McCain FOX News Interview: Transcript (7-23-08)

Read the entire transcript:

HANNITY: Well, let me ask you about that, because this is Barack Obama. He is your opponent, and his first trip ever to Afghanistan, hasn't been back to Iraq in 900 some odd days, and the three major networks and their big stars out there to cover this.

Does that bother you at all? Is that — what do you think of that? Is that media bias?

MCCAIN: No, but, you know, one of the things that's very interesting, he had never before asked to sit down and get a briefing from General Petraeus. I mean — and the other thing I thought was interesting, he issued his policy statement towards Iraq and Afghanistan, which as you mentioned never been to, before he left.

Now, I've got to tell you, Sean. I've traveled around the world, usually at your expense.

HANNITY: At my expense.

MCCAIN: . but I make my policy statements and speeches after I've learned along the way, so it's pretty clear that Senator Obama was not going to change his wrong view that the success had not succeeded, and the fact is it has succeeded, and we're winning, and he refuses to acknowledge that.

HANNITY: Well, he — actually up until the week before he had on his Web site that the surge wasn't working, and then they purged that part of it, and they talked about the minor success, but he still won't admit that the surge has been successful.

Is that just a political posture?

MCCAIN: No rational person who was in Iraq two years ago and saw the situation, and it was dire then. We were on the verge of losing a war, and seeing it now, no rational person cannot say that the surge has succeeded, and there's one other thing about this.

It makes you just marvel and stand in awe of the young men and women who did all this. Our service members — there were political pundits that you and I like and admire that said it was lost. Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senator, it was lost.

And yet these young people under the inspirational leadership of General Petraeus and other, and others went out there, and they succeed in this thing, and it's — what a testimonial it is to the brave men and women, and when you say it wasn't because of them, then I think it's a disservice to them.

Obama Berlin Speech Transcript

Read the entire transcript text of the highly anticipated speech, as provided by the campaign:

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father – my grandfather – was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning – his dream – required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

That is why I’m here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

[...]The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

And that’s when the airlift began – when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city’s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. “There is only one possibility,” he said. “For us to stand together united until this battle is won…The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty…People of the world, look at Berlin!”

Ex U.S. Official: Afghan Leader Shields Drug Trade

American troops are fighting and dying to defend corruption in Iraq. Now they are defending a government that is busy lining it's pockets rather fighting the enemy. Is it any wonder we aren't "winning?"

The U.S. government's former point man in the fight against the heroin trade in Afghanistan has accused Afghan President Hamid Karzai of obstructing counter-narcotics efforts and protecting drug lords.

Thomas Schweich, who resigned last month from the State Department's narcotics bureau, said in an article to appear on Sunday in the New York Times magazine that the Afghan government was deeply involved in shielding the opium trade.

"While it is true that Karzai's Taliban enemies finance themselves from the drug trade, so do many of his supporters," Schweich wrote in article posted on the newspaper's Web site.

"Narco-corruption went to the top of the Afghan government," he wrote, adding that drug traffickers were buying off hundreds of police chiefs, judges and other officials.

And now that the Bush administration has essentially given up on Afghanistan, the likelihood of stopping the Taliban is remote. Obama will likely send troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. But if we can't "win" in Iraq with all those troops how are we going to win in a country where the enemy has free reign?

The Pentagon is unable to send additional combat brigades to Afghanistan this year because of constraints imposed by the war in Iraq, leaving a shift of forces to the next president, a spokesman said Wednesday.

US commanders in Afghanistan have requested three more combat brigades, or about 10,000 troops, to deal with growing insurgent violence in the eastern and southern parts of the country.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said improving security conditions in Iraq have raised the prospect for freeing up troops for Afghanistan next year, but Iraq remains the Bush administration's top priority.

"It looks as though this government is going to work to provide additional forces for Afghanistan next year," Morrell said. "How many, whether it is the three additional brigades that the commanders want I think is a question for the next administration."

Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has vowed to make Afghanistan the top priority if elected. His Republican rival, John McCain, argues that success in Iraq is more important, but has said he would send more troops to Afghanistan.

President George W. Bush met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the military chiefs in a secure conference room at the Pentagon to review progress on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Morrell said efforts were underway to figure out what forces or military assets could be sent to Afghanistan in the near-term.

Whether additional forces can be diverted from Iraq to Afghanistan "is going to be the fundamental issue before the military leaders, the civilian leaders in this building in the coming months," he said.

But Morrell said providing additional combat brigades would require a more rapid drawdown of US forces from Iraq or the mobilization of guard and reserve troops.

"Obviously we don't have the means to send three BCTs (brigade combat teams) to Afghanistan at this very moment, without making some very hard choices," he said.

