the True Brother.  It's the little brother, in the prophecy...which I will unpack below...(to the best of my ability).  This is taken in the four corners region that the prophecy speaks of...

This is the film about the HOPI PROPHECY "Koyaanisqatsi"  with music by Philip Glass.  In the 80's our world was not as it is now.  We did not have GM modified seeds, and we did not have cell phones, or even this way of communicating with each other on the Internet.  Here is part of that film:

The word "Koyaanisqatsi" refers to "life out of balance"

Here you can read the entire HOPI PROPHECY over at Welcomehome.org!

Hopi Prophecy

The Hopis say this:

"...The Hopi and others who were saved from the Great Flood made a sacred covenant with the Great Spirit never to turn away from him. He made a set of sacred stone tablets, called Tiponi, into which he breathed his teachings, prophecies, and warnings. Before the Great Spirit hid himself again, he placed before the leaders of the four different racial groups four different colors and sizes of corn; each was to choose which would be their food in this world. The Hopi waited until last and picked the smallest ear of corn. At this, the Great Spirit said:

"It is well done. You have obtained the real corn, for all the others are imitations in which are hidden seeds of different plants. You have shown me your intelligence; for this reason I will place in your hands these sacred stone tablets, Tiponi, symbol of power and authority over all land and life to guard, protect, and hold in trust for me until I shall return to you in a later day, for I am the First and I am the Last..."

It is interesting to see what the Hopi people's elders forsaw, in light of the world we are now in and what has happened to the CORN.  Yesterday we saw how McCain had tried to get Geronimo's skull back, from all the skull and bone types.  But they wouldn't give it back.

The corn is sacred to the HOPI, and to America.  CommonDreams is going to tell you about the KERRYCORN, in this next article...

Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food

And, OPEN SECRETS has more...

Power Struggle: Energizing the Presidential Race

"...To reduce reliance on oil from abroad, Obama is a strong proponent of domestically produced ethanol, which is usually derived from American-grown corn. McCain is against using corn for fuel and prefers sugar-based ethanol from a foreign source, Brazil..."

The Hopi say that the Blue Star Kachina will dance and remove his mask.

The AngryIndian has spoken, as I speak.  It is about the CORN we are growing, and who will profit from the terminator seed, and who will die.

International Indigenist Newswire Items for: 1.7.08

More of the Hopi Prophecy...

"...Hopi prophecy states that World War III will be started by the people who first received the Light -- China, Palestine, India and Africa. When the war comes, the United States will be destroyed by "gourds of ashes" which will fall to the ground, boiling the rivers and burning the earth, where no grass will grow for many years, and causing a disease that no medicine can cure. This can only mean nuclear or atomic bombs; no other weapon causes such effects. Bomb shelters will be useless, for "Those who are at peace in their hearts already are in the Great Shelter of Life. There is no shelter for evil. When the Saquahuh (blue Star) Kachina dances in the plaza and removes his mask, the time of the great trial will be here." The Hopi believe that only they will be saved.

The Hopi also have prophesied that "Turtle Island (the United States) could turn over two or three times and the oceans could join hands and meet the sky." This seems to be a prophecy of a "pole shift" -- a flipping, of the planet on its axis. The Hopi call this imminent condition -- and that of society today -- "Koyaanisqatsi", which means "world out of balance...a state of life that calls for another way... "

The HOPI prophecy means that we can turn back and follow the "pollen path" before it is too late.  Here is a picture of that pollen path... One way leads to "coin" and false corn, and one way leads to pure, natural unmodified corn...the pollen path of nature that will not kill the bees.  The pollen of the genetically modified corn may be responsible for the death of our bees...the HOPI chose the smallest ear of corn to preserve.   The seed is safe, if we turn back now.  The HOPI say:

"...The short line that returns to the straight Path of Life is the last chance for people to turn back to nature before the upper road disintegrates and dissipates. The small circle above the Path of Life, after the last chance, is the Great Purification, after which corn will grow in abundance again when the Great Spirit returns. And the Path of Life continues forever..."

One appears as a prophet, under coin, and with the swastika.

One appears under a star, and the star is now a blue star...

The true brother dances under a blue star in the four corners area.

The true brother will want the green way which will put us back on the pollen path...

The false brother will want only coin...

Following the logic of the latest McSame slimeball attack, that is.

I'd like to put up a spoof of the ad blaming Obama for high gas prices -- but it's laughable all on its own.

See it at "A Full Tank of Nonsense" at FactCheck.org (The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania).

I guess McSame can't even listen to his own economists when it comes to his "policy" of getting rid of the "gas tax."

I'm sure the highway construction workers & contractors love him for that. We know the oil companies do. They'll just pocket the tax giveaway.

++++++++++++

List of loomisnews blog posts at page marked “Blog Post Titles and Links”

Go to loomisnews.wordpress.com for full text, first post to last.

After he walked away, his paper was removed from its place by a Jewish seminary student and published in an Israeli paper.

The fact it was published is now a matter of controversy in the nation because religious leaders feel the paper's decision betrays a person's privacy.  I agree.

Just because Obama is a politician does not remove his right to privacy in his spiritual life.  I also worry that perhaps the Jewish seminary student stole the prayer in suspicion... either way, the newspaper should have refused to publish it.

Full AP article HERE.

The most solemn duty of a commander in chief is to fulfill his responsibility to the men and women who serve this country in uniform. Barack Obama had scheduled a visit with wounded American troops who have served with honor and distinction in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he broke that commitment, instead flitting from one European capital to the next. Several explanations were offered, none was convincing and each was at odds with the statements of American military leaders in Germany and Washington. For a young man so apt at playing president, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks. Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn’t be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes.

NCB has reported what I think was the real reason Obama blew off the troops:

According to Pentagon officials, the problem was that Obama's request to visit Landstuhl included two members of his campaign staff -- retired Major General Jonathan S. Gration and Jeff Kiernan. US military officials in Germany informed the campaign the two political operatives would not be permitted on base.

Pentagon officials say Gration was the campaign's point of contact at Landstuhl in arranging Obama's visit and "got torqued" when he was told he would not be permitted to join Obama. It was Gration who later suggested to reporters that the Pentagon short-circuited Obama's visit.

Wah, wah, wah.  It's the Obama campaign way: you tick us off, we'll "get" you (see the exclusion of Ryan Lizza from the Obama campaign plane after The New Yorker ran that cartoon of Barack and Michelle on the cover of the issue that carried Lizza's article about Obama).

What a jerk.

"We try to get people out to our college Republican meetings, but ... we can't seem to draw the same kind of vocal support,"

OK, interesting observations, maybe because Sen. McCain's supporters are rational people who want to think things through, while Obama's have become O'bots, that just repeat the party line? Anyways thats not the point; the point is that CNN identified him as "a member of the USC College Republicans organization", problem: he is not a member of the USC College Republicans. CNN has quietly fixed the article on their website and will be interviewing a "infuriated" USC College Republican president Ben Myers who says that "I've never met him, heard of him, talked with him, nothing," thats lovely CNN, why didn't you talk with Ben, oh but wait, that would hurt your talking points you got from the Obama Campaign right? Oh and why didn't you post this little statement from Ben on your article?

