Saturday, July 19, 2008

Is McCain Trying to get Obama Killed?

It's dangerous enough that Barack Obama is visiting the Middle East. But to deliberately reveal when he arrives is a serious matter indeed. In fact, it is a despicable act that should be denounced by all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. This is from Huffington:

Reuters reports that McCain shared details of Obama's trip to Iraq at a fundraiser:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

FOXNews Analyst: Press Treating Obama like Pope

This is typical FOXnews hysteria. Their pro-Republican bias is so obvious that you have to laugh at their attempts are at any impartiality. Read the entire transcript of Thursday's "Special Report With Brit Hume."

MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, ROLL CALL: This is being covered as though he were president, that's the thing. Everybody is going there not to cover a political candidate, but, you know, it has all the trappings of a regular presidential visit, an indication-

I mean, there is some news value in that insofar as he's new and all that.

HUME: He is novel candidate in many ways, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the case of Afghanistan, he has never been there.

KONDRACKE: Right. There will be great visuals. So there is some appropriateness to it.

However, he has already said that whatever he learns in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't make any difference. So it can't be really a fact- finding tour, because it's not going to change his mind. Would that it were and that he would learn something there and maybe change his mind.

And, furthermore, he got pushed into this trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by McCain, who, you know, said why don't we go together? Of course, he wasn't going to go together, but now he's going, basically, to fulfill a stature gap that he's got on foreign policy.

There is a poll that indicates that, like 72/48, people think John McCain would make the better Commander in Chief.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I think that the coverage he's getting is beyond presidential. It's papal. I mean, a president never has all three anchors on the way with him this guy is being treated like—

Maybe the Europeans aren't controlled by the Israel lobby like in the United States:
KRAUTHAMMER: Yes, perhaps. But a candidate, this has never really happened.

And to get the coverage out of these capitals, this is going to be a-if you needed any evidence of how much in the tank the mainstream media were, are, this is it.

In Europe, I think it's going to be a smash hit, not just because he's "Kennedy-esque," you know, young and attractive, elegant and new, not just because he's anti-Bush, which, of course, the European public is, and because he's African-American, but because the way he sees the world is essentially European. That's the way liberals do.

Their understanding of the world is that you want to use diplomacy, soft power, international institutions, and moral persuasion, you know, speak softly and holster your stick. And that's his foreign policy, which is why I think he's compatible with the European perspective. And he will be welcomed. He is going to have a smash success.

His problem is with Israel and Jordan and the Palestinian territories. He doesn't understand the code language of Middle East diplomacy. He made a big mistake in his speech here to AIPAC in which he spoke about an undivided Jerusalem, and then he changed his position.

But it wasn't that he changed it. I think he didn't understand that in speaking that an undivided Jerusalem has a code, a significance. It means a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, which, of course is no longer our position. So a few days later he was obviously informed, and he appeared to switch.

He has got to be careful. If he does live events in Israel and Ramallah, he has to watch out, because it is all about code language, which he has to learn in about a week or two.

Transcript: Obama on Larry King Live (7-15-08)

Read the entire transcript:

KING: Considering that, though, there's a lot of e-mails going around. It gets rather terrible. A "Newsweek" poll shows that 12 percent of America believes that you're a Muslim and 26 believe -- 26 percent believe you were raised in a Muslim home -- a lot of misinformation.

How do you fight that?

OBAMA: Well, you know, by getting on LARRY KING and telling everybody I'm a Christian and I wasn't raised in a Muslim home and I pledge allegiance to the flag and, you know, all the things that have been reported in these e-mails are completely untrue and have been debunked again and again and again. So, hey, all you can do is just tell the truth and trust in the American people that, over time, they're going to know what the truth is.

One last point I want to -- I do want to make about these e- mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this "New Yorker" cover. You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out.

You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult or to raise suspicions about me I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America is all about.

KING: All right. Let's turn to Iraq.

Do you go, by the way, with any kind of agenda?

OBAMA: You know, well, my agenda is making sure that we have a strategy to keep America safe and to meet our long-term national security interests. And the speech I gave today, Larry, really tried to describe what I think is the central difference between myself and John McCain.

John McCain, who supported the war from the start, said we'd be greeted as liberators, has really focused on the tactical issues in Iraq. And the surge has no doubt reduced violence. And I think all Americans are thrilled by that.

But what George Bush and John McCain have missed consistently from the start of this process is the broader strategy.

You know, was it a wise thing to go in there and what are the costs and benefits of staying there indefinitely?

We're spending $10 billion a month there. We've spent $200 billion since the surge began. Meanwhile, the situation where -- you know, where the central front against terrorism should be taking place, in Afghanistan, the situation has deteriorated. And we had this brazen attack on a U.S. base where nine servicemen were killed.

And we've got to recognize that perpetuating the strategy that we have in Iraq is costing us elsewhere, not only in Afghanistan, but also investments that we could be making here at home.

Imagine what we could have done with $200 billion invested in clean energy technology and figuring out how we're going to raise -- how we're going to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars. John McCain wants to spend $300 million in a prize to try to figure out the next round of car technologies. And meanwhile, we're spending $200 billion on a surge in Iraq.

