Crooks and Liars

Jon Stewart juxtaposes how the two candidates spent their Thursdays. Download | Play Download | Play But watching Senator Obama address a crowd of 200,000 in Germany while Senator McCain addresses a crowd of two in the frozen food section That about sums it up.

This just in from the Department of the Obvious: Scott McClellan admits to Chris Matthews that the White House made a deliberate effort to use FOX News commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O Reilly to disseminate White House talking points. Download | Play Download | Play Matthews: Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out? McClellan: I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House. [ ] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talkng points and making sure they knew where we were coming from. Matthews: So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople. McClellan: Well, certainly. Straight from the source. Enough with the fair and balanced crap already.

Download | Play Download | Play The House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings today on the numerous abuses of power and impeachable offenses of George W. Bush and right out of the gate, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler lays out the clear case for the need to begin impeachment hearings. I fully recognize the significance of holding impeachment hearings and I have not come to this position lightly. Not one bit. But when an administration takes actions that amount to High Crimes, we, the Representatives of the people, are left with no option other than to seek impeachment and removal from office. Our government was founded by a delicate balance of powers, whereby one branch carefully checks the other branches to prevent a dangerous consolidation of power. The actions of this White House have eviscerated this careful balance. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is an American issue. Without these checks and balances the President can run roughshod over any law with impunity. Congress must end this disturbing pattern of behavior, and in these circumstances, unfortunately, the only option left is impeachment hearings. You got to give Wexler credit, he s been very vocal for pushing for accountability and taking the hits from the wingnuts for it. And now he s getting support from other Democrats in the House, like Maurice Hinchey: Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) will testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, July 25, 2008 during a hearing entitled, Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations. Hinchey will highlight the reasons he co-authored two resolutions with U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) that formally condemn President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and former Attorney General Gonzales for misconduct regarding U.S. military involvement in Iraq and for repeated assaults on the rule of law. The hearing begins at 10:00am and can be viewed via the House Judiciary Committee s webcast. President Bush and senior members of his administration have repeatedly defied the Constitution, violated the law, put our country in jeopardy, and made a mockery of our judicial system, Hinchey said. This hearing will enable the facts to be presented in a clear and straightforward way so that the Congress and the American people can more fully understand just how corruptly this administration has operated. With an eye toward the future, we must ensure that history books note that this Congress stood up to this administration and formally admonished it for all its violations of law. Full transcript below the fold Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud your tenacity and courage for calling for this hearing. For the past few months, I have vigorously argued that this committee should be immediately begin impeachment hearings. The allegations made against the Bush White House documents serious abuses that if proven, would certainly constitute High Crimes. The White House is charged with deliberately lying to Congress and the American people, manipulating intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, ordering the illegal use of torture, firing US Attorneys for political purposes, denying the legitimate Constitutional powers of congressional oversight by blatantly ordering subpoenas among countless other crimes. Never before in the history of this nation has an administration so successfully diminished the Constitutional powers of the Legislative branch. It is unacceptable and it must not stand. This is not how our Founders so carefully and delicately designed our democracy. In a deliberate effort to reduce the power of this Congress, and obstruct our ability to provide oversight over the Executive branch, President Bush has ordered Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten and other administration officials to simply ignore Congress by refusing to testify. This failure of administration witnesses to even appear is unprecedented in the history of our nation. The Bush White House has distorted the concept of Executive Privilege beyond recognition in order to hide White House wrongdoings. Faced with this litany of wrongful actions, I am convinced the most appropriate response to this unprecedented behavior is to hold hearings for impeachment. [applause] The power of impeachment—excuse me—the power of impeachment, which our Founding Fathers provided to the House of Representatives was designed precisely for this type of wrongdoing. I fully recognize the significance of holding impeachment hearings and I have not come to this position lightly. Not one bit. But when an administration takes actions that amount to High Crimes, we, the Representatives of the people, are left with no option other than to seek impeachment and removal from office. Our government was founded by a delicate balance of powers, whereby one branch carefully checks the other branches to prevent a dangerous consolidation of power. The actions of this White House have eviscerated this careful balance. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is an American issue. Without these checks and balances the President can run roughshod over any law with impunity. Congress must end this disturbing pattern of behavior, and in these circumstances, unfortunately, the only option left is impeachment hearings. We have been down this road before. Yes, we have. In 1973, Articles of Impeachment were introduced against President Nixon after he inappropriately tried to use Executive Privilege to bury evidence of his wrongdoing. I think it would be helpful to delve more deeply into what happened during the Nixon administration, particularly as it relates to the obstruction of the oversight powers of this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for having this hearing and giving the American people an opportunity to hear about how we can begin to take our government and our country back.

