Blasts in Gaza Stoke Tensions Between Factions

This is very bad if the Israelis were involved. The Middle East is on the verge of turning into a giant burning cauldron. No one will escape the horror to come. And the beneficiaries are al Qaeda and their likes.

Hamas police officers in Gaza on Saturday rounded up scores of supporters of Fatah, the rival Palestinian movement, and raided its offices after five Hamas militants and a girl were killed in a bomb blast late Friday, local residents said.

The explosion and the Hamas reaction stoked internal tensions in Gaza to one of their highest levels since the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian territory in June 2007.

Hamas, the Islamic militant organization, blamed the mainstream Fatah for the deadly blast that followed two smaller explosions in Gaza on Friday, issuing a statement accusing the Fatah leadership in the West Bank, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, of concealing “a conspiracy to kill and assassinate and terrorize” Hamas security forces.

Fatah denied involvement; a spokesman for Mr. Abbas suggested the killings were a result of a conflict in Hamas and charged Hamas officials with trying to cover up divisions in their own organization.

In several episodes in the past militants had been killed by their own explosives, but local news media said Friday’s explosion, near a crowded Gaza beach, was caused by a bomb placed outside a car used by Hamas militants. Medical officials said that at least 19 Palestinians were wounded.

The two earlier explosions occurred outside a popular Gaza cafe and near the home of a Hamas official. Local news reports said the cafe bomber, who died in the blast, belonged to a shadowy Islamic extremist group that has been taking aim at places of entertainment and Christian centers in Gaza. It was unclear who was responsible for the second bombing.

After a brief but brutal factional war with Fatah last year, Hamas has consolidated its control over Gaza, priding itself on imposing internal order. It also has negotiated a temporary truce with the Israelis, through Egyptian mediators, that has brought almost total quiet to the area in the past few weeks.

But according to news reports, gun battles broke out between the rival Palestinian groups overnight as Fatah sympathizers tried to resist arrest in the wake of the bombings.

Hamas leaders gathered Saturday at a central mosque where the coffins of those killed in the explosion were brought for prayers before burial, and charged the Fatah leadership with collaboration with Israel — a crime punishable by death in the Palestinian territories.

House Committee Hears The "I-Word"

At least one Democrat in the Congress is doing his duty. While the Democratic leadership plays politics, Dennis Kucinich stands up for the rule of law. Tragically he is essentially all alone.

It was a forum at which the “I-word” was not to be spoken but was anyway.

The House Judiciary Committee convened a hearing to address an impeachment resolution brought against President Bush by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, although members of the committee went to great pains to insist the purpose of the meeting was not to vote to remove Mr. Bush from office.

Instead, the hearing was aimed at the president’s use or misuse of executive powers, with constitutional and legal experts invited to weigh in on whether the American system of check and balances has been undermined by the Executive Branch.

But critics of Mr. Bush's policies couldn't pass up the chance to charge the president with a long list of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Leading the way was Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, the former Democratic presidential candidate who has brought repeated impeachment resolutions on the House floor against the president and Vice President Cheney.

"The decision before us is whether to honor our oath as Members of Congress to support and defend the Constitution that has been trampled time and again over the last seven years," Kucinich testified.

Gallup Daily: Obama Retains Lead, 48% to 41%

While Barack Obama's poll numbers (according to Realclearpolitics.com) have remained consistently in 46% range since the beginning of May 2008, McCain's has been trending downward since early June. This is important because in recent days FOX and friends have been arguing that Barack was on the decline and McCain rising. There is nothing that indicates McCain will ever catchup to Obama. The reality is that the more people learn about the Illinois Senator the more they like him. The only way McCain could win is if Obama is assassinated. Why do I have that nagging fear? There is a small racist element that will do anything to prevent Obama from becoming President. Already, Hillary Clinton and John McCain have expressed their desire that it happen.

Barack Obama has stretched his lead over John McCain among national registered voters to seven percentage points, 48% to 41%, in Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted July 23-25.

[...]Notably, Obama's current seven-point lead over McCain ties his widest since the start of Gallup Poll Daily tracking of the general election in early March[...]

Scott McClellan: Bush WH Fed FOXNews Talking Points (Video)

Although suspected (particularly Dan Rather's claims) for a long time that FOX is in the pocket of this White House. Now we have the definitive confirmation from former press secretary, Scott McClellan.

Hospital Guards Taser, Stomp 66-year-old Minister over Innocent Joke

This is very frightening. If it happened to this gentleman it could happen to anyone. This story isn't about tasers. He was being kicked and stomped while tasering was happening. It was video that saved the day. I wonder if the individuals involved in this barbaric behavior will be prosecuted?

Senile or Stupid: McCain Says Iraq First U.S. War After 9-11

See the video of the latest McCain gaffe. This is getting monotonous. Almost a "mental lapse" per day:

"The fact is we had four years of failed policy. We were losing. We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure and defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world," McCain replied.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., US forces attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan in October 2001 -- well before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

“It is disappointing that John McCain doesn’t recognize that the war in Afghanistan was not only the first major conflict after 9/11, and is in fact a major front in the fight against terrorism. No wonder John McCain doesn’t understand why the American people are looking for new leadership that will bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end so we can direct the resources we need to getting the job done in Afghanistan," Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney said in a statement.

Why so many verbal/mental miscues? Is it a mental flaw or just a verbal slip. Either way it is unacceptable. Seven and one-half years of similar "moments" is long enough.

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “Iraq” when he apparently meant “Afghanistan” on Monday, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.

Just in the past three weeks, McCain has mixed up Iraq and Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan, and even football’s Packers and Steelers.

Ironically, the errors have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise - foreign affairs.

McCain will turn 72 the day after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accepts his party’s nomination for president, calling new attention to the sensitive issue of McCain’s advanced age, three days before the start of his own convention.

The McCain campaign says Obama has had plenty of flubs of his own, including a reference to "57 states" and a string of misstated place names during the primaries that Republicans gleefully sent around as YouTubes.

But the mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?

Secret Memo Shows Harsh CIA Tactics Approved

If they didn't think these methods were so controversial, if not illegal, why did they keep it a secret? Is Congress really intending on keeping this administration accountable? At the very least, why don't we have hearings like Iran-Contra that were held during the Reagan days. Bush Inc. should not get away Scott Free:

The Justice Department in 2002 told the CIA that its interrogators would be safe from prosecution for violations of anti-torture laws if they believed "in good faith" that harsh techniques used to break prisoners' will would not cause "prolonged mental harm."

That heavily censored memo, released Thursday, approved the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques method by method, but warned that if the circumstances changed, interrogators could be running afoul of anti-torture laws.

The Aug. 1, 2002, memo signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee was issued the same day he wrote a memo for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales defining torture as only those "extreme acts" that cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. That memo was never rescinded.

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.