The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

John McCain

Woodward: McCain Privately Pessimistic About Iraq in 2007

Updated 2:31 p.m.
By Michael D. Shear
Sen. John McCain talks often about giving "straight talk" to the American people about the real situation in Iraq.

He brags about having been one of the few Republicans willing to openly criticize President Bush's strategy in the years leading up to the surge. And he promises that, if elected, he will hold weekly war briefings and be upfront about how the war is going.

And yet, a new book by The Post's Bob Woodward suggests that McCain has not always been as forthcoming with the public as he has pledged to be.

Woodward's latest book about the Iraq war, "The War Within," portrays McCain as offering a rosy assessment to the public about the surge's progress while privately telling U.S. officials he thought the country was on the brink of losing the war.

The book describes McCain's press conference after visiting the Shorja market in Baghdad in early April of 2007. After touring the market -- protected by more than 100 soldiers -- McCain said, "Things are getting better in Iraq, and I am pleased with the progress that has been made."

McCain was widely mocked for those statements later after television crews showed the level of protection surrounding him at the market.

But what was not known at the time was how different his private assessment of the war was.

According to Woodward, McCain was invited to visit with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after he publicly made the positive comments at the market. "Rice had expected him to reiterate his optimism, but after some pleasantries, he let loose," Woodward writes.

"We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime," Woodward quotes McCain as saying to Rice. Woodward writes that McCain "launched into a full-throated critique of the State Department's role" in the war effort.

That contrasts sharply with his public words at the time. Bush had implemented a surge of troops into the country -- a policy for which McCain had pushed. As a presidential candidate, McCain was insisting that the surge would work.

In fact, moments after meeting with Rice, Woodward notes that McCain and the secretary of state held a news conference with reporters.

"We're just getting the third of the five brigades over to Baghdad," he told the reporters, according to Woodward. "We are achieving some small successes already in the strategy being employed by General Petraeus and General Odierno."

As Woodward writes: "McCain did not mention his private fear that the United States was on the brink of losing."

McCain campaign senior advisor Mark Salter sought to clarify McCain's position Saturday afternoon. "Senator McCain returned from Iraq and met with Secretary Rice to discuss the concerns of U.S. officials in Iraq that the personnel the State Department had sent to Iraq were too few and too junior," he said. "He expressed to Secretary Rice the same opinion of the surge's prospects he had expressed in public. It would be tough, but it was the last and only chance for the U.S. to succeed in Iraq."

Posted at 11:05 AM ET on Sep 13, 2008  | Category:  John McCain
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Palin Leaves Entitlement Reform Position Unclear | Next: A Big Rally and Talk of Economy as Obama Visits N.H.


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2008 2:39 PM

RCP ELECTORAL MAP 9/14/08

Obama/Biden 207
157 Solid 50 Leaning

McCain/Palin 227
172 Solid 55 Leaning
Toss Up 104
104 Toss Up


State-by-State Changes

Electoral Count RCP National Avg.

09/14 Minnesota Leaning Obama »»» Toss Up Obama 207 - McCain 227 McCain +2.4

09/13 Indiana Toss Up »»» Leaning McCain Obama 217 - McCain 227 McCain +2.4

09/11 Florida Toss Up »»» Leaning McCain Obama 217 - McCain 216 McCain +2.5

09/11 North Carolina Leaning McCain »»» Solid McCain Obama 217 - McCain 216 McCain +2.5

09/11 Georgia Leaning McCain »»» Solid McCain Obama 217 - McCain 216 McCain +2.5


09/14 Minnesota Leaning Obama »»» Toss Up Obama 207 - McCain 227 McCain +2.4

Sunday Sept 14
Minnesota Star Tribune
Obama 45, McCain 45 Tie

Saturday 9/13
Nevada Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 46 McCain +3

Friday 9/12
Missouri Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 46
McCain +5
Ohio Univ. of Cinci McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4 Florida Quinnipiac McCain 50, Obama 43 McCain +7
Virginia SurveyUSA McCain 49, Obama 47 McCain +2

Posted by: Scott | September 14, 2008 11:12 AM

Sen. Clinton's Former Chief Strategist on Palin and the Media-

CBS News 9/12/08

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.
**********

Keep it up- the Independents are watching-

September 9, 2008
McCain Now Winning Majority of IndependentsMajority of independents now prefer him over Obama, 52% to 37%USA Democrats Election 2008 Government and Politics Republicans Americas Northern America by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain's 6 percentage-point bounce in voter support spanning the Republican National Convention is largely explained by political independents shifting to him in fairly big numbers, from 40% pre-convention to 52% post-convention in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.


By contrast, Democrats' support for McCain rose 5 percentage points over the GOP convention period, from 9% to 14%, while Republicans' already-high support stayed about the same.

The surge in political independents who favor McCain for president marks the first time since Gallup began tracking voters' general-election preferences in March that a majority of independents have sided with either of the two major-party candidates. Prior to now, McCain had received no better than 48% of the independent vote and Obama no better than 46%, making the race for the political middle highly competitive.


Posted by: Scott | September 14, 2008 7:09 AM

John McCain is so proud to have selected Sarah Palin. What does Sarah Palin know about the Iraq war other than sending her son over there on Sept 11th. Here's something for Sarah to chew on about some facts about the war in Iraq.