"We get a ton of people at our meetings, and a ton of really enthusiastic people, there is a lot of enthusiasm for McCain and for the conservative movement in general."

CNN posted a pretty lame reply when the news broke, a few questions, what kind of meeting is this guy trying to get people to come to? I mean if he isn't a member of the College Republicans group where is he trying to get people to come, is this some sort of media fabrication scandal as some bloggers have implied?

Thankfully, not quite all the media is in the tank for Obama, ABC decided to post on this, so did fox, but then even Democratic Propaganda Machine LA Times was forced to cover it.

Iraq!  Iran!  Afghanistan!  One would think handling all of these complex issues would be difficult, trying, perhaps almost overwhelming for a presidential candidate.  Luckily for McCain, he doesn't have to remember much for landing blows on Iraq, as it works on three very basic premises:

1.  The War in Iraq is not won until certain conditions have been met.
2.  We have no specific understanding of what those conditions are.
3.  Ending the war before the conditions are met will result in a loss.

Thus, any talk of leaving is therefore wanting to lose.

The second premise is the key, and the Democrats know that's the only way they can push past this issue.  Without an idea of the conditions needed to leave, victory is impossible, and any talk of bringing the troops home is tantamount to surrender or at best a "tactical retreat."  During the Petraeus hearings, that was the point they needed to crack, pushing to get an idea when we could determine the Iraq War was a success, and to a large extent they made a few dents... but then they let up to focus on the ailing economy.  When they finally got back around to the wars, the momentum was gone and no one seemed to be too interested in bringing it back.  Time and time again, the Democrats have been stymied by the simple, almost pre-school tactic of "I don't know" or "I don't wanna say."  It's going to continue through the election as it has these past 7 years if something drastic isn't done, and soon.

I'd like to make a humble suggestion of how to go about it.  Push on having a plan, that Obama has a plan of re-engagement of the resources necessary in Afghanistan with a clear popularity already established overseas to help bring the international community together again, while McCain simply doesn't even know what winning would look like, and his diplomatic abilities are a complete unknown.  If it sticks, you can ride that through the election, and if they respond, part of their response has to be what they believe victory in Iraq looks like.  They're not saying it, because they know its a military scenario focused on Iraq and Iran which the American public is NOT willing to simply give a blank check for again.  Obama's focus will be Afghanistan and Pakistan, and finding Osama Bin Laden along with terrorist training camps, and using the international community to begin finding resolutions.  The focus on states instead of the terrorists hasn't been working, McCain is focused on creating more instability, whereas Obama's focus is targeting that instability and bringing the focus of the world to bear on it.  Any potential attacks of "surrender" or "abandoning Iraq" will be mostly deflected by Iraq's own leader Malaki approving of the 16 month withdrawal timeline.  Expect a half-hearted counter with some horribly pathetic hashed-up phrase like Stockholm Syndrome to then dismiss Malaki, but the damage will be done.  Regardless, the choice between a specific, targeted approach to the terrorists themselves and a potential widening of an already stretched military force to Iran, while not even having a clear idea of what victory would look like, is the only response.  Asking questions is pointless at this stage, the Democrats have to do what the Republicans are so good at doing: Define their opponents in a wide, sweeping generalization to force them to start defending themselves.

Speaker Pelosi won't let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling.

Why won't she let the House have that debate? Because if she does, she knows that enough Democrats will "defect" that the Republicans will win, and the offshore drilling ban will be defeated.

So, you might have a "sane" Democrat running for the House in your Congressional district. You might say "hey, Nancy Pelosi is far too liberal for me, but this guy is ok, he's not a "San Francisco Democrat", so I'm going to vote for him." But if you say that to yourself, you are lying. Because any vote for any Democrat candidate for the House is a vote for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House. Any vote for any Democrat in the Senate is a vote for Harry "Energy makes me sick" Reid to be Senate Majority Leader. Giving them those positions gives them control of the agenda. And it doesn't matter how your Representative would vote, if the matter comes to a vote. It matters what issues will come to a vote. And a vote for a Democrat is a vote that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid gets to decide those issues.

So long as the Left controls the Democrat Party, there is no such thing as a "good" Democrat. Unless, of course, you want to be ruled by the far Left.

• British Paper Round-up: The Independent: "Enter Obama, pursued by (UK) politicians desperate to bask in his reflected glory." The Guardian: "Obama's charm offensive wins over angry crowd... of reporters."
• Sunday NY Times: As Obama's GOP critics tag him as "uppity" "arrogant" after world tour, Obama remains grounded. Money quote: "We don't buy our own hype."
• Euro-Bump. Gallup daily tracking poll shows continued rise for Obama, 48-41%. Similarly, Rasmussen shows widest margin for Obama since July 8th, 46-40% (49-43% with leaners).
• NY Times: McCain increasingly isolated in his foreign policy, as Bush Administration becomes more pragmatic in its final months and neocons increasingly dominate McCain's world view.
• LA Times: Foreign leaders fawning over Obama gets under skin of lame duck Bush Administration. Evidence of how world is counting days until 1/20/09.
• WaPo's Balz summarizes Obama's press avail with Prime Minister Brown at 10 Downing Street today. Among other things, Obama welcomes McCain joining his position on an Iraq troop withdrawal timeline.
• Could someone explain why the foreign service is prohibited from witnessing Obama's Berlin speech but is permitted to witness McCain's Ottawa speech?

FOX News Busted

• Bob Herbert: Who is the real John McCain? His temperament, flip-flops and gaffes all raise questions about who is John McCain.
• NY Times: Following capitulation of Bush Administration, Senate passes housing relief bill in a landslide.
• Politico: Foreign leaders thrill to Obama.

Eventually, I developed the tactic of simply raising my eyebrow when I knew that a smart comment was appropriate, but couldn't come up with one that was good enough.

IMHO, Barak Obama is a master of using the "raised eyebrow. And I think it has greatly stunted his intellectual growth. I think he was afraid that he wasn't good enough, afraid that his ideas were weak. And rather than entering into "battle", exposing himself to challenges that would force him to get stronger, force him to refine his ideas, he simply used the raised eyebrow. he let everyone fill in their bright remarks for him. The New York Times did an article on Obama that I think shows him honing and displaying his ability:

He developed a leadership style based more on furthering consensus than on imposing his own ideas. Surrounded by students who enjoyed the sound of their own voices, Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once.

To "impose" his ideas, he would first have to have some. Lacking any ideas that he thought worthy of defense, he simply listened. And there's nothing better than simply listening to other people, when it comes to convincing them how smart you are.

Friends say he did not want anyone to assume they knew his mind — and because of that, even those close to him did not always know exactly where he stood. It is a tendency that could prove perilous on the campaign trail, as voters, rivals and the news media try to fix the positions of a senator with only two years in office.

“He then and now is very hard to pin down,” said Kenneth Mack, a classmate and now a professor at the law school, referring to the senator’s on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style.

Listen to everyone. Nod. Smile (in assumed agreement). Everyone thinks you're a genius, because you haven't said anything stupid. Take no risks, because they might backfire.