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Logan) I don t know about you, but I m a little worried that McCain might stroke out before November. He s definitely having a much harder time keeping his infamous temper in check. In fact, yesterday at his appearance in Columbus, Ohio, McCain completely snubbed a Wall Street Journal reporter (watch Lindsey Graham s face as he does it hilarious!). Today, in Denver, you could sense McCain s rage was just bubbling under the surface. (The Colorado Independent liveblogged the event) I get the distinct impression that he s no longer got his heart in it. It must irk him that Obama drew more than 200K yesterday and according to the press, only 500 showed up to see him in Denver the smattering of applause sounds more like 50 and even with those diehards, there was dead silence during much of his attacks on Obama. Like every speech of McCain s lately, his confusing verb tenses claim that we have won and will win, have succeeded and will succeed and yet he s still able to predict defeat from Barack Obama s position, despite all this winning and success. It s a stunning psychic ability for McSame as he then says that the troops will come home during the next president s first term. Isn t that what Obama promised as well? McSame actually told Wolf Blitzer that he thought Obama s 16 months was a pretty good timetable. Confused yet? As Logan points out, McCain says that when he brings the troops home, they re staying home. What does he plan on doing in Afghanistan? Those permanent bases in Iraq? Is this yet another flip-flop? Even Joe Klein, who has always taken his status as a Beltway Bubble Villager so seriously, is finding McCain unhinged: This is the ninth presidential campaign I ve covered. I can t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.[..] The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be lost at this point. The reality is that no matter who is elected President, we are looking at a residual U.S. force of 30-50,000 by 2011 (a year ahead of the previous schedule). The reality is that McCain should be proud that he helped salvage a disastrous situation by pushing the counterinsurgency plan. It s something to run on. But, at this point, McCain must sense that it s not a winning hand. Obama, the poker player, has drawn to an inside straight: the Iraqis favor his plan over McCain s long-term bases. That must be galling. But it s no excuse to pop off the way McCain did. It was, shockingly, unpresidential. I went to Iraq many times, and heard all the phony explanations about how we were winning. I knew we were failing. And I told that to an administration that didn t want to hear it. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Sen. Obama, detecting the success that he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he d always predicted it. There have been almost no sectarian killings in Baghdad for more than 13 weeks. American casualties are at the lowest levels recorded in this war. The Iraqi Army is stronger and fighting harder. The Iraqi government has met most of the benchmarks for political progress we demanded of them. And the nation s largest Sunni party recently rejoined the government. In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat but on the road to victory. Sen. Obama said just this week that even knowing what he knows today that he would still-still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chose failure. I cannot conceive a Commander-in-Chief making that choice. My friends, a new hope is rising in Iraq today. Across the country, Iraqis are preparing for upcoming provincial elections and security has improved enough to permit the Iraqi government to begin seriously providing services and opportunities to the Iraqi people. This progress is encouraging but it is reversible. If we heed those who have always counseled defeat, when they now argue to risk our fragile gains and withdraw from Iraq, according to a politically expedient timetable, rather than the advice from the commanders who so brilliantly led this stunning turnaround in our situation in Iraq. I said the surge has succeeded and it has. That s why the additional surge brigades are almost all home. I said we can win, and we will. I m confident we will be able to reduce our forces in Iraq next year and our forces will be out of regular combat operations and dramatically reduced in number during the term of the next President of the United States. I don t know .I think you know who I m referring to. We fought the worst battles, survived the toughest threats and the hardest part of this war is behind us. But it s not over yet. And we ve come too far, we ve sacrificed too much, to risk everything we ve gained and all we could yet gain because the politics of the hour make defeat the more convenient position. Because of the choice we made and all the surge has accomplished, the time will soon come, when our troops can come home. But we face another choice today: we can withdraw when we have secured the peace and the gains we have sacrificed so much to achieve or save or we can follow Sen. Obama s unconditional withdrawal and risk losing the peace, even if that results in spreading violence and a third Iraqi war. Sen. Obama has suggested he would consider sending troops back if that happened. When I bring them home in victory and with honor, they are staying home.

How else to explain the Campaign 2000 footage? And Cindy s hair. Download | Play Download | Play Also in this clip: Political hacks Glenn Beck and Ben Stein are frightened that Obama draws large crowds, and liken his appeal to, you guessed it, Hitler and Mussolini. So you re telling me if John McCain could get more than three people to listen to him speak he would pass? Doubtful. Karl Rove tells Alan Colmes that McCain s distortion of the Anbar Awakening time line is a nit-nat mistake. He s right. Who cares if there s a contradiction when McCain claims he has the judgment to lead on Iraq and he can t even get the basic facts straight? I sure don t.

Bill O Reilly has officially lost it. In his warped little mind, bloggers who organize and engage in public advocacy for causes they believe in like universal healthcare and an end to unnecessary and dumb wars are the same as Klansmen who used to lynch black people. Seriously. How can you logically make that connection? Dumb question. Download | Play Download | Play Obama must condemn organizations like MoveOn and DailyKos if he truly wants to run without a race component. These are the people who are dividing Americans along racial lines. It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan. Here s a fun game to play in comments, kids. Finish this sentence: Bill O Reilly is the new _______ Enjoy!

On Morning Joe, seemingly in response to this C ignorantly reported on McCain s Anbar gaffe, and then goes on a hysterical little rant about the Cheetos Brigade without mentioning who he was talking about. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Bill W) I was talking about someone on another network. [ ] But again, you know the problem is when you re in the basement and you re blogging and you re eating Cheetos, sometimes the Cheetos dust goes up, ya know, and you get two choices: You can either keep typing, or you can stop for a second and wipe the Cheetos off your chest, clear out your ears and take a closer listen. But they don t do that. And therein lies the problem with the Cheetos Brigade. What other cable news host reported on the story Tuesday night that Joe could have been talking about? Was it Andersen Cooper? We ll probably never know because although Joe may not be a keyboard-carrying member of the Cheeto Brigade, he sure doesn t have the courage to name names. Maybe Joe can lament about the evil bloggers with Brian Williams at the next DC cocktail party. I can just picture them yukking it up about guys named Vinny with Cheetos-stained shirts in their pathetic efficiency apartments. Maybe our pads would be a little nicer, Joe, if we were handsomely rewarded for being wrong about everything like you are. Then again, I ll take my snack food, modest housing and clean conscience over your mansion and war-cheerleading record any day of the week. Be back in a minute .my fingers are orange and the bag is empty. [Blue Gal has a Cheetos message for Joe, too]

or: McCain digs his hole deeper. During a presser in the cheese aisle of a supermarket, John McCain denied messing up the Anbar Awakening time line and argued that the surge really doesn t mean what everyone (including himself) used to think it meant. Download | Play Download | Play Transcript via hilzoy: McCain: First of all, a surge is really a counterinsurgency strategy, and it s made up of a number of components. And this counterinsurgency was initiated to some degree by Colonel McFarland in Anbar province relatively on his own. When I visited with him in December of 2006, he had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counterinsurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this counterinsurgency. So now McCain is redefining what the word surge actually means the one thing I thought liberals and conservatives agreed on. That the McCain campaign feels the need to fight back so hard (and laughably) against this is quite telling. They tried to issue a flippant clarification Monday night when the initial gaffe occurred, but that obviously proved insufficient. I think they realize that this one cut especially deep. Think about it: By screwing up the time line, McCain not only undermined his foreign policy expertise, making himself look foolish and confused in the process, he completely undermined the rationale for the surge in the first place. For years war opponents have argued that the United States only role should be to help the Iraqis fight for their own country. The Anbar Awakening was that fight. The Sunni sheiks rose up and, with the help of US forces, started routing al Qaeda all before the surge was even announced. In other words, this gaffe is especially damaging because it proves quite poignantly that the surge is not the success McCain and Republicans are tying to make it out to be. Do you hear that? It s the sound of McCain s only hopes of winning the presidency swirling down the drain. Hilzoy adds: McCain is arguing as follows: find some X, of which what we normally think of as the surge is a part. Define all of X as the surge . Argue that since X is responsible for some development Y, a development which preceded what we normally think of as the surge, the surge , understood to mean X, is responsible for Y. This is a delightful argument, and it yields all kinds of fun results. See what fun scenarios you can come up with! * Typo corrected.