"You can't snap your fingers and make this happen."

Morrell's comments were striking because they came just a week after Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed vivid concern about the rising violence and deteriorating security in Afghanistan.

China Presses Grieving Parents to Take Hush Money on Quake

The Chinese certainly have put all the stops out in time for the Olympics. It is reminiscent of the Nazi regime prior to the Berlin games. And the response from the West will be the same.

The official came for Yu Tingyun in his village one evening last week. He asked Mr. Yu to get into his car. He was clutching the contract and a pen.

Mr. Yu’s daughter had died in a cascade of concrete and bricks, one of at least 240 students at a high school here who lost their lives in the May 12 earthquake. Mr. Yu became a leader of grieving parents demanding to know if the school, like so many others, had crumbled because of poor construction.

The contract had been thrust in Mr. Yu’s face during a long police interrogation the day before. In exchange for his silence and for affirming that the ruling Communist Party “mobilized society to help us,” he would get a cash payment and a pension.

Mr. Yu had resisted then. This time, he took the pen.

“When I saw that most of the parents had signed it, I signed it myself,” Mr. Yu said softly. A wiry 42-year-old driver, he carries a framed portrait of his daughter, Yang, in his shoulder bag.

Local governments in southwest China’s quake-ravaged Sichuan Province have begun a coordinated campaign to buy the silence of angry parents whose children died during the earthquake, according to interviews with more than a dozen parents from four collapsed schools. Officials threaten that the parents will get nothing if they refuse to sign, the parents say.

Chinese officials had promised a new era of openness in the wake of the earthquake and in the months before the Olympic Games, which begin in August. But the pressure on parents is one sign that officials here are determined to create a facade of public harmony rather than undertake any real inquiry into accusations that corruption or negligence contributed to the high death toll in the quake.

Obama's Press Conference in Israel: Transcript (7-23-08)

Obama proved today that he is a just another U.S. politician who grovels before the powerful Israeli lobby. It guarantees that there will be no change in the status quo in the Middle East if he is elected President. Which means there will be no peace, and plenty of war. Read the complete transcript.

The threats to Israel security begin in Sderot, but they don't end there. They include outrageous acts of terror like the attack we just saw yesterday in Jerusalem. Rearming Hezbollah in Lebanon and an Iranian regime that sponsors terrorism, pursues nuclear weapons and threatens Israel's existence. A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Today I had a series of productive discussions with many of Israel's key leaders about how to address the broad range of security threats that Israel faces and the broad threats that all of us face. I look forward to continuing these consultations with Prime Minister Olmert this evening, and I'm also looking forward to consulting closely with our European allies about Iran and other challenges in the days ahead.

Now let me just close by saying that I bring to Sderot, an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. The state of Israel faces determined enemies who seek its destruction. But it also has a friend and ally in the United States that will always stand by the people of Israel. That's why I'm proud to be here today and that's why I will work from the moment that I return to America, to tell the story of Sderot and to make sure that the good people who live here are enjoying a future of peace and security and hope.

[...]QUESTION: Senator Obama, you said in OPEC convention that the (INAUDIBLE) Jerusalem could continue to be the capital city. Then you changed it and clarified later on in the -- (INAUDIBLE) wonder.

How could you be sure if your other statesmen, that you are going to be committed to the security and safety of Israel and you're not going to change it even when you're the President of the United States?

OBAMA: First of all, I didn't change my statement.

I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don't simply slice the city in half. But I've also said that that's a final status issue. That's an issue that has to be dealt with with the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis. And it's not the job of the United States to dictate the form in which that will take, but rather to support the efforts that are being made right now to resolve these very difficult issues that have a long history.

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon.

When Israel invaded Lebanon, in response to the kidnapping of Israel's soldiers, I was one of the first people to state that Israel had an unequivocal right to defend itself and to rescue soldiers that had been captured. And that is what any country would do. On vote after vote I have demonstrated my support of the state of Israel.

So, the way you know where somebody's going is where have they been. And I've been with Israel for many, many years now. What is also true is I believe it is strongly in the interests of Israel's security to arrive at a lasting peace with the Palestinian people. I don't think those positions are contradictory. I think they're complementary. You know, it is going to be hard for Israel over the long term and this is something that I think the vast majority of Israelis understand. That it's going to be hard to achieve true security if there's still hostile neighbors only a few miles away.

John McCain Interview with ABC News: Transcript (7-23-08)

Read the entire transcript:

WRIGHT: Senator, I want to start by asking you about an extraordinary statement you just made in that town hall meeting, something you also said in New Hampshire yesterday, talking about how you would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war, but then you go on to say, "It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

That's pretty strong language. Do you really think he's that craven?