Mr. Obama spent much of his time alone, curtailing his dating life after his first summer, when he met his future wife, a Harvard Law graduate named Michelle Robinson who was working in Chicago. He often played pickup basketball, replacing his deliberative off-court style with sharp elbows and aggressive grabs for the ball.

Confident in his physical skills, he was combative on the basketball court. Not confident of his intellectual skills, he was quiet in discussions.

I think the aloneness is another telling point. It's hard work, smiling and listening to others, never "getting" to put yourself forward (because you're afraid of what will happen if you do). Especially when you're a competitive individual. Much easier to go off by yourself.

The law review struggled to decide whether affirmative action should factor into the selection of editors, and how much voice to give to critical race theorists, who argued that the legal system was inherently biased against minorities. That drew the ridicule of conservative students.

And it left the new president with a difficult choice. If he failed to use his office to criticize Harvard, Mr. Obama would anger black and liberal students; by speaking out, he would risk dragging himself and the review into the center of shrill debates.

People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words. Earlier, after a long, tortured discussion about whether it was better to be called “black” or “African-American,” Mr. Obama dismissed the question, saying semantics did not matter as much as real-life issues, recalled Cassandra Butts, still a close friend. According to Mr. Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.

...

But mainly, Mr. Obama stayed away from the extremes of campus debate, often choosing safe topics for his speeches. At the black law students’ annual conference, he exhorted students to remember the obligations that came with their privileged education. His speeches, delivered in the oratorical manner of a Baptist minister, were more memorable for style than substance, Mr. Mack said.

“It’s the inspiration of the speech rather than the specific content,” he said.

...

Another of Mr. Obama’s techniques relied on his seemingly limitless appetite for hearing the opinions of others, no matter how redundant or extreme. That could lead to endless debates — a mouse infestation at the review office provoked a long exchange about rodent rights — as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about the issue at hand.

In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.

Beldar has an excellent post on Obama's tenure as President of the Harvard Law Review. In it he points out that the normal course of affairs would be for Obama, as head editor, to write an article for the law review (this being a requirement, rather than a benefit of the position). Obama didn't do that. Why? IMHO, because that would ahve forced him to put himself out there, where he could be judged and criticized.

Dean Barnett has written a lot of insightful things about Obama. He did it again Thursday, coming close to the point I'm making:

Professionally, Obama steadily declined to test himself and experience potential adversity. While most of his Harvard Law classmates entered the maw of big law firm life knowing they would either thrive or fail, Obama shrunk back in relative safety, organizing communities, teaching a con-law class, writing a book and generally living the life of a dilettante intellectual.

In the past, he's commented on how hard it's been to find any of Obama's classmates, liberal or conservative, who had negative things to say about Obama. Dean has seen this as a positive thing. I, however, think it's just a sign of how good Obama is at hiding himself, at using the raised eyebrow.

Others have commented on how Obama's never really stuck to anything. He spend a couple of years doing something, then moves on, before he might have to actually deal with the consequences of his actions, before he might be judged on the quality of his choices. Raise the eyebrow, then move on.

And now we come to Election 2008. Obama's campaign to become President of the United States (or is it President of the World?). The campaign of Hope and Change™. He's been widely (and justifiably) mocked for this, often with the assumption that he's acting this way because he's a left-wing radical who knows that he has to hide his views from the voters if he wants to win the election.

But while I once thought that was the case, I no longer do.  Watching Obama over the last several months has led me to the conclusion that he has no clue what he actually believes in.  He needs to join a church to have credibility as a community organizer?  Fine, he joins a church.  Trinity seems to offer the best political bonus, so he joins Trinity.  Reverend Wright is a flaming nutcase?  Smile and nod.  Getting into politics, need to throw a fundraiser?  Well, who's well known in the area?  William Ayers, former terrorist?  Well, everyone around him seems to think it's no big deal.  Smile and nod.  US is going to invade Iraq?  What do the people around him think?  They don't like it?  Smile and nod.  He's in politics now, so he can't just smile and nod, he has to make a speech.  So he makes a speech that his current friends will like.

Senator Obama has become a US Senator, and is about to be the Democrat Party Nominee for President, based on a lifetime of the raised eyebrow.  He smiles, nods, listens, and tells people what they want to hear, and they love him.  The problem for him is that will only get you so far.  His campaign speeches are nothing but fatuous generalities, because he doesn't know how to actually hold and present a meaningful opinion.  He's 46 years old, and doesn't have the slightest clue about international affairs.  (See comments about Israel and Jerusalem.)  The one thing he knows is that he can't admit to mistakes.  His resume is non-existent, he's running on his "judgment".  To admit that his judgment sucks is to destroy the fig leaf he's offered to voters to explain why they're voting for him.

I don't think he's going to be able to make it to election day just based on his ability to make everyone think he agrees with them.  I think he's going to get pinned down, and shown up for the empty suit that he is.  because a raised eyebrow just isn't enough to get yourself elected President.

     Instead of spending a trillion dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan in a fruitless attempt for a conventional military victory, what if we spent a fraction of that bribing our way to victory?
     Let's start with bribing Afghanistan, i.e., afghanis for Afghanis.
     We cannot defeat the Taliban, Al-Queda or any other guerrilla force with U.S. boots on the ground. The problems in Afghanistan are easily identifiable. So why don’t we take what we know about them and bribe our way to victory.

     Afghanis depend for a lot of their gross domestic product on the poppy plant. The Afghan guerrillas , as well as the various warlords depend on the poppy for their financial strength. The welfare of the Afghanis logically lies with the guerrillas and not with the United States.
     What if we offered each of the 7.5 million households in Afghanistan the equivalent of $250, or one year’s average income. That would amount to less than the $2.3 billion we spend in one month now in Afghanistan short 10,000 troops on a fruitless venture.
     Naturally, we would attach strings. To receive the money, Afghan farmers would have to quit growing poppies and grow crops for human or livestock consumption, alternative energy, anything but addictive purposes. Their earnings would be on top of the year’s worth of income we already gave them. Additional support in subsequent years would be provided as needed.
     Non-farming Afghans would have other requirements, but coupled with incentives to earn additional income beyond the year’s stipend we gave them.
     We would still need a military presence to maintain order and try to fend off the cheaters. But our military presence could include a new type of warrior, one who is more sociologist than fighter and could include warriors trained at least in a semblance of other professions.
     With a new-found wealth, the populace would have a new-found strength to make new-found demands on its government. Eventually, having tasted capitalism, it is likely to embrace that system of government. It may not choose to be democratic, but as with other countries embracing capitalism, democracy likely will come with time. Until then, we would at least have a new trading partner.
     We could use the same bribery to get our way in much of the rest of the undeveloped world, if that is what we are going to continue insisting on, with less loss of life and less outlay of dollars.
     The evils of the world thrive on poverty. They are hard put to exist where there is little of it. 

