The section of Obama's website titled "Bringing Our Troops Home" reads thusly:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Why is it important to highlight the keyword "will"? Simple logic.

If it were true that Obama had always been willing to and open about consulting with generals on the ground before taking a stance on Iraq, then he would have used the word "might", since it would be dishonest to promise immediate withdrawal without first asking said commanders.

I "might" remove our troops". I "might" remove 1 or 2 brigates, etc. Why? Because if it all depends on the commanders on the field, then nothing "will" happen for sure yet.

One friend tries to prove to me that barackobama.com does cite an instance where Obama speaks about consulting with these chiefs, but this is false, as I explain below:

Barack Obama would immediately begin redeploying American troops from Iraq. The withdrawal would be strategic and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government.

This quote says NOTHING about consulting with military commanders. It simply states the obvious fact that the immediate redeployment would be directed by those who are paid to direct.

There is a big difference between telling someone to direct, and consulting with that person about the best course of action.

It would not be the same, for instance, for George W. Bush to ask Donald Rumsfeld to direct torture against terrorism suspect, as opposed to consulting with Rumsfeld, who may or may not approve of the action.

Figuring this out is no brain surgery. In the primaries, liberals are the main target. During general election season, moderates and some conservatives are the price, as they constitute a large segment of voters. Obama, a typical politician, has acted accordingly.

Missouri Senator Claire McKaskill, whom we elected among other things to end the abominable war in Iraq, told MSNBC Tuesday that Barack Obama still wants to withdraw from Iraq, and that although he still believes troops can be withdrawn according to his primary season pledge of 1 or 2 brigades per months, we should beware of supposing that such pledge is "set in stone".

It is all "based on the circumstances".
A summary of McCaskill's statements can be seen here.

I am tempted to feel upset about this lack of commitment by Obama, if this top supporter is telling the truth. But at the same time I am told we have to be pragmatic and move to the center.

What do you guys think?

I wouldn't defend the other guy unless an obvious falsehood was being told about him.

John McCain was asked when was the last time he personally pumped his own gas. This could have been 1979 for all we know.

McCain answered that he did not know (when he pumped his own gas, since he is driven around by the Secret Service, and that it mattered little.

McCain was not asked about the current price of gas. At any rate, let's examine the question: Does McCain know what the price of gas is?

On June 18th, McCain said in an interview:

"The price of a gallon of gas in America stands at more than four dollars. Yesterday, a barrel of oil cost about 134 dollarsm" said McCain.

I don't think the diary that's currently at the top of his website originated due to a deliberate attempt to discredit McCain. It was just carelessness.

Andrew Sullivan and John Cole have both issued corrections, and we should follow suit.

Let's hammer him on the tax debt, his flip flops and other legitimate issues.

p.s.: I wouldn't expect a guy who had his right arm repeatedly fractured by torturers, and both his legs, to have driven a lot.

Bad news to those who are pushing for Joe Biden as our possible secretary of Defense.

A new report by the Sunday Times of UK quotes Obama's key foreign policy adviser, Richard Danzig as saying:

"My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defence and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."

Does Obama listen to Danzig? Besides the fact that he's Obama's adviser, Obama mentioned Danzig when asked by the New York Times a few months ago which experts he would listen to on Iraq:

Q. When you formulate your position for where we go from here in Iraq, which experts to you consult with? What informs your judgment and assessment of the next steps?

Senator Barack Obama: Well, we have a pretty wide circle of advisers. We talk to everybody from the usual suspects in Washington - various foreign policy experts - to mid-rank military officers, many of whom have served in Iraq, to higher ranking officers like General Scott Gration who flew repeated combat missions and has helped to advise us on a range of these issues and people like Richard Danzig, who is one of our key foreign policy advisers. So it's a pretty wide circle.

Another Obama adviser agrees with Danzig:

Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution in Washington, a foreign policy adviser to Obama, said: "Robert Gates is one of the best defence secretaries we have had in a long time and it makes a lot of sense to keep him."

I will not pretend Gates is a bad pick. Change is good only if what's being changed was ineffective. On the other hand, McCain can use this as a talking point to boost this administration, arguing that Bush's pick as defense secretary worked out so well that the agent of change may keep him.