MCCAIN: I think that it's very clear that Senator Obama has refused to recognize that the strategy in Iraq called the surge has succeeded and that America has succeeded in Iraq and will come home with victory and with honor. If he would've had his way, they'd have been out last March. And the fact is...

WRIGHT: So you what you're essentially saying there is that it's all about personal ambition for him, and not about what he honestly thinks is right for the country?

MCCAIN: I do not believe that any objective observer can conclude that the surge did not work and is not succeeding. It's not possible. The facts on the ground are very clear.

And the future of young Americans are at stake here, because if we do what he wants to do -- and that's withdraw, which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a certain date, has said is very dangerous -- and even, in Senator Obama's own admission, we could have to go back, then that's dangerous for the future of America. And he should know better if he wants to be commander in chief and certainly behave differently, as far as this -- our presence and our strategy in Iraq.

Video: Bush Compares Wall St. to Drunks

Good analogy. Coming from a pro-business President its saying a lot. But then again Mr.Bush is looking for scapegoats to divert attention from his total ineptitude.

Video: McCain Gets Facts Wrong on the Surge

This is becoming a regular event. Is McCain ignorant or is he becoming senile? Either way it is getting scary: a major Presidential candidate can't get his facts right about serious matters relating to a job he is applying for. These gaffes on foreign policy seriously undermine his campaign's contention that the Senator is superior to Obama in this respect. McCain is sounding almost like George Dubya when he ran in 2000. We've seen the consequences of electing Bush. Let's not make that terrible mistake again.

Obama Interview with Katie Couric: Transcript (7-22-08)

Read the entire transcript of Katie Couric's (CBS anchor) interview of Barack Obama:

Couric: ... Prime Minister Maliki on the same page when it comes to a troop withdrawal by 2010. Why do you believe that the Iraqi security forces, which have taken so long to get up to speed, will be equipped to protect the country at that point?

Obama: Well, keep in mind that, and I can't speak for Prime Minister Maliki now, but under my proposal, you'd still have U.S. forces with a capable counterterrorism operation in the region. You would still be training Iraqi security forces. We'd still be providing logistical support. We would still provide protection for our diplomatic corps and other civilians as well as our forces on the ground.

So we would still have the capacity to help promote effective actions by the Iraqi security forces. And, in fact, we're already starting to see more and more of those forces take the lead in actions where we're playing more of an advisory role. The key is for us to not inhibit the Iraqis from taking that kind of responsibility on.

[...]Couric: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, "Why?"

Obama: Well … because … what I was referring to, and I've consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

Couric: But didn't the surge …

Obama: And …

Couric: …help do that?

Obama: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There's no doubt that that's gonna have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted.

If we have shifted away from the central front of terrorism as a consequence of enormous and continuing investments in Iraq, then that's a poor strategic choice. And ultimately, what we've got to do is - we have to recognize that Iraq is just one of our … security problems. It's not the only one.

We've got big problems in Afghanistan. We've got a significant threat in Iran. We've got to deal with Pakistan and the fact that there are safe havens there. Those are all the factors and all the issues that I've gotta take into account when I'm president of the United States.

Couric: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

Obama: No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated happening.

All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things … are critically important. What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.

CBS' Katie Couric Interviews McCain: Transcript (7-22-08)

Read the full transcript:

Katie Couric: Sen. McCain, Prime Minister Maliki and Sen. Obama seem to be on the same page when it comes to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2010. Are you feeling like the odd man out here?

Sen. John McCain: Prime Minister Maliki, General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen and the other leaders in Iraq have all agreed that it's conditioned-based. Sen. Obama said the surge would fail. He said that it couldn't succeed. He was wrong. He said he still doesn't agree that surge has succeeded now that everybody knows that it has succeeded. I said at the time that I supported the surge. I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war. Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

I know what this conflict is all about. I will bring our troops home. I will bring them home in victory. I will not do what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said would be very dangerous. We will have a stable Iraq that we won't have to return to because we have succeeded in the strategy and we will come home with victory and honor and not in defeat. Sen. Obama has said that if the surge failed that he might have to send troops back. After this surge has succeeded and we’ve won a victory, we’ll never have to send Americans back.

Couric: Why do you think Prime Minister Maliki publicly supported and endorsed the concept of a timetable - a 16-month timetable? And isn’t that one of the main objectives of the operation, Sen. McCain, to get the Iraqi military to stand up so U.S. forces can, in fact, stand down?

McCain: Well that’s what they’ve been doing and we’ve succeeded. And the fact is that Prime Minster Maliki … always said it would be conditioned-based. And so has all of our leaders, and so has General Petraeus, who has had enormous success. If Sen. Obama had had his way, we'd of never had the surge.