1. According to 2000 census the population of Wasilla, Alaska was 5,469. The number of US casualties in Iraq alone is higher than that. That means a whole town the size of Wasilla is gone from our young and fittest population because of George Bush and McCain's war in Iraq.

2. The population of Alaska is 683,478. Number of U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq is over 70,000. ie if all those soldiers were from Alaska 1/10th the population of Alaska will be disabled, without limbs, or have serious medical problems physically and mentally.

Now hockey mom Sarah says she did not even wink when John McCain asked her to be his running mate. But if she is smart she would have just asked McCain about what we have accomplished after losing 6000 souls and wounding 70,000 US soldiers in Iraq. How is McCain's surge going to bring back those 6000 souls back to their moms regardless of whether they are hockey moms or soccer moms. How many hockey moms does it take to take care of the 70,000 wounded in Iraq?

Posted by: Kimberly | September 14, 2008 5:23 AM

When the republican presidential candidate himself is the wrong choice for the party, does it really matter who his running mate is. Not at all. John McCain has so many deficiencies it is hard to expect anything positive from a McCain presidency. To name just a few of the deficiencies I see in him:

1) He himself has said that he doesnot understand finance. Our country is in so much financial trouble that we can not drill our way out of it with McCain's plans.

2) A person who has a house in every city he goes will never understand the trouble an average american family has in paying the monthly rent.

3) McCain thinks every country we have a political difference with has to be dealt with war. Our military is not large enough anymore to do that. We have already stripped down our military to the bare minimum after the end of the first cold war.

4) If McCain becomes president, he will definitely expect to double or triple the size of our military spending. He won't be able to do that as well as cut taxes for the wealthy at the same time.

5) He thinks that only his views about the size and workings of the government is right. He stamps every other's plans as "socialism". That is beacuse in his mind America is a capitalist country. ie, only people with enough capital to own 5 or six houses needs to be taken care of by our government. If there are any services by our government for people with less number of houses then it falls under socialism.

Need I say more. McCain needs a brain transplant before he is allowed to be our president.

Posted by: Jacquelin | September 14, 2008 4:51 AM

There are thousands of Vietnam veterans in the United States. McCain is one of them. Would all these vietnam veterans make a good president because they were in Vietnam? I don't think so. Without being disrespectful, I want to emphasize that McCain lacks the diplomatic touch that is very much important for being a president. About a year ago, McCain jokingly said bomb, bomb, bomb away Iran. It is very dangerous thing for a president to joke about like that. When a president of a country jokes around about bombing any country he better be ready to do what he says, otherwise his credibility will be gone right away. There is a saying that loose lips sink ships. McCain has really loose lips as well as bad temper and dimentia. We just cannot hand over the keys to the white house to McCain if we want our country to be safe for our kids sake.

Posted by: Kevin | September 14, 2008 4:16 AM

I just don't understand why McCain is making such a big deal about the surge. The surge as they call it was needed because the bonehead Rumsfeld was very stingy in sending troops to Iraq. When the generals on the ground asked for x number of troops Rumsfeld used to override them and would allow only half as many troops to be deployed. Just to send some additional troops they coined the term "surge". McCain was not the man in charge of architecting the surge or making it happen. He just nodded his head in agreement when the surge was announced. He had no other choice but to say that the surge is going to work. Now I don't know why he is taking the credit for it. Bush and McCain have redifined the expectations so many times that the original meaning of winning the war is not there at all. Now McCain says we are winning the war. Who is the opponent or the enemy? Let McCain define who our enemy really is in Iraq. This war has been mishandled by George Bush and his cronies so much that nobody will be able to call any outcome in Iraq as a victory. McCain can mix all the words he wants but he has to be a fool to claim whatever happning in Iraq as a victory for the United States.

Posted by: Cliff Clark | September 14, 2008 4:06 AM

At the time McCain was promoting a surge, things were going bad in Iraq. Indeed, very bad.

McCain would have indeed a fool if he thought that everything would go okay.

Re-read my first paragraph.

So, it is entirely reasonable to have doubts as to the success of any surge, based on what was going on at that time.

It was a mature assessment of McCain to have doubts. To criticize McCain having doubts is indeed a case where McCain opponents are clutching at any and all straws to try to put McCain down.

Posted by: bzajac | September 14, 2008 1:04 AM

More lies from the McCain folks

Posted by: ron | September 13, 2008 11:39 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 6:41 PM You wrote
“Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable.”

That “duped” comment is a most subjective conclusion but I digress with the following comments and information leaving that subject for later consideration, however, I am not inclined toward the conspiracy theories because I have been in many organizations and none have had the organizational skill to totally corral the type individuals about whom you speculate are so easily controlled. And with today’s liberal media they would be all over that like ugly on an ape and with all the facts.
I believe you have arrived at that conclusion without considering the science of demographics and why this occurs. The book “The Big Sort” will provide a perspective that may persuade you otherwise. He has concluded that the electorate seeks and moves into communities, churches, cities, and organization where they will find those of their own political persuasion. So those of us in the small communities do not want anything to do with the you sophisticated city slickers. We have not been duped. I think your Presidential choice called us clingers among other things and that does offer some support for the hypothesis that "birds of the feather flock together" as suggested by the book "The Big Sort."

And on the “Cameras placed on every street corner” the socialist country I find most often mentioned using this method in your alleged right wing effort is the socialist government in Britain. Many articles have considered the number of times an English individual is seen daily by such devices and as I recall it is in the thousands but that could be an error on the amt of observations. And a positive effect on crime has not occurred but I have read nothing about its ability to deter terrorism.