Hip hop star Nas joined forces with grassroots organization Color of Change and yesterday delivered over 620,000 petitions to FOX News, demanding an end to the daily on-air racism. Last night he joined Stephen to talk about the fight against FOX (particularly Bill O Reilly, who Nas says is scared ) and performed the first single off his new untitled album, Sly Fox. Download | Play Download | Play I watch CBS, and I see B.S Trying to track us down with GPS Make a brotha want to invest in PBS You can check out Part 1 of the interview here to see Nas call out BillO. UPDATE: Hat Tip to Color of Change. Sign their petition: Demand Fox stop race baiting and fear mongering Jack and Jill says: Nas Joins Color of Change to Deliver Petitions to Fox News Brave New Films says: Sorry FOX, We Won t Let You Trash Michelle Obama Full lyrics below the fold. May not be safe for work. Digg It! The sly Fox, cyclops We locked in an idiot box The video slots broadcast The Waco Dividian plots They own YouTube, MySpace When this ignorant shit going to stop? They monopolizing news Your views And the channel you choose Propaganda, visual cancer The eye in the sky, number 5 on the dial Secret agenda, frequency antenna Dr. Mindbender Remote control soul Controller Your brain holder Slave culture, game s over What s a fox characteristic? Slick shit, sensin , misinformation Pimp the station, over-stimulation Reception, deception Comcast digital Satan The Fox has a bushy tail And Bush tells lies and foxtrots So, I don t know what s real (what s real) [ Chorus ] Watch what you re watching Fox keeps feeding us toxins Stop sleeping Start thinking outside of the box And unplugg from the Matrix doctrine But watch what you say, Big Brother is watching Watch what you re watching Fox keeps feeding us toxins Stop sleeping Start thinking outside of the box And unplugged from the Matrix doctrine But watch what you say, Fox Five is watching [ Nas ] The Fear Factir that got you all riled up O Reilly? Oh really? No rally needed, I ll tie you up Network for child predators, setting them up MySpace, pimps, hoes and sluts [ Find more Lyrics at www.mp3lyrics.org/V2L8 ] Y all exploit rap culture, then y all flip on us And you own the Post, and y all shit on us What is their net worth? They re going to try to censor my next verse Throw them off the roof neck first While I m clicking my cursor Reading blogs about pressure they put on Universal It gets worse While I m clicking my mouse While they kickin my house They figured us out Why a nigga go south? It s either he caught a body Don t sleep, they re watching I watch CBS, and I see BS Trying to track us down with GPS Make a nigga want to invest in PBS [ Chorus ] [ Nas ] They say I m all about murder murder and kill kill But what about Grindhouse and Kill Bill? What about Cheney and Halliburton? The back door deals on oil fields? How is Nas the most violent person? Y all wouldn t know talent if it hit you Bringing up my criminal possession charges with a pistol I use Viacom as my firearm Then let the lyrics split you, who do you rely upon? Then shoot shells at Leviathon I m dealing with the higher form Fuck if you care how I write a poem Only fox that I loved was the red one Only black man that Fox love is in jail or a dead one Red rum, political bedlam Don t let the hype into your eyes and ear drum Murdoch own fox Not A-Team with Baracus And he hates Barack cuz he march with the marches [ Deep voice outro ] I pledge allegiance to the fair and balanced truth Not the biased truth Not the liar s truth But the highest truth I will not be deceived Nor will I believe in the propaganda I will not fall for the okie-doke I am tuned in [ Nas ] Watch because they re watching Watch what you re watching Better watch because they re watching Watch what you re watching M-m-media, misleading you Watch what you re watching

Senator Obama delivered a soaring speech today in Berlin before an estimated crowd of over 100,000 200,000 in which he called for a renewed trans-Atlantic indeed, trans-global alliance to fight the common threats we all face. Appealing the ideals America was founded on and has tried to promote since it s inception, Senator Obama stated that whether it s terrorism and global warming, or genocide and disease, there is no problem we cannot overcome nor enemy we cannot defeat when we are united in common purpose. Watch a few of his remarks below. Download | Play Download | Play People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again. Watch the entire speech here. UPDATE: German papers put the crowd at over 200,000 UPDATE II: Wow. It looks like US Foreign Service personnel were banned from the speech. And not by Senator Obama. Full transcript below the fold: OBAMA SPEECH TRANSCRIPT: Remarks of Senator Barack Obama (as prepared for delivery) A World that Stands as One July 24th, 2008 Berlin, Germany Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome. 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. On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade. This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin. 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! People of the world - look at Berlin! Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle. Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security. Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity. People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean. The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil. As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all. In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny. In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe. Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid. So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other. That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew. This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope. This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO s first mission beyond Europe s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now. This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons. This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent. This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all. This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close. This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one. And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here. Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words never again in Darfur? Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don t look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people? People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time. I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions. But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America s shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please. These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on the world. People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.