And we'd of been out of there last March. Probably having to come back because of chaos in the region. Increased Iranian influence. So the fact is that we have succeeded. We are winning. They'll come home with honor. And it won't be just at a set timetable.

It'll be condition-based, which all of us are in agreement. We're including our military leaders. Including one of the great generals in history, General Petraeus, who device his strategy was succeeded when, frankly, most people, and those who thought, including political pundits, said we had lost the war, including Harry Reid, including Sen.Obama. So we've succeeded. And we will come home in victory. And it'll be based on conditions. But al Qaeda is not defeated. They're on the run, but they're not defeated. So we have to be prepared to continue to do what's necessary to succeed. But we have in order to win the war. But we have succeeded in the strategy. There's no doubt about it.

- Read the transcript of Couric's previous interview of McCain done in early July

Video: Protester Spits on Iraq War Veteran

Those of us who oppose the Iraq War and love America are offended by those protesters who attack our troops. It happened during the Vietnam War and we shouldn't allow to happen again. It is sad that so many protesting the war are anti-American.

T. Boone Picken: America is Running Out of Time

Like the Texan Ross Periot, T. Boone Picken is sounding the alarm about the dangers that face America today. He is a true patriot, unlike the other Texan, George W. Bush.

BLITZER: But you're worried about the United States going bankrupt; is that right?

PICKENS: Well, I'm not saying we're going to go bankrupt. I'm saying we can't pay for a lot of things we want to pay for. What I am saying is, from a security standpoint, we could -- we could really be in terrible shape, if, you know -- importing 70 percent of your oil, and only having 3 percent of the reserves in the world, I mean, we're in -- we're in terrible shape on energy.

[...]PICKENS: Well, if you go back and look, Wolf, 10 years ago, I was saying that we will be at 60 percent imports by the end of the century. That was true. It happened. People said, Boone's crazy. That isn't going to happen.

It did happen. I have been pretty good on speaking up and predicting things. But now what's happened is that you're -- you're at a very critical point, but we're also at a critical point in this presidential election, too. And I don't think this issue has been elevated into the debate to the level I want to see it elevated.

It's number one. If you don't solve this problem, you -- you don't have to worry about health care and education, because you're not going to have the money to take care of it anyway.

BLITZER: And correct me if I'm wrong. You were a lifelong Republican. You supported President Bush back in 2000. "The New York Times" says you were among those that bankrolled the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth against John Kerry.

But, right now, where do you see these two candidates, neither one of whom, I believe you say is not doing the job?

PICKENS: I didn't say they weren't doing the job. And I'm not sure that they totally understand the urgency of what I see. And maybe they just don't think it's as -- as critical as I do.

But, here, you -- you don't talk about things that are going to happen 10, 20, 30 years from now. You talk about things you can fix as quickly as you -- as possible. And I think you can have a lot done in less than five years, if we move in the direction that I'm talking about going.

BLITZER: How much time do we really have? Because we have seen your commercials. The numbers are alarming, the transfer of wealth from the United States going around the world. How much time, realistically, do you think the United States has?

PICKENS: I think you're neck deep in it right now. I don't think you have any time. I think you have got to -- you have got to make your energy plan move forward.

[...]BLITZER: And you're ready to put some of your own money behind all of this as well. How much are we talking about? We know you're a billionaire.

PICKENS: I have -- in the 4,000 megawatts that I'm building at Pampa, Texas, that that's going to cost $10 billion. So, I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

The Rich Keep Getting Richer

Is anyone really surprised? Is it any wonder we face the economic crisis currently plaguing us? For decades big business has been gorging--at the expense of the rest of the world. And it is ending the same way it did in 1929. They've made their mammoth profits through speculation. As with all speculative bubbles: they burst. That means the rest of us who getting crumbs for so long, are now getting stuck with the bill. Because when the super rich get in trouble the government comes to their aide. The victims of big business' excesses get nothing but insults, as happened with all those innocent people who took out deceptive subprime loans. Much of the world's economic injustice can be attributed to the gap between the super rich and the great majority of the non-rich. And it is inequality that led the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution, and our own revolution. And it will happen once again in this country. Meanwhile, there will be great hardship:

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

[...]The figures about the relative income and tax rates of the wealthiest Americans come as the presumptive presidential candidates are in a debate about taxes. Congress and the next president will have to decide whether to extend several Bush-era tax cuts, including the 2003 reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Experts said those tax cuts in particular are playing a major role in falling tax rates for the very wealthy.

[...]According to the figures, the richest 1% reported 22% of the nation's total adjusted gross income in 2006. That is up from 21.2% a year earlier, and is the highest in the 19 years that the IRS has kept strictly comparable figures. The 1988 level was 15.2%. Earlier IRS data show the last year the share of income belonging to the top 1% was at such a high level as it was in 2006 was in 1929, but changes in measuring income make a precise comparison difficult.