Posted by: Cliff | September 13, 2008 11:09 PM

Ronnn
I find this judgment argument always avoiding the real issue of a retrograde movement disregarding that in any military consideration you do not telegraph you plan to your adversaries and that should most certainly follow as a golden rule in politics as well. Would you have your favorite sports team telegraph in plans to it opponent?
Generals never speak of movements until they are over. Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Gozon, Marquis de Saint-Veran (February 28, 1712 – September 14, 1759) Commander of the French forces in North America during the Seven Years' War (the North American phase of which is called the French and Indian War in the United States).
Some tactical considerations change because of new weapons but letting you enemy know your plans does not...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 8:57 PM

Woodward's latest book about the Iraq war, "The War Within," portrays McCain as offering a rosy assessment to the public about the surge's progress while privately telling U.S. officials he thought the country was on the brink of losing the war.

Guess we'll have to rename McCain's vehicular conveyanc the "Straight Talk Suppress."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 7:19 PM

Heresay, heresay... your word against mine, Woodward. People also say that the Clintons had people murdered in Whitewatergate... get over it.

Posted by: Gee Thanks | September 13, 2008 6:52 PM

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 6:41 PM

That politicians are going to put a positive spin on things is nothing new. In cases it can be reassuring and prevent a panic from kicking in.

I hate this war with all my guts, but it would have gone so much differently if the adult dunce Bush had listened to those that counseled the use of much larger troops to begin with.

Where I have a problem with McCain and 'The surge, The surge" (reminds me of "the plane boss, the plane") is that it is but a component of a number of things that have taken place, the most effective of which has been the covert action of our military that has recently come to light.

I also have difficulty with the GOP veep that is swirling in controversy, and repeating distortions of her record at best - at every podium she finds.

That she believes or tells people that Iraq was involved in 9/11 is a complete disqualifier for me.

Sorry GOP. gotta go the other way this time.

Posted by: just do it | September 13, 2008 6:12 PM

Well it appears that McBush is following thru as he has been taught by his presissor. Tou cna tell if he is lieing by if his mouth is open

Posted by: Homer Meriwether | September 13, 2008 6:11 PM

The great thing about Sarah Palin is her youth and vitality. No matter what happens in this election, she will be a big thorn in the side of Democrats for the next 25 years or so. She pulls the rug out from under the whole left wing socialist mindset that encourages victimhood and dependence on government.

Posted by: Dave | September 13, 2008 6:06 PM

Dave -- "Sarah Palin is more of a man than he is."

True, very true Dave. Palin's voice, her manner & manners (or lack of ), in general. Her perfect authority in this side of the universe. Palin embodies the strongest & fiercest of US women, in body & mind!

Glad, i was able to marry a Québecoise (i.e., female born in French speaking Québe c... north of US border). Every day of the year i thank my lucky stars I did not marry something of Palin's ilk. Another gain, my girls & the whole house speaks French...

But don't fret, you've got Palin. Have fun with her.

Posted by: hadeze | September 13, 2008 5:44 PM

What Woodward reports is hardly a tsunami.

We all know professional politicians of all colors (especially rich cats like McCain) lie to fool the rest of us. McCain has lied for the last 40 yrs about his Vietnam bombing runs & yet he has +50% of America listening to some of his words. His lies have been believed & helped him. Why tell people the truth? They want cute lies.

Once McCain/Palin take over post Nov. 08 America may realize (too late, of course) what opportunity was missed ... but then cute & rosy lies always sell better than reality.

Posted by: hadeze | September 13, 2008 5:36 PM

Joe Biden voted for the Iraq war, but then he voted against the Surge. Joe Biden is a total dunce who doesn't know what he is doing. This brings up a lot of questions about Obama's VP vetting process. It is especially despicable that Biden got a Vietnam draft deferment based on a bogus asthma claim at the same time he was playing on his school's football team. Absolutely despicable. Sarah Palin is more of a man than he is.

Posted by: Dave | September 13, 2008 5:25 PM

Yet more proof that McBush is a lying, bumbling fool who doesn't even know how to send an email. Pathetic.

Posted by: Zentrails | September 13, 2008 5:24 PM

Shears-Indeed, what IS the point of this article, huh? The fact that your fake god,still living in the 70's Bob Woodward spoke, therefore, you jumped?

This doesn't tell me that McCain wasn't as "forthcoming" as he "says" he is at all! I'll tell you what it tells me: It tells me that McCain's been out there IN IRAQ, ACCESSING CONDITIONS THERE, AS A SENATOR ON THE ARMED FORCES COMMITTEE-AND THAT HE HAS BEEN ALL OVER THE WORLD ASSESSING CONDITIONS AS PART OF HIS JOB DUTIES, WHICH IS MORE THAN WE CAN SAY FOR THE OBAMA, NOW ISN'T IT? OBAMA, WHO AS HEAD OF THE SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, NEVER TOOK NOT EVEN ONE TRIP TO IRAQ, NOR EVEN ONE BLOODY FOREIGN TRIP AT ALL TO DISCOVER OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE US TROOPS ARE IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS, OR SIMPLY TO FIND OUT ABOUT ISSUES IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO INFORM HIS POSITION ON THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE-NOT EVEN ONE TRIP! IT TELLS ME THAT MCCAIN TOOK HIS JOB DUTIES SERIOUSLY AND THE AS USUAL EFF OFF OBAMA DID NOT-BECAUSE FOREIGN TRAVEL IS HARD ON THE OBAMA-IT'S THAT JET LAG THING YOU KNOW! THAT'S WHAT IT TELLS ME!