It's just not a wise policy. That's why I want to bring this war to a close. But I do want to consult with our commanders on the ground to find out tactically how do we do it in a safe way and how do we make sure that the gains that have been obtained with respect to violence in Iraq are sustained.

[...]KING: We're back with Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Senator McCain said that he will get bin Laden and bring him to justice.

How far would you go? Would you go -- would you go into Pakistan to try to get him if you knew he were there?

OBAMA: Well, as I've said before, Larry, I said this last August. I think it is extraordinary, the failure of this administration, to roll up al Qaeda leadership in a serious way. We know they're based now in Pakistan. And I've said that if we had actionable intelligence on those high-value targets, then we should go after them.

Now, I think that we're -- in order for us to be effective in dealing with the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban as they use Pakistan -- the northwest provinces -- as a sanctuary, we've got to have a stronger relationship with the Pakistani government -- the new Pakistani government.

We had put all our eggs in the Musharraf basket. President Musharraf has lost credibility with his people. And what we need to do is to form an alliance with the Pakistani people, saying that we're willing to significantly increase aid for humanitarian purposes, for schools, for hospitals, for health care. We want to support democratic efforts in Pakistan.

But in exchange, we've got to have some firmness about going after al Qaeda and Taliban, because it's not good for American security, but it's also not good for Pakistani security.

KING: But would you go in? Would you go in to Pakistan, militarily, to get him?

OBAMA: As I've said before, I would use -- if I had actionable intelligence, we would go after bin Laden.

KING: And bring him back here, if possible?

OBAMA: Well, I think that, you know, we want to capture him or kill him. And as I've said -- as I just said this past weekend, if we captured him, then we would want to put him on trial. And I think he would be deserving of the death penalty.

[...]KING: How will you utilize the talents of President Clinton?

OBAMA: Well, as you know, Bill Clinton is one of the smartest people out here and certainly one of the most brilliant political minds we have. He's got extraordinary relationships all across the globe. And so I want him as an adviser and, you know, I would want him to be involved in implementing strategies on a range of issues.

So, you know, he's an enormous resources, as all former presidents are. I mean, I've said this before. I think on the foreign policy front, George Bush, Sr. Has a lot of wisdom to impart. And his foreign policy team, you know, people like Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell, are extraordinary thinkers. So I think you want to utilize all the talents out here. And part of what I'm interested in is bringing that tradition of bipartisanship to our foreign policy back to Washington.

Al Gore Wows the Netroots Crowd

Gore is doing more now for America, and the world, as a private citizen than he ever did as a politician.

Former Vice President Al Gore surprised a convention of bloggers here, appearing on stage after Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, held a question-and-answer session that included tough questions on the wiretapping bill.

In response to a question about climate change, Mrs. Pelosi glanced at her Blackberry and said she had an e-mail from a friend on the subject. Mr. Gore’s voice then came over the public address system, producing quizzical looks in the audience of nearly 3,000 people and then gasps, cheers and a standing ovation as he strode on stage from the wings.

Mr. Gore’s arrival was the first electric moment at the conference, the Netroots Nation, a group of progressive bloggers whose major interests — stopping the war in Iraq, saving the planet from global warming and pushing the edge of the envelope of technology — mesh well with Mr. Gore’s current pursuits.

As waves of cheers washed over him across the cavernous convention center, Mr. Gore said to Mrs. Pelosi, “We ought to take that act on the road.” She said, “We are on the road,” and he replied, “Well, I feel right at home here, I’ll tell you.”

McCain Jokes With Conan About Potential VPs Celeb 'Looks'

McCain thinks he's being cool by appearing on all these late night talk shows. It ain't working, dude.

Even New York City traffic couldn’t stop John McCain from appearing on stage for the big event on Friday, "Late Night With Conan O’Brien."

"Normally on Friday we would tape our show at 4:30, but to accommodate Sen. John McCain we agreed to tape the show at 5:30. Sen. McCain wasn't available at 4:30 because that's when he eats dinner," O’Brien joked with the audience at the beginning of the taping.

McCain’s plane arrived later than expected due to congestion in the skies, but with New York’s Lincoln Tunnel shut down and a high-speed police motorcade leading the way, Sen. McCain made it from Newark Airport to the NBC studios in record time.

"You made it in remarkably just in time," O’Brien jabbed sarcastically at the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "They couldn't tell at home because, you know, because it all gets pulled up in editing, but I shaved twice."

McCain shot back with a smile, "I had dinner and a nap."

[...]Last time McCain appeared on “Late Night” he gave O’Brien his take on the role of a vice president. O’Brien referred back to the appearance quoting McCain. "You said and I quote, ''The vice president only has two duties. One is to break a tie vote in the United States Senate. The other duty is to inquire daily as to the health of the president.'"

Guns Ruling Spawns Legal Challenges by Felons

Thanks to the Supreme Court gun violence will escalate even more. The crime element are the only ones to benefit. Some on the Court didn't read the part about "establishing justice" and ensuring "domestic tranquility." Read the entire article:

Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers say the high court's decision means federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of felonies and crimes of domestic violence are unconstitutional as long as the weapons are needed for self-defense.