Mideast Sees More of the Same if Obama Is Elected

Obama has proven that he is in the back pocket of the Israeli lobby. This means nothing will be done to solve the number 1 issue confronting the Middle East: the Palestinian, Israel conflict. No politician can be elected to the presidency and advocate and even hand foreign policy in the region.

For what feels like forever, Israelis and their Arab neighbors have been hopelessly deadlocked on how to resolve the Palestinian crisis. But there is one point they may now agree on: If elected president, Senator Barack Obama will not fundamentally recalibrate America’s relationship with Israel, or the Arab world.

From the religious center of Jerusalem to the rolling hills of Amman to the crowded streets of Cairo, dozens of interviews revealed a similar sentiment: the United States will ultimately support Israel over the Palestinians, no matter who the president is. That presumption promoted a degree of relief in Israel and resignation here in Jordan and in Israel’s other Arab neighbors.

“What we know is American presidents all support Israel,” said Muhammad Ibrahim, 23, a university student who works part time selling watermelons on the street in the southern part of this city. “It is hopeless. This one is like the other one. They are all the same. Nothing will change. Don’t expect change.”

Across the border, in Israel, Moshe Cohen could not have agreed more. “Jews there have influence,” Mr. Cohen said, as he sold lottery tickets along Jaffa Road in Jerusalem. “He’ll have to be good to Israel. If not, he won’t be re-elected to a second term.”

Mr. Obama, who will be here on Tuesday, has promised change. He has offered to begin dialogue where the current president has refused, in places like Syria and Iran. But when he stepped into the Middle East, he walked into a region where public expectations were long ago set. The Bush years have supercharged those sentiments, especially in the Arab world, where there is little faith that the United States can ever again serve as a fair broker between the sides.

In Israel, Mr. Bush was seen as the most supportive American president yet, and early opinion polls show a preference there for the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain.

But Mr. Obama gained ground — or lost it, depending on which side was reacting — when he spoke in June to a pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He said that Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

He later qualified his comments, saying he meant that the two sides of Jerusalem should not be separated by walls or barbed wire. But the message had already been sent.

“The Arabs need America to be straight and unbiased, but anyway we feel, that American policy will not be changed too much,” said a Palestinian who identified himself by his nickname, Abu Fadi, a salesman in an electrical appliance store in downtown Arab East Jerusalem.

Behind this general agreement, there is a fundamental difference. In the Arab streets, there is a hope, perhaps limited, that this candidate might be different. He is black, his father was Muslim and his middle name is Hussein, so there is hope that he will be more sympathetic, though that hope is not joined to any expectation.

When the Lobby says jump the politicians ask, "how high?" That means he will not meet Hamas eventhough no peace can come without involvement of that group.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will visit the West Bank next week as part of a swing through the Middle East, a Palestinian official said Monday, giving an important diplomatic boost to the Palestinians at a sensitive time in peace talks.

The Palestinians expressed satisfaction over the planned meeting with the presumed Democratic nominee, which comes months after Obama's likely Republican opponent, John McCain, passed on meeting with the Palestinians during a brief visit to Israel.

Obama is scheduled to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during his July 23 stop in Ramallah, said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who was in Paris for a Mediterranean summit.

[...]In a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he offered such ardent support for Israel that he had to backtrack just a few days later. Obama, working to woo Jewish voters, told the lobbying group that he supported Israel retaining control of an "undivided" Jerusalem. The comment so infuriated many Arab leaders that he was forced to issue a clarification that he didn't oppose Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the future of the city.

Wachovia Has Record $8.9 Billion Loss

Erin Burnett called the situation with the banks "grim" this morning. I continue to argue that the banking situation will continue to worsen. Who knows how many banks are in trouble. Will the government bail them all out? Can it? Who's going to bail out the government? Will it be too late to do something when we do learn the answers?

Wachovia Corp., the U.S. bank that hired Treasury Undersecretary Robert Steel as chief executive officer two weeks ago, reported a record quarterly loss of $8.9 billion and slashed the dividend. The stock fell as much as 12 percent in early New York trading.

The second-quarter loss of $4.20 a share compared with net income of $2.3 billion, or $1.23, a year earlier, the Charlotte, North Carolina-based company said today in a statement. The loss included a $6.1 billion charge tied to declining asset values.

The writedown and second dividend reduction in three months reflect Steel's response to setbacks including the Golden West Financial Corp. acquisition in 2006, which cost former CEO Kennedy Thompson his job after eight years. Wachovia has dropped more than 75 percent in New York Stock Exchange composite trading since it spent $24 billion two years ago to buy Golden West just as house prices were peaking.