IT ALSO TELLS ME THAT ONE WHO IS A PUBLIC FIGURE LIKE MCCAIN CAN RESPONSIBLY SAY THINGS TO THE PUBLIC YET STILL HARBOUR PRIVATE CONCERNS-I'D RATHER HAVE SOMEONE LIKE THAT, THAN A DO-NOTHING, ALL SPEECH NO ACTION FIGURE LIKE THE NOBAMA-WHO DOES SCARE ME, IS UTTER TOTAL LACK OF EXPERIENCE BUT IT IS THE LACK OF INTEREST-OBAMA'S LACK OF INTEREST, SHEAERS, THAT SHOULD BE SO WORRYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC! OBAMA'S UTTER LACK OF INTEREST IN ANYTHING OUTSIDE HIS TINY LITTLE SELF-ABSORBED EGOMANIAC WORLD!

THAT SHOULD CONCERN ALL AMERICANS, QUITE FRANKLY! NOT THIS MEANINGLESS LITTLE BLURB FROM WOODWARD-WHO GETS UNDER MY SKIN WITH HIS DISINGENUOUSNESS AND THAT STUPID SELF-IMPORTANT AIR OF HIS LIKE NOBODY!

Posted by: Arrabbiato | September 13, 2008 5:08 PM

How's that, Ronnn? Woodward specializes in crowing about getting the facts, but many people have stepped forward and said under no circumstances is he putting forth the "facts" that he never has, nor could have, access to classified documents, yet continues to spread false statements about just what he has had access to in the USG. It's crazy, and it's shameful, that Woodward is given such deference, simply because he is some has-been icon of the 70's -like I've said, Woodward is long long past his prime-he needs to retire himself-he's been a perfect disgrace as a general manager for the Post-and is innately disingenuous about what he states are "facts" in his books, which are anything but.

Posted by: arrabbiato | September 13, 2008 5:03 PM

Something decreased the violence in Iraq. GOK if it was the surge or not. If the McCain campaign can not get straight which countries Palin has visited how can they be expected to know if the surge worked. The violence is down and this government is following the Obama suggestion of cutting troops only at a slow pace. Whoever wins will cut the troop strength in Iraq. Obama is honest about it, McCain is not. McCain will see the way of pulling the troops by the end of 2010 but needs an issue to distinguish himself from Obama so he made the big issue about not setting time tables. It was all a big ruse, since Bush agreed with the Iraqis whose point of view is more similar to Obama's than Bush or McCain's. That says to me that Obama understands and can better work with the Iraqi's than his opponent. That is the strength of Obama, good judgement.

Posted by: Ronnn | September 13, 2008 5:00 PM

The McCain campaign's definition of a liar or petty or partisan is anyone who contradicts anything McCain says. Woodward in my estimation has not always interpreted facts with astuteness but he is good at getting the facts.


Posted by: Ronnn | September 13, 2008 4:47 PM

Cliff wrote:

Al-Qaida has in the past by their own statements identified Iraq as their primary area of conflict. They are loosing but Bob is selling books and influencing elections. Good for Bob and maybe for Al-Qaida too if too many are so persuaded.

-----
Do you think warfare has evolved past basic empty headed pedantic word usage, or is propaganda, the use of the false narrative, gonna do it for the republicans this time, too?

Where is Russia in this, where is China, how is Iraq simply a small piece in a larger asymmetric war, much like Viet Nam was?

The neocons are left flummoxed as to why this giant terror gasathon failed, though it's pretty basic stuff, why Hiteler lost.

The neocon strategy is laughable, simply laughable.

The neocons are/were not smart enough to evaluate or plan the war, drowning in their own little propaganda mess, others using it against them, quite easily.

And again, before the dittoheads froth over in the foam fest, the economy is failing, every single point made in regard to Iraq and it's vulnerabitlies is true, and nothing will stop an Iraq and a US collapse from happening, without removing the neocons. Given the neocon "physics" of war are built on a false, delusional unscientific premise, no amount of wishing it were so can make it be.

Neocons never even recognize their enemies, it's truly breathtaking.

To wish the surge worked is fantasy, pure projection easily defeated, and will continue to harm this country, until those who put us there are OUT, and out for good, hopefully in the Hague.

Posted by: Unique Neocon Stink | September 13, 2008 4:14 PM

Here are some facts and additional information for those who wish to simplify this very complex problem by shouting “The surge has worked! The surge has worked!”

1. The "surge" was officially “launched” on February 14, 2007 (according to a quarterly Pentagon report to Congress covering February through May of 2007).

2. The Anbar Awakening – a movement where thousands of Sunni Arab insurgents were recruited by the U.S. to fight “radical [Iraqi] Sunni vigilantes” – and paid monthly “salaries” to do so – began in the fall of 2006. (In other words, our U.S. government bribed 16 year old Arab Sunnis to take up arms and fight their own Iraqi counterparts by waving American dollars in front of them months before the “surge” even began.)
3. Still, neither the bribery nor the first six months of the “surge” saw any progress in reduction in violence; it wasn’t until September 2007 rolled around that numbers started going down.
4. And why such a shift from July to September? Oh, it was the “surge,” right?