BillO s peeps sandbag Rep. Wexler. Nice going Bill. Not everyone can handle it like Bill Moyers. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Bill W) BillO s act of sandbagging people with a camera crew who he disagrees with where they live is unseemly. He s such a frustrated man that he has to harass them with the Jesse Watters type idiots if they won t appear on his show. I think it s about time a group of people count up all of these BillO stakeouts and then camp out at his house, cameras in hand and stay there while O Reilly comes home and jump out of the bushes and ask him about Andrea Mackris and Shawn Hornbeck until he gives up this farce. Let s see how you like it, Bill. He really has crossed the line. Here s my complete guide for all those that might have occasion to combat this jackass: The Complete Guide on How to Deal with Bill O’Reilly’s ambush producers

Our friend (and C Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) We love you, Richard, but Amato wants to know if it would kill you to mention C re on Countdown. C mon, throw the guy a bone. You can pick up Richard s book The Other Great Depression here and here on audio.

Hurting an innocent person and then moving on as if nothing happened? Are the DC Police sure it wasn t Valerie Plame? Download | Play Download | Play Politico: Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak was cited by police after he hit a pedestrian with his black Corvette in downtown Washington, D.C., on Wednesday morning. “I didn’t know I hit him. I feel terrible,” a shaken Novak told reporters from Politico and WJLA as he was returning to his car. He s not dead, that s the main thing. Novak said he was a block away from 18th and K streets Northwest, where the accident occurred, when a bicyclist stopped him and said he had hit someone. He said he was cited for failing to yield the right of way. You didn t know you hit him? Well I guess you must have just grazed the guy, right? Bono said that the pedestrian, who was crossing the street on a Walk signal and was in the crosswalk, rolled off the windshield and that Novak then made a right into the service lane of K Street. “This car is speeding away. What’s going through my mind is, you just can’t hit a pedestrian and drive away,” Bono said. I m sorry, but I think most normal people would notice a 66 year old man rolling across their windshield. I m just saying Update: John Amato: Why wasn t Novak given a field sobriety test? This is very weird. You hit someone, leave the scene and then the police aren t suspicious? TP notes: Politico notes that in a 2001 interview with the Washington Post, Novak said, “I really hate jaywalkers. I despise them. Since I don’t run the country, all I can do is yell at ‘em. The other option is to run ‘em over, but as a compassionate conservative, I would never do that.” UPDATE: ABC 7 is reporting that the victim is worse than first thought: The pedestrian who was struck by prominent Washington columnist and commentator Robert Novak is in worse shape than first thought, a hospital source tells ABC 7 News. The victim, a 66-year-old man, appeared somewhat incoherent, said the source who had seen the victim. The man appeared to have casts on his neck and back. The victim was X-rayed and a surgical team plans to evaluate him, the source said.

Wow. There is so much hackery in this short clip that it s hard to know where to begin. While reporting on McCain s Anbar gaffe, the Morning Joe squad not only fails to acknowledge how serious and unprofessional it was for CBS to selectively edit the gaffe out of the interview, they completely buy into the McCain campaign s damage control spin. And as if it that weren t bad enough, Joe Scarborough makes it a point to go out of his way and call the arm-waving host that ran with the story (an obvious allusion to his colleague Keith Olbermann) ignorant and too stupid to be on TV. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather for vids and transcript) Look let me tell you .and I know a couple of hosts ran this last night and made a huge deal because some liberal blogger picked it up. I will guarantee you the host that ran it, were waving their arms, had no idea whether the Sunni Awakening, or, or or, the surge began at the same time. They also, anybody that would argue that the Sunni Awakening would have survived in Al Anbar Province, without the surge, anybody that would make that argument is so ignorant of the facts on the ground in Western Iraq, in Al Anbar Province, and what the Sunni sheiks were doing throughout 2007, that they are too stupid to be on TV. And I hope they don t carry that argument much longer because it is laughable. Let me try and break this down for the slow among us. This is what McCain said: Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Actually, no, it s not a matter of history. Whether or not the surge helped strengthen the al-qaeda-routing awakening is not the issue; the issue is McCain crediting the surge with creating the awakening in the first place. That is, as a matter of fact, UNTRUE. Now, if McCain had said the surge strengthened the awakening, it would be different. But by saying it began the awakening, he is deliberately distorting the time line in order to give the surge more credit than it s due, and thus give himself more credit than he s due. It s that simple. When confronted by Senator Obama with the prospect that the surge isn t entirely responsible for the security improvements, McCain is forced to play the only card he has left in his deck and attribute everything to the surge, even though the greatest gains began before it. It s not hard to understand. I wonder if the McCain campaign realizes how foolish they look right now. While Barack Obama is overseas looking presidential and having his foreign policy ratified by the Iraqi government, John McCain is home undermining his own foreign policy expertise, undercutting his main argument for the surge, and looking childish as he stomps his feet and blames the press. All I can say is keep it up!

After John Ashcroft s testimony last week in which he bobbed and weaved his way around answering every question about what he did during his time in the White House, Jon Stewart and John Oliver compare Bush and his merry band of obfuscators to other American Presidential liars in order to make a historical comparison. Needless to say, the Bush team is in a league of its own. Download | Play Download | Play Oliver: I just hope everyone at home appreciates the magnitude of what they re witnessing here. For 7 straight years, this administration has been untouchable in hearings. These guys are the 27 Yankees of dodging questions. The 55 Dodgers of yanking Congress chain. They re the right stuff of wrong stuff. John, this is once in a generation bullsh*t. Steart: You really think this admininstration is that good at this? John: Sure, look, we can quibble at the level of competetition. You can criticize the strength of their opponents lets face it, the Democrats have been pathetic. But you still can t help but be impressed at the level of skills on display. I won t be surprised if in years to come they describe these hearings as the Immaculate Deception. I truly can t wait to see those jerseys hanging from the rafters. Digg It!

If it were up to me, BillO would get gold, silver and bronze for his ridiculous attacks on Al Gore and Netroots Nation. Instead, he only takes home the top two prizes, while Bret Baier takes runner-up. Download | Play Download | Play BillO the clown voice: Al Gore now is done. He’s done, OK. He is not a man of respect, he doesn’t have any judgment. The fact that he went to this thing is the same as if he stepped into the Klan gathering. It’s the same. No difference. None. OK. He loses all credibility with me. All credibility. Keith: Here s a buffoon who works for FOX News which took a photograph of Jacques Steinberg of the New York Times and altered it to enlarge his nose and his ears actually copied the propaganda techniques of the 1930 s and he s comparing anyone else on the planet to the Nazis?! Check out your bosses offices, Bill. And your mirror, k?