It's gotten so bad that even when banks report losses Wall St. takes that as a positive news:

Bank of America Corp. has become the latest in a string of big banks whose second-quarter earnings, while hurting from the impact of the credit crisis, still managed to beat Wall Street expectations.

The nation's second-largest bank by assets said yesterday that its profit fell 41 percent as losses in its struggling mortgage operations were offset by business in other parts of the company. But it easily beat Wall Street estimates, and its stock rose $1.07, or 3.9 percent, to $28.56 in afternoon trading.

Four of the nation's five biggest banks have now reported better-than-estimated results. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. reported smaller-than-expected profit declines, and Citigroup Inc. had a milder-than-expected $2.5 billion loss.

Maybe we should listen to Henry Paulson. Let's put our trust in this administration. They will do the right thing. Haven't done a great job up till this point?

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Sunday that the current economic difficulties will take months to pass but added that turmoil in the banking sector is under control.

"This is a tough time," Paulson said in an interview on CBS's Face the Nation. "We're going to be in a period of slow growth for a while."

But he added that recovery would involve a matter of months rather than years.
Paulson also voiced confidence on government's ability to deal with the recent string of bank failures.

"Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation," he said.
He said 2008 has seen only five banks fail, compared with about 250 failures seen in a single year during the height of the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Speaking later on CNN's Late Edition, he added that "99% of the banks with 99% of the assets" were in good shape in terms of capitalization.
"Stability in the capital markets, that's our No. 1 thing," he said

Lieberman, Bayh Debate on FOX: Transcript

This could be a preview of the presidential debate between the two potential VP candidates: Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh. They appeared on FOX News Sunday. Read the entire transcript.

WALLACE: As we discussed with Admiral Mullen, Iraqi prime minister Maliki seemed over the weekend to endorse Obama's plan for pulling combat troops out of Iraq by mid 2010, within two years. Now he's apparently backed off that.

But, Senator Lieberman, the Iraqis clearly want us out sooner rather than later, and they would like on a timetable. Why is Senator McCain resisting that?

LIEBERMAN: Well, we — Senator McCain and I and others — want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later, but we want us out in a way that does not compromise all the gains that American and Iraqi forces have made in Iraq, which Admiral Mullen spoke to.

And frankly, we want to stay there to a victory because we don't want all those who have served in the American uniform there to have served or in some cases died in vain.

Remember this, Chris. We wouldn't be having this discussion about how to get out unless the surge, which John McCain courageously fought for, taking on the president of his own party, popular opinion, risking his campaign, and which Senator Obama opposed, worked.

So I think that's the good news. I think everybody — that is, Prime Minister Maliki, President Bush, people like John McCain and I — agree the sooner we're out, the better. But it has to be based on conditions on the ground.

Senator Obama doesn't seem to feel that way. It looked like he did a little bit after the primaries were over. But then he, pushed by MoveOn.org and others on the antiwar left of the Democratic Party, is back to a rigid time line. And that's not wise.

WALLACE: Let me talk to Senator Bayh about that.

Admiral Mullen didn't mention Obama, but he did say this idea of a timetable for getting out in two years is dangerous. Why not agree that you're going to make any decisions based on conditions on the ground, Senator?

BAYH: Chris, I think it's important to note that Barack Obama's judgment about these issues has been excellent from the beginning, the kind of judgment you'd want in a commander in chief, and others are now beginning to adopt his positions.

We wouldn't be discussing surges in Iraq or anything else if Barack had had his way. We wouldn't have started that war to begin with.

He was right about Afghanistan. That's the place from which we were attacked. He's been calling for more troops there now for over a year. And John McCain, to his credit, has now come around and adopted Barack's point of view on that.

He has been for, as you say, a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As we heard, Prime Minister Maliki has embraced a more definitive time line, whether it's the 16 months or something else. But clearly, they want a more definitive time line.

And even President Bush now is coming up with a variety of euphemisms — aspirational goals, time horizons. I mean, it's starting to sound pretty much like a timeline to me.

So it's common sense, Chris. Any important enterprise, certainly something as important as a war — you want to have a plan. And a plan has to have some idea of what it's going to cost, what the adverse consequences are going to be and how long it's going to take.

So 16 months seems to be a reasonable goal. Let's work toward that. Let's bring this to a conclusion in a responsible way and focus on Iraq (sic) where the focus should have been all along.

Top McCain Advisor Involved in Lobbying Scandal

This is what John McCain's experience means--ties to lobbbyist. You don't become a powerful political figure in Washington without being up to your neck in sleaze. The image McCain has cultivated over the years as somehow being a political outsider is a hoax.