Not according to Juan Cole, president of the Global Americana Institute:
“...what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65% Shiite to at least 75% Shiite and maybe more. My thesis would be that the US inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods.”

And as Michael Ware, the guy from CNN who’s lived there for years observed:

“The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad has been — albeit tragic — one of the key elements to the drop in sectarian violence in the capital. […] It’s a very simple concept: Baghdad has been divided; segregated into Sunni and Shia enclaves. The days of mixed neighborhoods are gone. […] If anyone is telling you that the cleansing of Baghdad has not contributed to the fall in violence, then they either simply do not understand Baghdad or they are lying to you.”

As Bob Woodward notes in his latest book, The War Within, “In Washington, conventional wisdom translated [the reduction of violence] into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge...”

One has just been noted. The second: an unexpected unilateral cease-fire ordered by the radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr as a key event. And the third: the development and use of more sophisticated technologies – classified – that led to an easier identification and killing of insurgent leaders. All based on information given to him by Pentagon insiders.

5. And...what is the probably next outcome of this tenuous situation - as the U.S. government, and John McCain, tout that it was the “surge” itself that did the trick, and all this wonderful progress has been made in Iraq-land and will continue to blossom forth?

“The Shiitization of Baghdad was thus a significant cause of falling casualty rates. But it is another war waiting to happen, when the Sunnis come back to find Shiite militiamen in their living rooms.”

http://www.juancole.com/2008/07/social-history-of-surge.html

“Perhaps most worrisome, more than five years after the American invasion, which knocked Mr. Hussein from power but set off great chaos, Iraq still lacks the formal rules to divide the power and spoils of an oil-rich nation among ethnic, religious and tribal groups and unite them under one stable idea of Iraq. The improvements are fragile.[...]” New York Times June 21, 2008

“The tough tactics underscored the fragile nature of Basra's security. Sadr's followers have accused the Iraqi army of being proxy fighters for the Shiite rivals seeking to weaken Sadr's movement before provincial elections scheduled for October.” Washington Post June 21, 2008

BBC Interviewer: Do you think you’ll ever use the word “victory?”
Gen. Petraeus: I don’t know that I will. I think all of us at different times have recognized the need for real restraint in our assessments, in our pronouncements if you will, and we have tried to be very brutally honest and forthright in what we have provided to Congress, to the press, to ourselves...we have to be first with the truth...it has to be the facts; we can’t sugarcoat those...”

BBC News Interview: September 11, 2008


Number of troops we were initially told would make up the “surge”: 21,500
Number of troops in actuality: 30,000
Number of U.S. soldiers dead since the “surge”: 1,000
Number of dollars we were initially told would be needed to fund the “surge”: $6B
Number of dollars so far: Unknown; the Congressional Budget Office projected a 12 month deployment would cost $20-27B back in 2007
Number of dollars we were initially told were needed for the war: $50-60B
Number of dollars so far: $600B and counting
Number of months we were initially told would be needed for the “Surge”: Unspecified
Number of months in actuality: Depends on who’s doing the math...

“The U.S. troop surge in Iraq has now ended, with the top general's spokesman confirming to VOA that all the combat troops sent in last year to bolster security efforts have ended their tours of duty and left the country. But according to the Pentagon there are about 16,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq now than there were before the surge started early last year... Before the surge, there were about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Now the Pentagon says there are 148,000. That's a substantial increase, more than 12 percent.” July 24, 2008
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2008/07/iraq-080724-voa01.htm

Posted by: barbyrahmirfluor | September 13, 2008 3:52 PM

And should we be surprised that John Mccain has told still another whopper???? Appears no honor at all john is a serial liar.

Posted by: sherrybb | September 13, 2008 3:27 PM

"Privately Pessimistic About Iraq in 2007."
Any rudimentary research into the historical process about the conduct of war would lead a prudent objective individual to easily conclude an opinion similar to McCain's and thus be pessimistic about war too. But understanding that concept one can just as easily conclude that a surrender is a defeat with results that should have been the most emphatically learned revelations resulting from our retreat from Somalia (Blackhawk Down), Kobal Towers, USS Cole and the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al-Qaida has in the past by their own statements identified Iraq as their primary area of conflict. They are loosing but Bob is selling books and influencing elections. Good for Bob and maybe for Al-Qaida too if too many are so persuaded.

Posted by: Cliff | September 13, 2008 3:17 PM

Let us look back 8 years ago before US invaded Iraq.

Iran was held under control by Iraq. Iraq was held under control by UN sanctions. Iran had no agenda other than to keep an eye on Iraq.

Now 8 years later, Iran is out of control. Iraq is out of control. Iran has the sole agenda of toppling US economically, as well as politically. Iraq is friendly with Iran.

McCain is waving his hand saying "surge is working, we are winning.". Were is his brain?

Posted by: Paul Fricklass | September 13, 2008 2:55 PM

One of the biggest myths passed off on the American people is that the "Surge" has worked. The violence may be down, but Iraq is slowly but certaintly moving away from U.S. control. All we have accomplished in seven years is to have wasted American lives, treasure, and influence and thereby allowed Iran to become the dominant nation of influence in Iraq. Bush has been an incredibly dangerous president, and McCain would be Bush squared.

Posted by: Raw Meat | September 13, 2008 2:47 PM

The best line I've seen about the "war" this election season is the one held over the balcony at the RNC as McCain spoke.