During an exclusive interview Tuesday with Katie Couric, John McCain revealed a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq. However, you wouldn t have seen it if you watched the CBS broadcast version, because this part was left on the cutting room floor. In response to a question about Barack Obama s contention that it was a confluence of events, not just The Surge™, that was responsible for the reduction of violence, McCain falsely states that the Anbar Awakening was a direct byproduct of The Surge™, even though the Awakening began months before President Bush first announced the buildup of force. Download | Play Download | Play Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What s your response to that? McCain: I don t know how you respond to something that is as such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed. Thanks to FDL s Spencer Ackerman, this is what Colonel MacFarland, the man to whom McCain refers in his answer, said in September 2006: With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda. This is a different phenomena that s going on right now. I think that it s not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it s the well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it s had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they re finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other. Furthermore, MacFarland even co-wrote an article (.pdf) published earlier this year in which he explained how most of the Anbar progress occurred between June 2006 and February 2007, months before the first surge troops even arrived. The Anbar Awakening is argued by many to be one of the most crucial turning points in the war. For McCain to falsely claim that The Surge was responsible for it is rank dishonesty and a blatant attempt to re-write history. McCain has recently sunk so low as to say this about Obama: This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign. Well, here s my response: McCain is essentially betting his entire presidential bid on his support for The Surge, so if he has to lie about its effects, he will; it s his only shot. As ThinkProgress notes, even President Bush made mention of this fact in a speech to the Naval War College last year. Anticipating that they were going to get hammered for the screw-up, the McCain campaign released a statement last night that the Andersen Cooper panel largely bought hook, line and sinker. Ackerman nails it: For McCain to say that the Anbar Awakening is the product of the surge is either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment. So does Ilan Goldenberg at HuffPo: YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG. [ ] John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I m concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I m actually sitting here wondering who McCain s advisers are. This isn t some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It s a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year.

Last week, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) filed charges for the first time against a sitting head of state, charging President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan with three counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes. Fareed Zakaria had Sudan s ambassador to the United Nations on his CNN show, GPS, to discuss the charges, which he called a joke and cited the U.S. 2002 withdrawal from the ICC treaty as an example of why Sudan does not recognize the court s authority and will not cooperate with it: Download | Play Download | Play ZAKARIA: Will your government mount a defense in the International Criminal Court? MOHAMAD: We have no relation with the International Criminal Court. We don t recognize its authority. We are not going to cooperate with it. ZAKARIA: But of course, you know that other governments that did not recognize the Criminal Court were still forced to extradite their leaders. I m thinking of Yugoslavia. MOHAMAD: No. I don t care about them. As far as we are concerned, we are not members. We have been told these days repeatedly that the ICC is an independent body. And so, OK, if it s an independent body, I am not a U.N. organ. We have full right to be part of it or not. And we choose not to be part of it, like the United States. (full transcript) Complicating the ICC s ability to pursue war crimes charges, as referenced in the interview by Sudan s UN ambassador, is President Bush s unsigning of the International Criminal Court treaty in 2002. Though President Bush has publicly denounced the killings in Sudan as genocide, the administration has soft-pedaled sanctions against the Sudanese government to preserve its extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan, once a safe haven for bin Laden that has become a crossroads for Islamic militants making their way to Iraq and Pakistan. The most major impediment to ending the genocide in Darfur has been China s longstanding diplomatic protection and economic support in return for its access to the 500,000 barrels of oil that Sudan produces daily. China, also not a signatory to the ICC treaty, was revealed in a report about a week ago by the BBC to be in violation of the UN arms embargo there through its export of weapons and training of fighter pilots. Supporters of Barack Obama who would like to see the United States reembrace the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, thereby reaffirming its commitment to human rights, have created a group on the candidate s website, my.barackobama.com.

Memo to John McCain: When trying to sell your energy plan (Drill! Drill! Drill!) you might not want to cite the approval of oil executives. The last thing voters want to hear is that the fatcats who have been raking in record profits at our expense are happy with your solution to our problems. Download | Play Download | Play We have to drill off-shore. The oil executives say that within a couple of years we could be seeing results of it. Ken over at Howies place asks: Are those his environmental experts??? And the DNC notes that McCain s position on off-shore drilling, beyond the initial flip-flop, keeps evolving: McCain was in New Hampshire this afternoon where he unveiled the latest excuse for coastal drilling. Oil executives tell McCain that within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it. There s no doubt that oil companies will profit handsomely from McCain s coastal drilling plan. It s helpful that McCain would relay that to an audience of voters. First position: When he first announced his decision to abandon his longstanding opposition to offshore drilling, McCain said it would be helpful in the short term. Second position: Days later, McCain and his top economic advisor admitted it would have no immediate effect, but would have a psychological impact. Third position: Later he reversed himself once again, say drilling is part of his short term solution to energy prices. The latest: During today s town hall meeting in New Hampshire, McCain says oil executives told him we could see results from offshore drilling within a couple of years. Considering that he can t even keep his facts straight, is it any surprise that his new ad offensive has been universally panned as false, misleading, and wrong?

Isn t it ironic? Download | Play Download | Play h/t to Deborah from NewsHounds who writes: Bret Baier opened a segment [Sunday] with the question, Will the high price of gas cost your kids their education? Unfortunately, it looks like the weekend production staff at FOX News has their own education issues, at least in the spelling department.

Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson! Beware Brit Hume when he gets a bit snippy. Unfortunately, to many in the industry, his quiet patina masks a nasty streak. He drips with sarcasm and self-importance, claims a former senior producer at Larry King Live who dealt with Hume in the past. He used to be a class act, but he got toxic real fast after drinking too much of the Fox Kool-Aid. And while Hume is a model of restraint on air (some might call him smug), frequent outbursts behind the scenes have done little to endear him to his younger staffers. There was one meeting a few years back when he got so pissed off he threw a full carton of orange juice across the room, says a onetime researcher who is now out of the business altogether. He can be incredibly snippy and dismissive if you don t do things his way. Does Kool-Aide and orange juice mix? Must be a new cocktail served up by Ailes. If only we had a video clip of that. Wasn t there video of another FOX host losing it? O Reilly Gone Wild: F-bombs on camera. Download | Play Download | Play O’Reilly: I can’t do it. We’ll do it live, we’ll do it live, f most people in cable news are assholes. If they re not assholes, they have dysfunctional sex lives. But they re usually assholes. I mean, self awareness is always a very rare commodity among television personalities, but Tucker dude

The speculation before Senator Obama left for Iraq that he would possibly commit a presidential-bid-ending gaffe was deafening. So naturally the media was caught off guard when John McCain managed to beat Obama to the punch. Download | Play Download | Play Stewart: Come on! This guy is a newbie! You can t snag one faux pas, one misstep, a blunder, a boo boo, a brainfart? Something small a geography mix-up? McCain: It’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border. Stewart: The Iraq-Pakistan border, otherwise known as IRAN.

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Logan) Stephen Colbert looks at the media maelstrom surrounding Barack Obama s trip to the Middle East and how there is one particular media outlet who doesn t seem to be involved. Hmmm .which one could it be? COLBERT: You see, in recent months, McCain boxed Obama into a corner by saying it was important that Obama visit Iraq. Checkmate. No way out of that one. But now Obama is cheating, by visiting Iraq. The good news is there s so much media attention, there s always a possibility of a huge gaffe doing irreparable damage to his campaign. [..] Now I was not invited on this trip. But, that s fine. But I am not the only one who was snubbed. [video of FOX s airplane heading to the Middle East right now? WALLACE: Well, I called the Obama campaign several weeks ago and said that I d like to go and my invitation has apparently been lost in the mail. [end video] COLBERT: Well, maybe that s what this is. Here you go. [holds up envelope] Oh my God, it s Chris Wallace s invitation to the Obama trip! They sent it to me by accident. This could be my ticket to cover Barack Obama s historic trip! All I have to do is oh and then people might think I was Chris Wallace. [shudders] Just not worth the risk. Kind of makes the whole narrative that Obama is playing to FOX News Channel viewership in the general election a lie, doesn t it? I think that anytime we see Democrats treating FNC rightfully as the propaganda arm of the GOP as Netroots Nation did last week they deserve a little pat on their back. Please send Obama a note of congratulations for his FOX snub here. That s not weak on defense, Colbert, that s a strong offense and one all Democrats should be emulating. transcripts below the fold COLBERT: Welcome to the Report, good to have you with us. Well, nation, you’ve all heard the news: Jesus has returned to Earth on a spaceship, cured cancer and won the British Open. Did no one hear about that? Oh maybe because Barack Obama decided to go backpacking overseas with a couple of his friends. You probably know his friends by their professional name, the entire media. Yes, they’ve all taken the next ten days to “find themselves” on Barack Obama’s Elitist Summer Abroad. You see, in recent months, McCain boxed Obama into a corner by saying it was important that Obama visit Iraq. Checkmate. No way out of that one. But now Obama is cheating, by visiting Iraq. The good news is there’s so much media attention, there’s always a possibility of a huge gaffe doing irreparable damage to his campaign. And boy, did Obama deliver. Look what happened yesterday, right in front of our troops. [video of Obama making 3 point basketball shot] Oh. Huh. A three pointer. No man to man coverage? No boxing out? No pushing your man out of the low post? All this proves is that Obama’s weak on defense. Now I was not invited on this trip. But, that’s fine. But I am not the only one who was snubbed. [video of FOX Why are you not on Barack Obama’s airplane heading to the Middle East right now? WALLACE: Well, I called the Obama campaign several weeks ago and said that I’d like to go and my invitation has apparently been lost in the mail. [end video] COLBERT: Well, maybe that’s what this is. Here you go. [holds up envelope] Oh my God, it’s Chris Wallace’s invitation to the Obama trip! They sent it to me by accident. This could be my ticket to cover Barack Obama’s historic trip! All I have to do is…oh…and then people might think I was Chris Wallace. [shudders] Just not worth the risk. Anyway, it’s clear what this snub is really about. [video of FOX The big three: Brian Williams, Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, will all be in attendance. Talk about media bias. [end video] COLBERT: And the Doucheman knows about media bias. He keeps it fair and balanced. [video clips of Steve Doocy saying “Barack Hussein Obama”] COLBERT: So let the mainstream media fawn all over Obama. Big deal. Maybe some of us have better things to do. More exciting candidates to cover. McCain, McCain does have a fantastic story. All McCain needs is a little attention from his supporters in the media. Really dyed in the wool conservatives like me and former Bush speechwriter David Frum. [video] FRUM: Here you have one of the oldest…the oldest man ever to run for President. [..] When you look at the polls, you can see there’s much less enthusiasm for his candidacy. That’s a pretty exciting story. [end video] COLBERT: Exactly. And it is time the media started trumpeting McCain’s exciting story: He is old and no one likes him. Exciting.

When I heard Michael Wiener Savage was going to appear on Larry King Live Monday night (with Glenn Beck guest-hosting) to defend his horrific remarks about children with autism In 99 percent of the cases, it s a brat who hasn t been told to cut the act out. That s what autism is. I knew to expect at least two things: (a) he would claim that he was taken out of context , and (b) he would attack MediaMatters for bringing it to the public s attention. What I didn t expect, however, is that he would attempt the PR equivalent of a quadruple axel. Download | Play Download | Play Beck: It seems pretty clear that you don t really believe autism exists. Savage: No, no, no, no, no. Again, you took what they gave you. But you didn t take the entire preceding material. [ ] This was in the broader context of the overmedicalization, the over-diagnosis of disease, using our children as profit centers. I ve spent all day saying what a shame it is that I as a man who has spent his entire life defending the defenseless, mainly children should have to defend myself from charges leveled at me from men who specialize in hating families and children, namely MediaMatters who probably come after you as well by ripping things out of context and making me look like the monster that they are. You see, Michael Savage is a humanitarian who s always looking out for the kids! When he says children diagnosed with autism are brats who just need a father to smack some sense into them, he s actually defending them. How dare anyone take him out of context when all he s trying to do is speak candidly about the epidemic of over-medicating children?! What do those so-called experts know about autism, anyway? Here are a few other examples of Savage s humanitarianism and defense of the defenseless : Savage: We re getting refugees now who have never used a telephone, a toothbrush, or toilet paper. [T]hey never assimilate. And then their children become gang-bangers. Savage accused former page of gay-baiting Foley and added: Maybe he s a Democrat. Savage advocated militarization of our children to respond to terror threat. You can use MM s form to find your local Savage station and make your voice heard. AFLAC has already decided to pull their ads.