A top foreign policy adviser to John McCain has lobbied the National Security Council, Congress and the State Department on behalf of Stephen Payne, the Texas businessman and longtime Republican fundraiser caught up in a controversy over whether he sought to sell access to the Bush White House.

According to records on file with Congress, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann lobbied the Senate and House on behalf of Payne's firm, Worldwide Strategic Partners Inc., in 2002.

Scheunemann also lobbied the National Security Council and the State Department regarding energy issues in the Caspian region in 2005 and 2006 on behalf of another Payne firm, Caspian Alliance Inc., according to the records.

The McCain campaign said Scheunemann did not lobby on any specific legislation on behalf of either company, said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. The fees to Scheunemann's firm amounted to $50,000.

On Monday, McCain's campaign said that from 2002 to 2006, Scheunemann periodically engaged in consulting relationships with the two companies and that Scheunemann was never on the payroll of either firm, but that he was an occasional outside expert consultant.

In regard to Caspian Alliance, Scheunemann arranged several informational meetings for Payne with Department of State and NSC officials following Caspian energy issues, said Rogers.

This isn't the first lobbying scandal involving the Republican nominee:

It seems odd, but for John McCain it was a blessing to have the chance to bury questions about his dealings with lobbyists beneath an alleged sex scandal. The prurient part of the story was easy to deny, and voters are sick of sex scandals.

But even if the sex goes away, the underlying questions raised last week in the story for which the New York Times took such grief are unlikely to disappear. The McCain campaign's sweeping denials may have been a bit too sweeping, and sex, in the end, is not what the story was really about.

The Times got into trouble largely because of the second paragraph of its story Thursday about the relationship between Vicki Iseman, a telecommunications lobbyist, and McCain, when he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

[...]The same day the Times ran its account, The Post ran a story that stayed away from the "romantic" angle but reported (as the Times also had) that McCain had written two letters to the Federal Communications Commission, urging that it vote on the sale of a Pittsburgh television station to Paxson Communications, one of Iseman's clients.

The Post wrote: "At the time he sent the first letter, McCain had flown on Paxson's corporate jet four times to appear at campaign events and had received $20,000 in campaign donations from Paxson and its law firm. The second letter came on Dec. 10, a day after the company's jet ferried him to a Florida fundraiser that was held aboard a yacht in West Palm Beach."

In denouncing the Times story, McCain's campaign denied that he had met with Lowell "Bud" Paxson, president of the firm. But Paxson later told The Post that he had met with McCain. More telling, Newsweek reported this weekend that McCain himself acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had met with Paxson.

CBS' Lara Logan Interviews Barack Obama: Transcript (7-19-08)

Read the complete transcript:

Logan: "And how do you compel Pakistan to act?"

Obama: "Well, you know, I think that the U.S. government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan, provides a lot of military support to Pakistan. And to send a clear message to Pakistan that this is important, to them as well as to us, I think that message has not been sent."

Logan: "Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside tribal areas?"

Obama: "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn't come to that - that in fact, the Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should capture him."

Logan: "Isn't that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said 'No,' that they wouldn't fire or wouldn't go after him?"

Obama: "I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, 'Well, you know, you shouldn't go around saying that.' But I don't think there's any doubt that that should be our policy."

Logan: "But [not going after him] is the current policy."

Obama: "I believe it is the current policy."

Logan: "So there's no change, then?"

Obama: "I don't think there's going to be a change there. I think that in order for us to be successful, it's not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We've got training camps that are growing and multiplying."

Logan: "Would you take out all those training camps?"

Obama: "Well, I think that what we would like to see the Pakistani government take out those training camps."

Logan: "And if they won't?"

Obama: "Well, I think that we've got to work with them so they will."

Logan: "Would you consider unilateral U.S. action?"

Obama: "I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it's absolutely vital to the security interests for both the United States and Pakistan."

Thousands with Criminal Records work Unlicensed Making Loans

It might explain why so many people subprime loans were made. These types of loans were a scam. So it is appropriate that conmen sold them. This article is from Miami Herald:

Gary Kafka, former body builder uith a long rap sheet and violent past, wrote millions of dollars in mortgages in South Florida without ever applying for a state license.

Fresh out of prison after serving time for bank fraud, he never went through a criminal background check before selling loans. He never took a competency exam.

He never had to.

More than half the mortgage professionals registered in Florida -- 120,563 -- entered the industry this decade without being licensed by the state, The Miami Herald found.

Known as loan originators, they perform the same job as mortgage brokers but aren't bound by the same rules.

Time and again, industry leaders asked Florida regulators to bring this group under their watch by imposing mandatory licensing. But regulators refused to press for any changes, claiming that lawmakers would never approve.

The state's refusal proved costly during the biggest housing boom in Florida history: Thousands of loan originators entered the industry with criminal histories, state records show.