-----0-----

Problems?
     Sure. We could list hundreds; others would list 10 times more, from those fearing copiers of "The Mouse That Roared" to people citing real problems. That’s the way it is with thinking outside the box.
     For example, in Afghanistan, actually administering that bribery system (first, we would have to use a better-sounding euphe- mism) would cost far more than the $2 billion initial bribe. But we are now spending $2.3 billion a month there before we even begin to build up our troop strength.
     For example, can we guarantee making bribery, not war would work? Of course not. But we can guarantee that waging war against a guerrilla force the same old way will not work and will be far more costly in both the short and long runs.

     But first, we think.

(from www.straightrecord.com) 

==============<>==============

 In a rare Saturday session the Senate passed a housing rescue legislation aimed at helping struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure and providing financial support to troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – the vote passed 72 to 13.

The bill, which cleared the House Wednesday by a 272-152 vote after months of political power struggle and negotiations between the House and Senate, Treasury Department, and other federal regulators, now goes to President Bush. The White House said Bush will sign it quickly, even though he has expressed concern about $4 billion in the bill aimed at helping communities buy and restore foreclosed homes.

Included in the bill is a $300 billion program to refinance loans for struggling borrowers and an ambitious rescue plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill would give the Treasury Department authority to provide support as needed to government-sponsored agencies Fannie and Freddie, which guarantee or own nearly half the nation's mortgages. It would also raise the size of mortgages that can be purchased by Fannie and Freddie and insured by the FHA, the report added. Concerns about the companies' financial stability have dented their shares and sparked fears that a failure of one or both could have catastrophic consequences for the already depressed U.S. housing market.

The legislation would also help some 400,000 homeowners avoid foreclosure by refinancing into affordable loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

Policymakers hope the wide-ranging bill will help invigorate a housing market that continues to collapse and has roiled financial markets worldwide. Data released in recent weeks reveal that home sales have hit a 10-year low and home prices continue to decline around the country. Importantly, the number of homeowners facing foreclosures continues to rise, raising the specter of vacant homes and ruining many neighborhoods.

The bill also includes tax relief for future homebuyers and current homeowners. Those buying a home between April of this year and through June of next year would receive a tax credit for 10% of the value of their home, up to $7,500, while current homeowners who do not itemize their tax returns would be able to deduct up to $1,000 for property taxes.

Other provisions include nearly $4 billion in grant money to state and local governments to buy up and rehabilitate foreclosed homes. Intended to avoid community blight in areas hard hit by foreclosure, the program directs that homes purchased through the program be offered to low and moderate income families.

Is Obama the 'Antiwar Candidate'?
Two words of advice for the antiwar voter: Caveat emptor

Justin Raimondo | July 23, 2008

Now that Barack Obama has pulled the rug out from under John McCain's "victory or death" campaign theme, with the invaluable assistance of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, he's preparing the way for a surge of his own: an Afghan surge, to be precise. Averring that we need to put more troops in Afghanistan, whose U.S.-supported "president" functions as little more than the mayor of Kabul, Obama is posing earnestly next to as many uniforms as he can, hoping to establish his credentials as a plausible wartime president.

So, you thought we'd be rid of the endless "war on terrorism" once we got George W. Bush out of the White House, and ensconced a Democrat in his place? Well, think again, and get ready for an escalation of the Other War – the one in Afghanistan, a much tougher and more intractable prospect than Iraq by a longshot.

The Obama/Democratic Party line on the Middle East, in a nutshell, amounts to this: the Bush administration, through some mysterious internal malfunction, allowed itself to be "diverted" from the task of pursuing al-Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan, and instead went after Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athists because, as Paul Wolfowitz said, "it's doable." The word "neocon" – and any references, however oblique, to the key role played by foreign lobbyists in rushing us into war – never passes the candidate's lips. After all, that would be "divisive."

Aside from glossing over the history of our most recent involvement in the Middle East, however, Obama's prescription for more troops in the Afghan theater promises a disaster potentially far more serious than the one perpetrated by his predecessor in Iraq. At least Iraq, for all its horrific casualties and costs, was "doable." Afghanistan isn't. The Soviets discovered this, to their sorrow, in the 1980s, as did the Brits in 1842. Neither ever succeeded in subduing this proud and tough-minded people, as the British historian Sir John Keegan pointed out in a 2001 piece for the Telegraph:

"Efforts to occupy and rule [Afghanistan] usually ended in disaster. But straightforward punitive expeditions … were successful on more than one occasion.

"It should be remembered that, in 1878, the British did succeed in bringing the Afghans to heel [with a punitive expedition]. Lord Roberts' march from 'Kabul to Kandahar' was one of [Queen] Victoria's most celebrated wars. The Russians, moreover, foolishly did not try to punish rogue Afghans, as Roberts did, but to rule the country. Since Afghanistan is ungovernable, the failure of their efforts was predictable.…

"America should not seek to change the regime, but simply to find and kill the terrorists. It should do so without pity."

The smoke was still rising from the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as Keegan's article saw print, and today the prospects of a "punitive expedition" are about as dim as the hope of establishing a Jeffersonian republic in that tortured terrain. The time for such an effort has long since passed. Bush botched it, and, unlike Hollywood, history doesn't allow second takes. Bin Laden and his confreres have since spread far and wide, recruiting an entirely new generation of jihadists – with the invaluable help of our own policymakers, who have given the terrorist icon plenty of grist for his mill.

U.S. efforts in Afghanistan have been marked by alternate bouts of unmitigated brutality and do-gooder social engineering, often occurring simultaneously. I've lost count of the number of times we've "mistakenly" bombed a wedding party or even the Afghan police, denied it, and then later on sheepishly admitted our error, attributing it to "the fog of war." This has happened so many times that President Hamid Karzai has raised the subject in public, his anger palpable. On the other hand, we've been busy on the do-gooder front, as if to make up for our deadly "errors," pushing women's rights and bringing the alleged benefits of "modernity" to the mountainous land that time forgot. Yet this effort has not been welcomed. It has been stubbornly resisted by a proud and deeply religious people, whose traditional mores and cultural history are so far removed from our own.

This sort of thing has been tried before – by the Soviets, who tried to impose land-reform measures and gender equality at bayonet point. Obama, with his idealistic "yes-we-can"-ism, seems all too likely to reattempt it. Already he's pledged to commit more money and other economic assistance, as well as more troops, to Karzai's beleaguered and deeply corrupt regime – which means more tax dollars thrown into a bottomless hole.

Furthermore, this well-meaning earnestness will boomerang in our faces, as the age-old customs of an inward-looking people are violated and the yoke of foreign rule is tightened. Out in the Afghan wilds, Kabul is just as far removed as Washington, at least figuratively, and the "country" of Afghanistan is largely a Western fiction, a geographical rather than a political or national entity that is no more unified than, say, East Africa. Tribes, clans, and sub-clans, various ethnic and regional groups and sub-groups, all with their labyrinthine histories of conflict and collaboration – it's a chaotic and often stormy mix that can't be managed or "reformed." When the NATO commander in charge of the Afghan front reiterates the West's desire to impose "democracy and good governance," one wonders what planet he's living on.