On Hardball today, Matthews talked about Obama s excellent interaction with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Politico s Roger Simon, a Villager extraordinaire said that the middle east trip is going swimmingly so far. Andrea Mitchell did confirm that Maliki indeed backed Obama on his Iraq plans because he brought up Obama s name by himself in his interview over the weekend earlier in the interview, but then she said a very odd thing about his message management as some footage of Obama played in the background on MSNBC. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) Andrea: Let me say something about his message management. He didn t have reporters with him. He didn t have a press pool. He didn t do a press conference while he was on the ground either on Afghanistan or Iraq. What you re seeing is not reporters brought in, you re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questioned by the military and what some would call fake interviews because they re not interviews with a journalist so there s a real press issue here. Politically it s smart as can be, but we ve not seen a Presidential candidate do this in my recollection ever before. I don t think journalism is the prime thing that we recruit them and pay them for. She was upset because she wasn t present during these interviews. You mean you weren t able to get a gotcha moment? When she says what some would call I guess she means herself. Will Andrea go on a limb and say every interview on FOX News is not legitimate when Cheney, Bush or McCain appear? How about when she joins O Reilly? Or when someone is interviewed on a blog? The Daily Show has some very interesting interviews, does that not count? Is the military not capable of performing interviews? Where does she draw the line? Saying they are fake interviews really goes too far. I ve emailed Obama s campaign for a response.

Barack Obama s trip overseas is off to a great start with Prime Minister Maliki endorsing his withdrawal plan and the White House accidentally informing every news organization about it and Chuck Todd is hearing that Republicans are starting to worry. Download | Play Download | Play MR. TODD: Republicans are panicked about this trip because they think that this is going to be a home run. And arguably, you ve got some Obama folks who actually think he ought to come home right now. It s never going to get as good as it s gotten in the last 48 hours. You ve got McCain suddenly in the White House parroting what Obama has been saying in Afghanistan. The McCain folks will say, Hey, we re not parroting. We ve been there before. But they clearly caught McCain flat-footed there. And then what Maliki did, even in the backtrack statement that the spokes the government spokesperson over there said, he threw in the word timetable. In order to really appreciate the importance of the Maliki development, consider what would happen if the opposite occured: To really understand the importance of Maliki s comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves. It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about Obama s Iraq Problem. Obama would probably lose the race. Exactly. And this is what Marc Amibinder has to report: Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, We re fu*ked. If McCain loses the foreign policy debate, which is becoming increasingly likely, he ll have an insurmountable problem on his hands.

Lindsey Graham is a very slick and smarmy operator. I wanted to scream at the TV and ask him if that with over 4000 troops killed thousands with serious injuries and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people dead and still suffering, how could he possibly act so smug and say it was all worth it to get rid of Saddam? The cost of this insane war against a country that did not attack us is unfathomable to me and nothing these warmongering apologists can say will ever change the truth of the situation. Al qaeda wasn t there and these are a people that would never let Iran control their country. Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) CNN.com: BLITZER: Senator McCain was, in his words, basically a cheerleader for the war. And he sees that as the biggest blunder in U.S. foreign policy since the Cold War. GRAHAM: Yes, all I can tell you is that a world with Saddam Hussein is not a better world. In the Obama world, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. And you know how the U.N. oil-for-food program was working. I m glad Saddam Hussein s out of power. I m glad he s dead. And I m glad we have a chance to create, in the heart of the Arab world, a Democratic government, where Sunni, Kurds, and Shias can live in peace, reject Iran, and deliver decisive blow against al Qaeda. BLITZER: So, knowing what you know right now, Senator Graham, and knowing what Senator McCain knows right now, even though there were no WMDs, even though there were no links between Saddam Hussein GRAHAM: Absolutely. BLITZER: and al Qaeda or 9/11, you still think it was a good idea to go to war? GRAHAM: Yes, absolutely. I am glad that the Saddam Hussein regime is over. I m glad a democracy s beginning to emerge in the heart of the Arab world. We screwed this up 100 ways off the fall of Baghdad. The surge saved Iraq from chaos. Senator Obama said no to the surge. He said it would fail. He was wrong. We re on the verge of winning. And when he comes back from Iraq, I wish he would acknowledge two things, that the surge worked, and we re going to win. (h/t Silent Patriot for setting up the post)