While The Miami Herald found breakdowns in the state's licensing system for mortgage brokers, the lack of controls over originators created even more problems for an industry steeped in the highest fraud rate in the nation.

The special group was created by state lawmakers 17 years ago to make it easier for lenders to hire people as the industry was growing.

But in the past eight years, more people with criminal records jumped into the business as loan originators than as any other category of mortgage professionals.

The government/Federal Reserve now realize that the subprime market was dishonest industry and are finally doing something about it. But is it too late?

The federal government has put its foot down: A lender can't give you a subprime mortgage unless you are able to repay it. And that goes for jumbo mortgages, too -- maybe.

You're probably wondering why the government finds it necessary to tell lenders that they shouldn't hand over the money before figuring out whether borrowers can afford the monthly mortgage payments. That seems awfully basic. But for a while, verifying a borrower's ability to pay was out of fashion.

From 2003 until last year, stated-income loans were the big fad because they allowed borrowers to exaggerate their incomes without having to provide tax documents as verification. Now, stated-income loans -- called "liar's loans" -- are rare because they're deemed too risky.

Now, more than a year after stated-income and subprime loans fell out of favor, the Federal Reserve has banned stated-income subprime loans. The new rules go into effect Oct. 1, 2009.

The rules divide mortgages into two categories: "higher-priced" loans and everything else. The "higher-priced" category is the Fed's way of defining subprime mortgages, which generally go to people who have had trouble paying their bills on time.

Some of the new rules apply only to this "higher-priced" category, which the Fed designed as a net to capture subprime loans. But some jumbo mortgages might get caught in it, too.

Under the new rules, you can't get a higher-cost subprime loan unless the lender decides that you can afford the highest scheduled payments during the first seven years of the loan. This means that if you get an adjustable-rate mortgage, you have to be able to afford the payments at the highest possible rate.

The rules ban prepayment penalties for higher-cost loans if the rate can change in the first four years. In any case, prepayment penalties can't last more than two years. And higher-cost loans have to have escrow accounts for property taxes and insurance.

Obama Raises $25 Million in One Day

McCain's goose is cooked. Lets see, McCain is a lousy candidate, has no issues, and lacks pizazz. This combination guarantees victory for Obama in the Fall:

After locking up his party’s presidential nomination, Barack Obama’s fundraising operation came roaring back to life in June, generating more than a million dollars on five days, including a whopping $25 million that came in on the last day of the month.

His one-day haul represents nearly half of his monthly total and more than Republican rival John McCain generated for the entire month. During the month, McCain did not have a single day in which he raised a million dollars.

Overall, Obama raised $54 million for his campaign in June, compared to $22 million for McCain.

In addition to fundraising, the June expenditures offered insight into the different tacks the candidates are taking toward winning the presidency in November.

The two candidates spent about the same amount of money in June — Obama spent $26 million and McCain spent $27 million.

But their priorities were entirely different as Obama began building what his campaign says will be an unprecedented, nationwide ground operation.

Did I mention Obama is looking very presidential with his tour of the Middle East?

Barack Obama — the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate who has made ending the Iraq war a cornerstone of his historic run for office — huddled on Monday with Iraqi officials and coalition military commanders about the status of the grinding, bloody conflict, now in its sixth year.

It is the Illinois senator's second trip to Iraq, after a visit in 2006, and the latest leg of his overseas trip, which began in Kuwait and Afghanistan and will continue on to Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, Germany, France and England.

Obama — who is accompanied by two key Senate colleagues — arrived Monday afternoon in the southern city of Basra, according to U.S. Embassy spokesman Armand Cucciniello.

Obama met with Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq; British Maj. Gen. Barney White Spunner, commander of Multi-National Division South East; and Iraqi Army's 14th Division Commander Maj. General Abdul Aziz.

Obama then traveled to Baghdad, where he was to meet Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. troops in Iraq, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Everything seems to be turning in favor of Obama:

Events in Iraq suddenly have taken “a dramatic shift” in favor of Sen. Barack Obama and to the disadvantage of Sen. John McCain, writes David Paul Kuhn of Politico. The big change: “President Bush, who’d been opposed to any timetable for removing American forces from Iraq, reached an agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to set a ‘general time horizon’ for a withdrawal,” Kuhn writes.

“Saturday, the shift continued when the German magazine Der Spiegel ran an interview with Maliki in which he called for U.S. troops to withdraw.” Now, Kuhn says, “for the first time in the national security debate, Obama’s advisers believe that McCain has been placed on the defensive, since his reluctance to support a ‘time horizon’ now differs not only with the position of his Democratic opponent, but also those of the White House and the Iraqi prime minister.”