The re-invasion and occupation of Afghanistan will give President Obama a chance to highlight his hawkishness and prove himself to the War Party as a good and loyal servant. It will also allow the Democratic Party to refurbish its credentials as a tough-minded crew, ready, willing, and able to spill as much innocent blood as the GOP in establishing U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. This refurbishing, however, will be short-lived, because the Afghans will be no more receptive to Obama's charms than they were to Queen Victoria's civilizing mission and Yuri Andropov's "proletarian internationalism."

It isn't just Afghanistan, however, that provides a clue as to Obama's future development as a wartime president in the tradition of Bush, Truman, and FDR: the appointment of Dennis Ross as his principal Middle East adviser is good news for the War Party, specifically for that crucial branch of it that specializes in promoting Israel's ambitions over America's national interests.

No matter which president Ross worked for, Democrat or Republican – and he's worked for both – his interventionist agenda and his sympathy for the interests of a certain Middle Eastern nation were no secret. His sympathy, too, for poor, persecuted Scooter Libby prompted him to endorse that convicted felon's defense fund. And he was right in there with Bill Kristol and the Project for a New American Century in agitating for war with Iraq.

In a future Obama administration, the so-called liberal hawks will have their chief factotum in Ross, who is presumably up for a major role in the Obama administration – perhaps national security adviser, or even secretary of state. That is good news for the tiny yet influential Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party, and very bad news indeed for Obama's anti-interventionist supporters, or even just ordinary war-weary Americans. As Leon Hadar points out:

"Another contingency of liberal hawks occupies positions of influence in Washington think-tanks, including the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, where such scholar-practitioners as former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack have been cheerleaders for the Iraq War and have approved of Bush's policies on Iran and Israel. In fact, one does not have to be a veteran political observer to predict Indyk, Pollack, and other experts on the Middle East, like former peace negotiator Dennis Ross, would probably play a major role in influencing the policy of a future Democratic administration. In that case, the Democratic Party activists who rallied against Joe Lieberman should not be surprised if Bush's Democratic successor ends up pursuing policies that might be described as neoconservatism with a smiling Democratic face."

Ross acted as a front man for the government of then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak during the Clinton-era Oslo negotiations, poses as a "peacemaker," shamelessly promotes Israel's interests, and works for AIPAC and AIPAC-affiliated organizations yet strenuously denies there's such a creature as the Israel lobby. He is virtually the living embodiment of business-as-usual insofar as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, and his closeness to Obama – the two stood side-by-side during the candidate's Mideast tour – bodes ill for the antiwar voter shopping around for a viable candidate.

This isn't "change" – it's the same old B.S., rooted in some pretty basic misconceptions. The idea that the U.S. can "solve" – permanently and decisively – the terrorism problem is an illusion ingrained, perhaps, in the American psyche, which is fond of applying metaphors like "get the job done" to complex realities barely comprehensible to the Western mind. It's as if the making of foreign policy were like plumbing, and it's merely a matter of "fixing" things that somehow got broken. That our own policies caused this breakage in the first place, often directly, is almost never acknowledged, and when it is, the proposed "solution" is guaranteed to worsen rather than alleviate the original problem.

The mistakes of the past cannot be undone, but if we learn from them we can minimize the amount of "blowback" that continues to come at us from all directions. Alas, it appears that, no matter who wins the White House this November, a foreign policy made by those who have learned nothing and regret nothing will remain in place.

Barack Obama uses Israel visit to reassure Jewish voters
Senator Barack Obama used a visit to Israel today to reassure its people and Jewish voters at home that he would not undermine the traditionally close links between America and its key ally in the Middle East.

Tim Butcher | July 24, 2008

Throughout a hectic day Mr Obama repeatedly drove home the message that a White House led by him would continue to back Israel.

It appeared to be a pre-emptive strike against Right-wing Republicans who hint at Mr Obama's weakness on the issue of militant Islam by using such devices as repeatedly referring to his middle name, which is Hussein.

But on the Iranian nuclear programme, Palestinian terrorism, the status of Jerusalem and all other issues he stuck closely to the script of robustly supporting Israel.

Mr Obama also deliberately did something his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, failed to do during a recent visit to Israel, by aligning himself with the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas.

While Mr McCain did not visit the occupied territories, Mr Obama went to Ramallah in the West Bank to meet Mr Abbas, the president of the Palestinian national authority. He also denounced Mr Abbas's militant Hamas rivals, who control Gaza.

While this went down well with his hosts, his intended audience was Jewish voters in America who, according to analysts, threaten his chances in the presidential election if they judge him a weak supporter of Israel.

Aluf Benn, a leading columnist in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, caught the true flavour of the visit in a piece headlined "Obama Visit Is All About Wooing Jewish American Voters".

Mr Obama used a visit to Sderot, an Israeli town often hit by rockets fired by Palestinian militants in Gaza, to make clear his opposition to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and his willingness to consider military action to enforce it.

"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," said Mr Obama.

He added the international community should offer "big sticks and big carrots" to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear programme.

If elected, the Democratic Party candidate said he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the issue of nuclear-armed Iran. This was a direct reference to the option of a military strike.

On the issue of Jerusalem he said he supported Israel's claim to the city as its capital but he added that the final arrangements for the city would be dealt with by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.

"I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel," he said.

"I have said it before and will say it again ... but I've also said that it is a final status issue that has to be dealt with by the parties involved."

This was subtly different from the last time he dealt publicly with Jerusalem when, in a speech to American supporters of Israel, he angered Palestinian moderates by pre-judging negotiations and saying an undivided Jerusalem should be the Israeli capital.

Throughout Israel yesterday he enjoyed the sort of adulation normally given to rock stars, let alone actual heads of state.

It was a deliberate strategy to win the backing the Jewish voters in America who chose Hilary Clinton over the Illinois senator during the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"The most important thing for me to share is the historic and special relationship between the United States and Israel, one that cannot be broken," he said.

"One that I have affirmed throughout my career and one that I will intend to not only continue but strengthen in an Obama administration."

After a breakfast meeting with Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, he moved to a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Israeli opposition Likud party, before meeting Shimon Peres, Israel's president.

He also squeezed in a visit to Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial to victims of the Holocaust.

His movements were met with the sort of security used by Israel for President George W. Bush's two visits to the Jewish state earlier this year.

Unlike Mr Bush, Mr Obama brought with him an entourage of US television network anchors and their support staff, all of whom added to appalling traffic snarl-ups in the notoriously congested streets of Jerusalem.

"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States and my abiding commitment to Israel's security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a U.S. senator or as president," he said after his meeting with Mr Peres.

Mr Obama praised Mr Peres, a veteran of the Israeli political scene who served terms as the country's prime minister before reaching the presidency, the head of state.

"For most of Israel's 60 years, you have been deeply involved in this miracle that has blossomed and we are extremely grateful, not just as Americans but as world citizens, to your outstanding service to your country and the insight that you have shared with us," Sen Obama said.

President Peres urged Sen Obama to be a great president for the sake of the battles against terror and world poverty.

During his meeting with Mr Netanyahu, Mr Obama was reported to have given a very robust defence of the need to fight extremism.