One side said "McCain Votes Against Veterans",
the other said "YOU CAN'T WIN AN OCCUPATION".

I understand the protester is an Iraq veteran. How's that for credentials?

Obama/Biden 08

Posted by: Jerry Ulibarri | September 13, 2008 2:35 PM

I am really disgusted at McCain's ads. McCain has really nothing to give this country other than show how he is able to parse words of the opponent and read other meanings into it other than what he meant. I am so tired of all his ads, just saying blah blah Obama said this, blah blah Obama said that, blah blah blah. There isn't anything in his ads that are positive about how he is going to govern this country. For me it is not whether McCain wins or Obama wins, but whether we select a leader who has a plan other than bad mouthing the opponent. I am not seeing a leader in McCain. Not only that he is getting to the same age as Fidel Castro give or take a few years. He is still stuck in the mindset of the 70s. Our country has to move forward. We can't be stuck in the old doldrums by selecting a politician who is worrying about what his tombstone should say rather than what jobs our kids will have tomorrow.

Posted by: Cathy | September 13, 2008 2:29 PM

It is stupid to think of victory when it comes to war. There is never a victory in any war. Both sides are losers. You win only when you create harmony in the world.

Posted by: karna | September 13, 2008 2:21 PM

The Iraqi government has not even said a single word of thanks to the US soldiers ever since we had the so called surge that John McCain is bragging about. How can John McCain say that we are winning the war? What is his definition of winning? What are the lessons he learned in Vietnam? As part of the surge the US government (our politicians in office, the so called leaders) is supporting the very insurgents that we were fighting against. We fought the Sunni insurgents before the surge, now we have asked the sunni insurgents to be part of the security forces. The Al Maliki government does not like this and it is just a matter of time after we pull out our troops in early february of 2009, the same people to whom US tax payers are paying billions of dollars are going to wreck havoc again there. McCain's so called maverick image is a self created image. I have really not seen anything maverick about him. The fact that whether it is McCain or Bush, the team that is giving advice to both of them is the Karl Rowe gang. You can't expect these old boys to suggest any change for this country to go in the right direction. McCain is essentially a pawn in the game. McCain fails to enumerate his foreign policy agenda, he fails to have an education policy for our kids, he definitelty does not have a clean environmental policy, since all he is saying is let's drill all around our backyard. There is no such thing as clean coal energy. There is no scientific way to burn coal without producing the pollution and the greenhouse gases. There is no clean way to drill our backyards for oil without the tremendous damage to the environment. McCain would rather distract us from seeing the clear picture, by either putting a cheerleader as his running mate and make every news bite point in her direction.

Posted by: Dave McKeenan | September 13, 2008 2:00 PM

John Kjellevold wrote:

China on the other hand didn't lose a single life for the democratization of Iraq, but reaping all the benefits out of it. McCain is just a fool to think that we are winning the war in Iraq.
--------
And Russia's role must be closely examined in the Middle East, it's relationships with Iran, and China, how it plans to use the Middle East as a part of it's reemergence, esp. given the recent activity in Georgia and with BP, must be looked at in terms of Iraq, also.

These seemingly disparate but actually related factors make the whole concept and marketing of "the surge" laughable.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:56 PM

McCain is hanging onto one word "surge" when he talks about the war in Iraq. When you look at the whole thing, surge is only a tiny fraction of what is going on in Iraq. We are losing billions of tax payer dollars in Iraq. iraq itself has a surplus of 70 billion from its oil exports during the same time frame. China is making inroads in the rebuilding of Iraq. When China gets the major contracts of rebuilding after US spent a half a trillion to fight the war, and China gets the oil contracts while US soldiers payed the price with blood, all McCain continues to say is the "surge" is working. There is no political or commercial gain in Iraq for the US. What are we fighting the war in Iraq for? Even with all the money we poured into Iraq, Iraq's leaders are still friendly with our arch enemy Iran. China on the other hand didn't lose a single life for the democratization of Iraq, but reaping all the benefits out of it. McCain is just a fool to think that we are winning the war in Iraq.

Posted by: John Kjellevold | September 13, 2008 1:35 PM

John McCain is a dishonorable liar.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | September 13, 2008 1:28 PM

Since he was beaten by George W. Bush in 2000, John McCain has proven that he is willing to sacrifice anything in order to finally achieve his dream of sitting in the White House.

He sacrificed his integrity when he hugged George Bush and kissed up to the agents of intolerance like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. He sacrificed his honor by running lying attack ads against Barack Obama. And he willingly sacrificed the lives of American soldiers by sending them into a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged.

What else will John McCain sacrifice in order to be elected President?

Posted by: Patrick | September 13, 2008 1:27 PM

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

As McCain would say,

"I would rather lose my straight-talk image than the war."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: Country First | September 13, 2008 1:26 PM

These polls you all wants to site!

Ha, they don't poll voters with cell phones.
Because kids know, McCain will start the DRAFT, will go to war with
RUSSIA
IRAN,
and boy, those kids are shaking in their books about Roe v Wade,
good luck to you.
It's, for example, the newly registered 400,000 minority voters in Ohio, that are not accounted for.
They only poll, older white voters like ME!