John Amato: McCain was trying to filibuster Meredith Vieira throughout the segment, but she hung in there pretty good. He tried to say that since he wasn t in charge of all the Senate Armed Services committee hearings (6) he missed on Afghanistan it didn t count because he knows better and he went there and I m right and you re wrong. And of course he knows everything about the economy even though he said to America that the economy is not his bag, man because he s John McCain. She brought up Phil Gramm s American Whiner, remark and he said he s for off shore drilling Steve Benen: Given reality, the fact that the Maliki government wants a U.S. withdrawal timetable and has endorsed Barack Obama’s Iraq policy by name would seem to be bad news for John McCain and his presidential campaign. But the presumptive Republican nominee has a trump card to get himself out of inconvenient jams like these: “I’m John McCain.” Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather) Take this morning’s appearance on NBC’s “Today” show, for example. Got that? The prime minister of Iraq and the Iraqi people may seem to want U.S. troops out of their country, but John McCain has been to Iraq and he “knows what they want.” Jason Zengerle noted, “So, basically, the new McCain position on withdrawal seems to be: we shouldn’t listen to what the Iraqi government says it wants, we should listen to what McCain says it wants.” Keep in mind, of course, McCain was asked this question before — in 2004. Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, McCain was asked what he would do if a “sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?” McCain’s response was unambiguous: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.” In the bigger picture, though, the “I’m John McCain” phenomenon is surprisingly common. In the same interview this morning, Vieira asked McCain about his attacks on Obama’s lack of committee hearings, and noted that McCain didn’t show up for any hearings on U.S. policy towards Afghanistan in the past two years. McCain’s response? “I know the issues extremely well,” McCain said. In other words, he’s John McCain — and he doesn’t need committee hearings. For that matter, a few days ago, the NYT had an interesting piece about Barack Obama’s foreign policy apparatus, which consists of a team of 300 or so experts, acting as something like a mini-State Department. The McCain campaign’s response? “John doesn’t need daily talking points” from a team of experts. And these are just from the past few days. It’s the height of arrogance — McCain doesn’t need the opinions of the Iraqi prime minister, because he’s John McCain. He doesn’t need committee hearings on Afghanistan, because he’s John McCain. He doesn’t need a campaign foreign policy apparatus, because he’s John McCain. Now, if he could actually demonstrate that he knew what he was talking about, and could talk about his foreign policy vision without sounding like an uninformed child, then maybe the “I’m John McCain” phenomenon would merely be an annoying personality trait. But therein lies the point. McCain’s trump card — don’t question him, he knows what he’s talking about — is contradicted by the fact that he seems to be utterly and embarrassingly clueless. I can’t help but wonder what the campaign would be like if the media called him on it.

How many more of these will it take before we finally dispense with the idea that John McCain is some sort of foreign policy genius who is uniquely qualified to be commander-in-chief? Today on Good Morning America, John McCain was asked whether he agreed with Barack Obama when he says the situation in Afghanistan is precarious and urgent. In predictable fashion, McCain downplays the significance of the deteriorating security situation there. In perhaps less predictable fashion, he magically redraws the borders of two Middle Eastern countries. Download | Play Download | Play We have a lot of work to do. It s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border. I doubt anyone here really needs me to do this, but here we go: As you can clearly see, there is no common border between Iraq and Pakistan. Just another gaffe to add to the pile.

Barack Obama sat down with CBS Lara Logan Sunday morning for a long interview about his meeting with President Karzai and his vision for American foreign policy. Calling the security situation in Afghanistan precarious and urgent, the presumptive Democratic nominee stressed that that country is the real central front in the war on terror, and it s about time we started treating it as such. Download | Play Download | Play The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism. Full transcript below the fold: Logan: Why does it have to be the central focus? What is so critical to U.S. interests here? Obama: This is where they can plan attacks. They have sanctuary here. They are gathering huge amounts of money as a consequence of the drug trade in the region. And so that global network is centered in this area. And I think one of the biggest mistakes we ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq. And despite what the Bush Administration has argued, I don t think there s any doubt that we were distracted from our efforts not only to hunt down al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but also to rebuild this country so that people have confidence that we were to here to stay over the long haul, that we were going to rebuild roads, provide electricity, improve the quality of life for people. And now we have a chance, I think, to correct some of those areas. There s starting to be a broad consensus that it s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan. And I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now s the time for us to do it. I think what s important for us to do is to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan. And I think that would be a mistake. I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we ve got to start doing something now. The United States has to take a regional approach to the problem. Just as we can t be myopic and focus only on Iraq, we also can t think that we can solve the security problems here in Afghanistan without engaging the Pakistan government. 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. Logan: You do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they re still there. They re inside Pakistan. Obama: It s a huge problem. First of all, if we hadn t taken our eye off the ball, we might ve caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves. So we made a strategic error. And it s one that we re going to pay for, and unfortunately the people in Afghanistan have paid for it as well. But we now have an opportunity to correct that problem. One of the, if you look at what s happening right now in Iraq, Prime Minister al-Maliki has indicated he wants a timetable full withdraw. That is the view of the vast majority of Iraqis as well. We ve seen a quelling of the violence. We haven t seen as much political progress as needs to be made. But we re starting to see some efforts on the part of the various factions to deal with some of the issues that are out there. Logan: Token efforts at best. Obama: They are token efforts at best. But if we have a timetable and they suddenly see an urgency behind the fact that the American troops are going to be leaving and that they need to get their act together, then this is the perfect moment for us to say, We are going to shift our resources. We re going to get a couple of more brigades here into Afghanistan. We re going to be willing to increase our foreign aid to Pakistan. In exchange, we re going to expect that Pakistan takes much more seriously going after al-Qaeda and Taliban base camps on their side of the borders. Logan: What would be a mission accomplished for you in Afghanistan? Obama: Well, a mission accomplished would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda and the Taliban so that they can longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, and they can t target the United States or its allies. Logan Losing is not an option? Obama: Losing is not an option when it comes to al-Qaeda. And it never has been. And that s why the fact that we engaged in a war of choice when were not yet finished with that task was such a mistake. Logan: Do you believe the war on terror can t be won if Osama bin Laden is still alive and if he s still out there? Obama: I think there would be enormous symbolic value in us capturing or killing bin Laden, because I think he s still a rallying point for Islamic extremists. But I don t think that by itself is sufficient. I think that we are going to have to be vigilante in dismantling these terrorist networks. Logan: Okay, last question: There is a perception that you lack experience in world affairs. Obama: Right. Logan: Is this trip partly aimed at overcoming that concern, that, you know, there are doubts among some Americans that you could lead the country at war as commander in chief from day one? Obama: You know, the interesting thing is that the people who are very experienced in foreign affairs, I don t think have those thoughts. The troops that I ve been meeting with over the last several days, they don t seem to have those doubts. The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to ten years. It s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are, because one of the shifts in foreign policy that I want to execute as president is giving the world a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership, but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral, that we re going to see our role as building partnerships around the world that are of mutual interest to the parties involved. And I think this gives me a head start in that process. Logan: Do you have any doubts? Obama: Never.