Less than a day before his arrival, an Arab from East Jerusalem, drove a construction digger at vehicles full of people just a few hundred yards from where Mr Obama was staying, injuring 16 people. The driver was shot dead.

"I'll never compromise Israel's security," he said

"Terrorism is not theoretical, it's right here a block away from this hotel, and it must be fought with full force and strength."

His arrival in Israel has been met with gushing editorials in the local media with one commentator writing that if Sen Obama wins the presidency "every decision that he takes will affect our lives".

Itamar Eichner wrote in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper: "Barack Obama landed at Ben-Gurion Airport, and out of the plane stepped Barack Obama, like a rock star, into a particularly emotional reception.

"Israel's political echelon has never been so excited to welcome an American senator.

"Everybody realises that there is quite a good chance that this man will enter the White House in less than five months, and every decision that he takes will affect our lives."

A senior Downing Street source said that they had never intended there to be a televised press conference with Mr Obama.

“We are following protocol. The reality is Prime Ministers do not hold press conferences with people unless they are elected or heads of state. There will be a photo-call in Downing Street in the usual way.”

Obama’s “change” promises a continued path towards world government
Candidates from both parties will bring globalist programs

Daniel Taylor | July 25, 2008

Barack Obama’s July 24th speech in Berlin brought to light the Democratic Presidential candidates’ globalist views, mirroring those of the Council on Foreign Relations and other globalist think tanks. Obama’s praise of the European Union, calls for the “tearing down” of walls between nations and religions, and finally for world unity against climate change and terrorism reveal that an Obama Presidency will not bring change, but rather a continued erosion of national sovereignty and steps closer to world government.

Obama’s speech stated in part:

“That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

…

“Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.”

…

“The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

<!--
google_ad_client = "pub-0849512753345323";
/* 200x200, created 3/7/08 */
google_ad_slot = "7114990287";
google_ad_width = 200;
google_ad_height = 200;
//-->

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.”

Barack Obama’s remarks mirror those of Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who stated that the problems of climate change and terrorism would require a surrender of national sovereignty and ultimately the formation of a world government. “Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” stated Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

Obama is not the only presidential candidate with globalist ideals. John McCain’s proposed League of Democracies and support of North American integration is one example. Hillary Clinton’s open support for world government is another.

Obama’s promise of “change” will bring no such thing. A continuation of globalist policy towards world government and weakened national sovereignty will undoubtedly be pursued.

Sound, ‘goo’ weapons will not target DNC protests

Stephen C. Webster | July 24, 2008

The City of Denver, responding to a request from the American Civil Liberties Union, has said it will not employ high tech, ’science fiction like’ weapons in its security operations during the Democratic National Convention.

Recently, RAW STORY reported that the political parties were spending portions of their respective $50 million budgets on weapons such as the ‘goo gun’ and a ’sonic ray gun’ — both previously used for crowd control in the streets of Iraq — as part of their “top secret” security measures.

On Wednesday, Rocky Mountain News reported that Denver officials, as part of an agreement to delay a public information lawsuit by the ACLU, have said no such weapons will be purchased to guard the DNC.

“This budget overview reaffirms to the public our goal to provide the most effective and comprehensive security possible while maintaining an event that is inclusive and enjoyable for all,” said Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, as quoted by the Rocky Mountain News.

“Later, the city disclosed more details about its purchases, which currently are projected to come in at $18.2 million,” writes reporter Kevin Vaughan. “They will not include non-lethal weapons that use ’slime’ or ‘goo’ to immobilize protesters or that use microwaves or sonic waves to induce pain or other discomfort. Some convention watchers had alleged that the city might purchase a weapon that would cause people to defecate.”

In May, the ACLU sued the City of Denver after records requests for information on weapons purchases were denied.

“The Denver Mayor’s Office, which is coordinating security for the convention, claims that releasing the information could be harmful to public safety,” reports The Colorado Independent.

“‘It is a valid concern when you’re procuring equipment for security needs,’ Lindy Eichenbaum Lent, spokeswoman for Mayor John Hickenlooper, said. ‘To describe the details of that in advance poses an obvious risk that we’re not going to subject our community to, nor are we required to do so.’”

City officials say a full disclosure on weapons spending will be made available sometime after the convention.

However, it is confirmed that Denver police have purchased several hundred thousand dollars worth of ‘high-powered pepper ball rifles,’ reports CNN, as well as gas and biohazard detection equipment. Meanwhile, police in St. Paul, Minn., where the GOP convention is to be held, have requested Tasers for all officers.

Thanks to 23/6 for this funny and oddly accurate piece.

Massive Brzezinski Control Of Obama
The real power behind the throne-to-be...

Eric Walberg | July 23, 2008

It is hard to sort through the hype and heat of Obamania, but one thing is clear: who's pulling the strings, argues Eric Walberg

As the United States election race enters the final stretch, Barack Obama as the candidate promising change is revealing his true colours, much to the despair of anyone actually expecting any change. His recent call to declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel, his denial of Palestinians' right of return, and his support for a Bantustan Palestinian "state" which poses no threat to Israel show how completely he has caved in to the Zionist establishment on that issue.

As President George W Bush calls for early reductions in combat troops in Iraq, Obama's position on Iraq - a vow to bring troops home within 16 months, excepting a "residual force" - looks less and less of a defining moment in his foreign policy. Whatever happens to troop levels, there is no explicit talk of overriding the plans for 14 permanent bases.

Obama is toeing the line in Afghanistan, too. As NATO casualties continue to mount, surpassing monthly Iraqi causalities as of June this year, he is proposing - now seconded by McCain - that the United States shift up to 15,000 more troops there from Iraq. Just prior to his trip to Afghanistan, he wrote in a New York Times Op Ed, "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence- gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there." Please, will someone show me the silver lining in an Obama victory in November?

But then none of the above should come as any surprise to those familiar with his chief promoter and foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, along with current (and likely future) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has already entered history as helping "suck the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire". These are the words of President Jimmy Carter's Under-Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe in March 1979, eight months before the Soviets were successfully "sucked in", when Gates was CIA chief. The changing of the guard, come November, will change nothing. US foreign policy has a logic which transcends who sleeps in the White House.

What's especially ghoulish about all this is that there are five Brzezinski offspring who are all onboard the Obama wagon: Mark (director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, and one of the prime movers of the 2004 color revolution in Ukraine), Ian (currently the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and NATO affairs and a backer of Kosovan independence, NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia and US ABM missiles in Poland), Mika (political commentator on MSNBC whose interview with Michele Obama contributed to the general media Obamania) and finally, Matthew (a friend of Ilyas Akhmadov, "foreign minister" and US envoy of the Chechen opposition).

Brzezinski's brand of anti-Russian, anti-Muslim geopolitics will dominate a future Obama administration. In Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, published last year, he lays out his New World Order agenda without so much as a blush. Apparently, there is a global political awakening going on, the goal of which is "dignity". Not economic development, not the alleviation of poverty, not national sovereignty against the IMF and World Bank. Just plain old dignity, though Zbig's brand of dignity is the kind attained through secession, balkanisation, and the creation of weak statelets for each ethnic minority subservient to the US. Think: Kosovo and - if he has his way - Chechenia. Neo- Wilsonian demagogy in the service not of peace but of US world domination, encirclement of Russia and control of the Arab world.