It is Obama by a landslide, sorry ,kids.
Oh, get off these posts. It's the same people posting all over the WaPo, with the same nasty comments, for other taxpayers, in this country!
KARL MUST BE PAYING YOU ALL A FORTUNE.
SAD, PATHETIC, SCARED WHITE PEOPLE. YOU'RE ALL EMBARRASSING THE REST OF US WHITE PEOPLE.
WHAT ABOUT THIS DAMNED ECONOMY? WHAT'S THAT VERY OLD IDIOT GOING TO DO ABOUT IT. NOTHING, BORROW MORE FROM CHINA TO GET TAX CUTS TO THE WEALTHIEST, WHILE YOU IDIOTS HELP PAY THE RICHES TAXES!
WHAT A BUNCH OF SCHMUCKS!

Posted by: Cookie | September 13, 2008 1:26 PM

People like Michael D. Shear are some of the most despicable maggots in the business of journalism. They should be ashmaed of so blatantly carrying Obama's water and cleaning his toilet. I am a Hillary supporter who saw Shear like malignant creatures r@pe Hillary over and over again. And they shamelessly are doing it to McCain/Palin. Journalism be d@mned. I am sick of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:09 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only journalists worth anything in Washington Post are Dan Balz, Dana Milbank, Chris Cilliza, David Broder. They can never be accused of trumpeting the Republican side of the story but at least they write with some conscience, with some objectivity. People like Shear and Kornblut are just disgusting.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:25 PM

So, while holding out hope (to borrow a phrase), McCain understood that hoping doesn't automatically mean success (something naive, wide-eyed Democrats need to learn).

McCain hoped for the best yet had concern about the results. He expressed that concern to the appropriate person (Rice). He did not dump his concern on the American public, which would only make winning that much harder.

There's a word for that - "leadership". Knowing how to lead by being publicly optimistic yet working privately to get the job done, is a great skill. McCain was already acting presidential here.

Posted by: Dumb | September 13, 2008 1:22 PM

Dave, you are a limp wristed piece of trash.

There are Democrats who have given more to this country than anything that you could ever contribute with your sick, disgusting, little mind, you slug!

You are garbage you little twit!

Posted by: Hello | September 13, 2008 1:21 PM

His comment that "we're about to lose the 2nd war in my lifetime", along with his constant refrain that we have to "win" in Iraq and get out "with victory and with honor," proves the obvious: that he's hung up on losing Vietnam, and that this drives his war policy.

Posted by: C. Neiman | September 13, 2008 1:21 PM

All you right winged fools are scared to death of the black guy, BUT YOU WON'T TALK ABOUT ISSUES, EVER

WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

Posted by: Andrea D | September 13, 2008 1:21 PM

Dave wrote:

Democrats and liberals are really annoyed that we might actually win in Iraq.
--------
When you say this, you say flat out you do not understand the situation, nor it's complexities, as if the US is fighting in a vacuum, reflecting an inability on your part to understand the greater international involvement in the middle east and elsewhere, the greater dynamics of world wide asymmetric warfare.

Period.

So, what does that tell me about you?

Posted by: Unique Neocon Stink | September 13, 2008 1:19 PM

Majority of the democrats that I talked to think they are doomed this fall :)

Posted by: linda | September 13, 2008 11:56 AM

You need to stop hanging with the sheep in wolf's clothing!

Posted by: wordtotheidiot | September 13, 2008 1:19 PM

Of course McCain was pessimistic about the war effort. That is why he was so critical of our war strategy. That is why he was critical of David Rumsfeld. That is why he wanted the surge. Even besides, how moronic do you have to be (question for you Shear) to imagine that a leader has nothing better to do but live out one's image in the public. How moronic and infantile do you have to be to think that in a war, in the name of straight talk, leaders should convey every single doubt, every moment of crises, straight to the public? McCain is not Obama, you know. I mean, there's a lot more to McCain than just talking.

What, is there such a profit crises that Washington Post is hiring high school kids now?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:19 PM

What is it about the "surge" that worked?

Did the payoffs from the oil fields to the neighborhood warlords work also?

Did breaking the neighborhoods up with walls in between the City of Baghdad work, separating people from jobs and family work?

None of these different "strategies" worked in Iraq to create the initial goal of "Victory!"

What they brought was the establishment of al Qaeda in Iraq, the visibility of warlords in charge of various neighborhoods throughout Iraq, the introduction of Iranian influence that never existed prior to the invasion, an Iraqi government lacking any influence in its country, and 100 years of American Military occupation where the deaths of American will continue.

Please, explain how the "surge" worked?

Posted by: Hello | September 13, 2008 1:13 PM

People like Michael D. Shear are some of the most despicable maggots in the business of journalism. They should be ashmaed of so blatantly carrying Obama's water and cleaning his toilet. I am a Hillary supporter who saw Shear like malignant creatures r@pe Hillary over and over again. And they shamelessly are doing it to McCain/Palin. Journalism be d@mned. I am sick of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:09 PM

Straight talk for McCain is what every person of sound and rational mind and intellect has been seeing in his dishonest, dishonorable and patently disgusting campaign and ads. He is nothing more than a Bush clone. That is why the country is on its knees now, it will topple flat on its face McCain somehow win this election.

Posted by: str8up | September 13, 2008 1:03 PM

Democrats and liberals are really annoyed that we might actually win in Iraq. They have invested a lot of hope in America's defeat. Its really depressing for Democrats to watch the violence subsiding, Al-Qa'ida in defeat, and normalcy returning to Iraq after an American victory. This is just terrible news for Democrats.