What do you guys think?

Maureen Dowd, under fire from her own newspaper for her "endless assault" against Hillary Clinton, made three interesting points in tonight's column:

1) There was no unity in "Unity" because a lady named Carmella yelled "We want Hillary!"

"We want Hillary!" screamed the 57-year-old retired ad saleswoman and Clinton delegate.

2) Bill Clinton, according to Dowd's evidence-free mind-reading skills, is "trying to shake down Obama for more -- more apologies for perceived snubs and more help paying off the $22 million Clinton debt."  

Endless hours were spent analyzing the shade of her pantsuit and his matching tie. Was it powder blue? Cornflower blue? Peacock blue? Cerulean?

3) The media overhyped the Unity gathering. Dowd even criticizes the media for over-stressing Clinton's pantsuit color and Obama's tie. The hypocrite pretends never having scrutinized with microscopic precision the clothes worn by Al Gore, Howard Dean's wife, etc.

Remember this?

In worn jeans and old sneakers, the shy and retiring Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean looked like a crunchy Vermont hippie, blithely uncoiffed, unadorned, unstyled and unconcerned about not being at her husband's side -- the anti-Laura.

Dowd's modus operandi consists of one anti-Republican piece followed by 10 anti-Democratic ones, of which 9 are anti-Clinton. She is that predictable. But it's an effective strategy, in that it makes some state, "See, she hates everybody!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/opinio n/29dowd.html?hp

why is Charles Black's interviewer getting a free pass?

Why is the journalist getting a pass for asking Charlie Black who would benefit from a terrorist attack?

The LA Times reported:

Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

The issue of terrorism  is very sensitive, because human lives are involved, and this is why Charly Black has taken a beating.
But what about the journalist who thought this would be an issue worth discussing? By asking the question, he implicitly conveyed the message that it is fair game to analyze what political ramifications a terrorist attack on the United States would have on McCain and Obama.

If say, Brian Williams asked Elizabeth Dole if she would dare have sex with a horse, and she answered yes, would it be prudent to ONLY attack Dole without demanding an explanation from the interviewer as to why in the world he asked that obviously inappropriate question?

Journalists seldom attack other journalists, and the Democratic leadership doesn't want to create tension with the press either.

This is why journalists get a pass, being on the winning side of the double standard that  allows them to say things that Politicians can't.
The questionner should be held as accountable as Black has been, for playing politics with the issue of terrorism.

The last person I predicted to go under the bus was Jim "Subprime" Johnson. In my diary, some here called me "concern troll" because of this, but I was vindicated when Johnson "resigned" the same day.

By the way, some of you may argue that he was not "thrown under the bus", but Howard Fineman saw it that way, as reported by MYDD Diarist Todd Beeton:

On MSNBC a few minutes ago, Howard Fineman broke down why Obama had to cut Johnson loose:

   Obama picked as his top VP vetter a guy who was a very symbol of the world that Obama claimed to want to change and that's what bit him here and that's why he had no choice but to get rid of him, in part because Jim Johnson...raked in a lot of cash from his various government-related jobs, especially the one at Fannie Mae.

I even posted a poll in which a majority said to believe Johnson would stay in his job.

Don Imus is in the middle of a controversy over remarks that are being interpreted by some as racist. When his co-worker spoke about an African American Dallas Cowboys player being arrested, Imus asked, "what color is he?" "African American", he was told. Imus said, "oh, ok there you go".

Taken without context this remark may seem racist, but once you read Imus (in my view plausible) clarification, you may have second thoughts. The AP quotes Imus as saying:

"I meant that he was being picked on because he's black," Imus said in a statement released by his spokesman.

There is no way to know whether or not Imus meant this as an anti-black remark, or if he indeed sought to point out the fact that blacks are disproportionally targeted by police.

He has done it before, you might argue, but that raises the question:"Why would Imus do it again, knowing that this would probably mark the end of his career?

Furthermore, Imus is not heard uttering any racially sensitive remarks before or after the "what color was he" phrase. This is a sign that he was being cautious rather than reckless.

I don't know about you, but I find no strong evidence that Imus was trying to be racist this time around; I tend to believe he was trying to achievethe opposite therefore, I give him the benefit of the doubt, despite his history.