Zbig said in endorsing Obama: "What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples." Obama's alleged global approach and trans-ethnic, trans-racial allure are right out of Zbig's university textbook, or rather Second Chance, which will be the manual for the Obama campaign and presidency.

Obama is literally a second chance for Brzezinski: having destroyed the Soviet Union and shattered the Warsaw Pact, he now wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself and put the finishing touches on Afghanistan as an impregnable US military base against China, Russia... the list is endless. Perhaps Zbig is dreaming of restoring Greater Poland circa 1600 - from the Black Sea to the Baltic, all controlled by petty szlachta aristocrats like... the Brzezinskis?

The Economist blog put it best: "A new brain for Barack Obama! It's 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter."

The messianic idealism of the Obama campaign has not been seen since the days of another Brzezinski creation - Jimmy Carter, who made him national security adviser with disastrous results. Brzezinski's anti- Russian obsession back in 1976 prompted him to foment the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which he touted as the greatest single bulwark against Soviet communism. Tarpley argues that Brzezinski was even a prime behind-the-scenes mover in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and installing Ayatollah Khomeini in power in Tehran. Brzezinski cared less about the Middle East and its oil than he did about the need for a centre from which Islamic fundamentalism of the most retrograde type could penetrate the soft southern underbelly of the USSR. For Brzezinski, the space between the southern frontier of the Soviet and the Indian Ocean littoral became an "arc of crisis", and we have his handiwork to thank for the horrors taking place there to this day.

The 1980 Carter Doctrine - that the US was determined to dominate the Persian Gulf - is at the root of the first Gulf War, of the present Iraq war, and of the possible war on Iran. Brzezinski's grandiose schemes of world transformation caused a renewal of the Cold War and gave birth to Al-Qaeda, and without Soviet restraint the results could easily have been far more tragic than they turned out to be. By 1980, disillusionment with Carter led to the nightmare of the Reagan regime. But this was of little concern to Brzezinski - a mere blip on his radar screen.

In 2008, we have an obscure Illinois senator, a neophyte with no legislative achievements to speak of, but with a raft of utopian promises, including solving the race problem once and for all. Recession, unemployment and an alarming rise in poverty are of no consequence; a golden age is at hand thanks to his magnetic personality. Since he knows nothing of foreign policy, these matters will be competently managed by the Brzezinski cabal.

But there seems to be one slight hitch. Despite Obama's slavish pro- Israeli genuflections of late, he is still not trusted by the Jewish lobby. Quite possibly because they know who the power behind the throne-to-be is, and they can't stomach him, nor he them. Addressing the AIPAC crew in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he said, "They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel."

But then Brzezinski was a key player in Carter's 1978 Camp David Accords, much loathed by the Zionists as giving up Sinai in exchange for a cold peace with Egypt. Brzezinski is definitely not a hardcore Zionist, though he's happy to allow the destruction of Palestine. Perhaps he is, under his suave exterior, still the quintessential Polish anti-Semite, with a vision of the New World Order without Israel at the centre.

If he can keep up the momentum, however, he may be able to outflank the Zionists in Washington and bringing his horse first past the finish line. They are on the defensive these days, what with spy trials, even J Street Project, a Jewish lobby group that - gasp - dares to criticise Israel. Is this, then, the silver lining in an Obama victory?

While some perceive McCain as this great "Maverick", someone who is a real moderate, the truth is he's now more conservative than Bush on foreign policy approach. And with more agreement towards Obama's Iraq withdrawl, the real hawkish McCain is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Bush and Senator John McCain have long been in agreement on major elements of American foreign policy, particularly in their approach to the “axis of evil” countries of Iran and North Korea, and their commitment to staying the course in Iraq.

But now the administration’s agreement to consider a “time horizon” for troop withdrawals from Iraq has moved it, at least in the public perception, in the direction of the policies of Senator Barack Obama. That has thrown Mr. McCain on the political defensive in his opposition to a timed withdrawal, Republicans in the party’s foreign party establishment say.

On Friday Mr. McCain went so far as to say that the idea of a 16-month withdrawal, which Mr. Obama supports, was “a pretty good timetable,” although he included the caveat that it had to be based on conditions on the ground.

Republicans also say the administration’s decision to authorize high-level talks with Iran and North Korea has undercut Mr. McCain’s skepticism about engagement with those countries, leaving the perception that he is more conservative than Mr. Bush on the issue.

Essentially, as the administration has taken a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, the decision of Mr. McCain to adhere to his more hawkish positions illustrates the continuing influence of neoconservatives on his thinking even as they are losing clout within the administration.

Whether the perception of Mr. McCain as being at odds with the administration is politically advantageous for him is a matter of debate among his supporters, but many of his more conservative advisers do not think it is a bad thing.

“There’s no doubt, particularly as Bush has adopted policies in the direction of Obama, that that gives Obama bragging rights,” said John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, who has sharply criticized the administration’s talks with Iran and North Korea. “But if you believe as I do that this administration is in the midst of an intellectual collapse, it doesn’t hurt McCain. Occasionally in politics it helps to be right.”

But other Republicans — the so-called foreign policy pragmatists, many of whom have come to view the Iraq war as a mistake — say the administration’s policy shifts highlight the more confrontational nature of Mr. McCain’s foreign policy, particularly in his approach toward Russia and his embrace on Friday of the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese regard as the fomenter of a rebellion in Tibet. They say the meeting will only antagonize China before the Summer Olympics, and at a moment when the United States is seeking its cooperation on economic issues and negotiations with North Korea.

The divisions within the Republican foreign policy establishment continue at a time when Mr. Obama is trying to establish his own international credentials. Republicans worry that he is seizing the chance, helped with the boost from Mr. Bush, to command the American foreign policy stage.

“Bush and Obama seem to be setting the foreign policy agenda, and McCain seems to be reacting,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan.

The McCain campaign disputes the idea that Mr. McCain has been left out on his own by the president.

“Does he feel he had the rug pulled out from under him by Bush?” said Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy aide. “Absolutely not. John McCain has always said that he wanted the troops to come home. But he is opposed to an artificial date-driven timetable that ignores conditions on the ground and the advice of military commanders.”

In fact, Mr. Bush’s decision to accept a “general time horizon” for withdrawal from Iraq is still a long way from Mr. Obama’s proposal for a phased pullout, as the administration has not set any timeline.

Mr. McCain has on several recent occasions envisioned a date by when most American troops in Iraq would leave, although he has refused to call it a timetable. In a speech in Ohio in May, he declared that most American troops would be home by 2013. On Monday, in remarks at the side of the first President George Bush in Kennebunkport, Me., Mr. McCain embraced, if only in passing, the possibility of withdrawing most American troops by the end of 2010.

On Friday on CNN, under questioning by Wolf Blitzer, he called Mr. Obama’s 16-month proposal “a pretty good timetable.” But the McCain campaign declined to elaborate Friday night on whether this represented a change in his views.

Mr. McCain’s advisers also say that he is not opposed to talks with Iran and North Korea, and that he supported the administration’s decision to send the under secretary of state, William J. Burns, to Geneva last week for talks with Iran and European officials about Iran’s nuclear program. But Mr. McCain is against any president-to-president negotiations without preconditions, which Mr. Obama supports. (Mr. Obama’s advisers now say such talks would occur only if Mr. Obama deemed them potentially fruitful.)

Mr. McCain’s campaign continues to be a microcosm of the ongoing Republican foreign policy battles between the pragmatists and the neoconservatives like Mr. Bolton, and it is still not clear where the balance of power lies within Mr. McCain’s inner circle. So far, however, the divide between the two within the campaign does not appear as deep as it did within the Bush White House, and advisers say Mr. McCain has been able to chose when there is a policy difference.

Mr. McCain’s advisers were divided, for example, over a speech he gave on nuclear security policy in Denver in May. Two Republican pragmatists who advise Mr. McCain, the former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, supported a call in the speech for a nuclear-free world, an idea they endorse as part of a “Gang of Four” of national security statesmen. But other McCain advisers, including John F. Lehman, a former Navy secretary, and Fred C. Ikle, a defense official in the Reagan administration, were opposed to the idea because, in their view, nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against an attack on the United States and its allies. In the end, Mr. Lehman said, Mr. McCain made the call in favor of a nuclear-free world.

“He wanted to do it,” Mr. Lehman said. “That position is McCain’s position. It’s not a cabal of Kissingerites or a cabal of neo-cons.”

But some of Mr. McCain’s pragmatist advisers remain uneasy that conservatives close to Mr. McCain — among them Mr. Scheunemann and Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — will help him mold a more bellicose message than they would like on Iran and its threat to Israel, particularly at a time when there is widespread speculation in the Israeli news media that Israeli may bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Others who were once uneasy about the influence of conservatives on Mr. McCain say that their worries have not been realized, even as Mr. McCain has taken conservative positions.

“What I’ve seen in the campaign so far to me demonstrates that McCain is his own man, and he’s not being managed,” said Lawrence S. Eagleburger, a secretary of state under the first President Bush.

Senator McCain has been quite the proponent of the "surge" in Iraq, an increase of 21,500 troops in Iraq announced by President Bush on January 10, 2007.  With the McCain doctrine implemented, the Senator from Arizona has repeatedly been against any "timetable" in bringing troops home.

The senator has held this stance for a long time.  One example is from February 2007 when he was campaigning in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

"Obviously, I have to talk to you about the war in Iraq," he says somberly as the crowd quiets. "All of us — all of us — are frustrated. All of us are angry because of the mishandling of the war. All of us are saddened by the loss of our most precious asset, and that's American blood."

Even so, the costs of retreat would be higher, fueling chaos in Iraq and drawing terrorists to U.S. shores, he says. "I want us to have patience. I want us to succeed."

Another happened more recently, a little over a week ago, when he criticized Sen. Obama's plan to withdraw troops in sixteen months, claiming that it posed a threat to the progress made in Iraq.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Thursday ridiculed Democrat Barack Obama's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months as a political tactic aimed at getting votes.

McCain, an Arizona senator, attacked Obama as the Democrat prepares to go on a foreign trip to the Middle East and Europe that the McCain camp called a rolling overseas campaign event.

Obama in a speech this week stuck by his pledge to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq in 16 months, a policy McCain said would sacrifice the security gains that have recently brought a measure of stability to parts of the country.

"This success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed," McCain said on his campaign bus. "And if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed," and leave behind chaos and Iranian influence, he said.

But Senator McCain was dealt a blow by Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister.  Sen. McCain had been speaking for Maliki for a while, explaining that Iraq wanted the United States to continue its presence based on conditions on the ground.  Watch as Sen. McCain squirms in answering Meredith Vieira's question:

But this presumptuous answer was crushed by the weight of Mr. Maliki's statement in an interview with Der Spiegel, a German magazine, on July 19th:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. 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.

McCain, with his legs knocked out from under him, was silent for a day or so.  His campaign then put out a statement that sought to portray Maliki's statement as a result of Baghdad politics, arguing that it was politically advantageous for Maliki to make such a statement.

"His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out," said a senior McCain campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The military says 'conditions based' and Maliki said 'conditions based' yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders."

Of course, Maliki received a call from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq following the publication of the statements, and only after that phone call did Maliki backpedal a bit and claim that his remarks were mistranslated.  However, the New York Times performed an independent translation:

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

So let's start reviewing the major flip flop.  McCain, on April 22, 2004 at the Council of Foreign Relations, when asked if the United States should leave if asked by the Iraqi government, responded with the following:

PETERSON: We're now ready for questions. Please wait for the microphone, identify yourself, keep your questions to the point, if you would, and try to remember we have only one speaker here, speaker McCain. Our distinguished new head of the Washington office asked me to kick off one or two, senator, and let me try.

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.

So before the chaos of Election 2008, McCain held that position.  Now that we're in the middle of the campaign he's held the position of no timetables, claiming that the Iraqi government agreed.  When Maliki came out with his statement that he agreed with a solution more in line with Senator Obama's, McCain sought to couch this statement as one in line with his own views.

After a few days, though, McCain apparently had been thinking, because he radically changed his position yet again.  Sixteen months "is a pretty good timetable," he said.  Yes -- this is the same position advocated by Obama, and later, Maliki.

I'm kind of dizzy trying to keep track of this.  But it's pretty clear that the McCain campaign is sure riding some kind of merry-go-round when it comes to this issue.  They can portray Obama's unclarity on the surge as flip-flopping all they want, but it seems to me, given all of this information, McCain is the one with an ungrounded position.

And yes -- a Republican is moving left for once.  Enjoy it!

STEIN: I want -- I'm glad you brought up this Denver thing. I don't like the idea of Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 wildly cheering people. That is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America. We have a contained number of people in an arena. Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done. And I think whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very unfortunate images from the past.

BECK: Well, yeah, you know what? I've been -- I've been saying that we're headed towards a Mussolini-style presidency forever. (emphasis added)

I find it utterly amazing that Stein manages to say, with a straight face, that huge rallies are just "not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America." Really? Politicians both Republican and Democrat have huge mass rallies (even bigger than 75,000) as a regular order of business in their campaigns, all without a Godwin-esque peep from Beck or Stein. And national convention speeches are, while not exactly the Superbowl, watched by millions of Americans on television. How exactly do we go from millions of viewers to 75,000 people in person crossing some invisible line over into the Third Reich?

And note Stein's use of one of the most bizarre meta-inanities of modern politics: bringing up a nasty associative smear while at the same time fretting over the supposed poor campaign advice that would give him the chance to make that very same smear! It's a testament to the strange evolution of cable news coverage, wherein actual political analysts were first put on panels with hardcore partisan pundits (you know, for balance!), and then wholly replaced by them. Now we have the pundits pretending to both give sage analysis of politics while at the exact same time stumping for their party and politics.

Between this and Expelled, Stein really takes the cake when it comes to trivializing the Holocaust.