Posted by: Dave | September 13, 2008 1:01 PM

palin made a lot more mistakes than you think and they ended up in the trash can. That interview was no longer than 40 to 45 minutes. It had a tease in the beginning, than a reporters news package (story). A lot of background that we already knew about (fluff). There were commercials,a biased round tape discussion on how well she did. Listen, Palin couldn't keep up with everything that was crammed into her head. That's why the interviews are taped. The edits are quick and sometimes abrupt and awkward. It was an amateur job. There are more cutaways than you can shake a stick at. Gibson protected her. Let somebody who knows what they're looking at take a look at the "raw" (unedited version) tapes. When you ask a "tough" question the viewers want to see the person who is responding eyes. Instead, there were two shots, reversals, quick edits and so on. You have to be good at your game. The ban book question was a key example. There was nothing about the fired and than rehired librarian. No questions were asked about the taking per diem while living at home, or about her attending 5 schools in six years. No wonder Rick Davis pick Gibson.
If you think that I don't know what I'm talking about go to your local station and sit down with a camerman or an editor and if your're lucky and you can find one, a "good" journalist and go over the tapes.

Posted by: FLUFF | September 13, 2008 1:01 PM

Obama goin' loose this Novemebr.

Posted by: Hot Scott | September 13, 2008 12:59 PM

Learn More About Levi Johnson The self Proclaimed redneck and the Stud who got Sarah Palins Daughter Pregnant.
http://www.hotpres.com

THE PALIN DUI?
http://www.duihelpguide.com

See Obama and McCain in the 9/11 forum.
watch the entire forum at http://www.watchdebate.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 12:58 PM

John McCain held out for "victory." So what? The war was unjustified and immoral from the start. Holding out for victory in such a conflict is like hoping your brother is successful as he breaks into a neighbor's house: you would be unfaithful to your family if you did not support him -- or so McCain would argue.

Posted by: eomcmars | September 13, 2008 12:44 PM

the old man 1 wrote:

All diddy/whoopie-worshipping, cowardly, communistic, demonic, hand-wringing, yogurt-brained emocrat liberals named anonymous have the stones of neville chamberlain, the communication skills of pam anderson, the manners of Sid from Toy Story, and the intelligence of Tonya Harding.
You bore every right-thinking person on this message board and you waste our time.

You bore every right-thinking person on this message board and you waste our time.

--------
Well, it's not like you're literate, or anything, anyway...

Posted by: Unique Neocon Stink | September 13, 2008 12:42 PM

All diddy/whoopie-worshipping, cowardly, communistic, demonic, hand-wringing, yogurt-brained emocrat liberals named anonymous have the stones of neville chamberlain, the communication skills of pam anderson, the manners of Sid from Toy Story, and the intelligence of Tonya Harding.
You bore every right-thinking person on this message board and you waste our time.

Posted by: viejo1 | September 13, 2008 12:36 PM

Ha Ha Ha! Anonymous! If that's "critical thinking" as you put it, then it's of the Karl Rove variety, blatently disingenuous and obviously partisan-Woodward actually has far more in common with Karl Rove han he would ever like to admit!

Critical thinking? RIIIIIGHT! That IS FUNNY!

Posted by: arrabbiato | September 13, 2008 12:36 PM

Clearly Obama was the only candidate that was right not only about Iraq, but Pakistan and Afghanistan too. Boy, that seems to upset lots of Republicans.

Posted by: Keith | September 13, 2008 12:36 PM

The explanation is simple: McCain was for the surge before he was against it before he was for it.

Posted by: samson151 | September 13, 2008 12:29 PM

You desperate, panicky "reporters" are sickenly transparent in your pathetic attempts to open up another "watergate".
There's no "troopergate", "speak-in-tonguesgate", "triggate", "bookbangate" with Sarah; not only is there no "surgegate", there is absolutely no "gate" at all with McCain, as you marxist muckrakers have been trying to pin something on him since before the Keating scandal and have been able to find nothing.
There is, however, plenty of material to fashion a "-gate" for obama, e.g. Public Allies and other Alinsky-based socialist agitation programs, a seminal relationship with the domestic terrorist/anarchist Bill Ayers, Dick Daley, the Chi-town underground, The Right Reverend Casanova Wright, black muslim leader and psychotic rambler Farrakhan (obama nearly drooled at Looie's milmanmarch speech, paying especially rapt attention to the explanation of the significance of the number 19, and-who can forget-the revelation that there's a "mother spaceship" in orbit behind the moon, waiting to beam up black muslims), and who knows what is yet to come, because if he tries to play hardball with the campaign dirt thing, his slide downward into the dismal pit of defeat will be that much quicker.

Posted by: viejo1 | September 13, 2008 12:28 PM

"THIS MEANINGLESS LITTLE BLURB FROM WOODWARD-WHO GETS UNDER MY SKIN WITH HIS DISINGENUOUSNESS AND THAT STUPID SELF-IMPORTANT AIR OF HIS LIKE NOBODY!

Posted by: Arrabbiato | September 13, 2008 12:11 PM"
-------

Yeah, I guess you don't like educated people who can think critically.

Typical Republican "If I shout louder that means I'm right"

Not capable of intelligent discourse.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 12:25 PM

September 13, 2008
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer

"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'" -- New York Times, Sept. 12

WASHINGTON -- Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

Posted by: Scott | September 13, 2008 12:24 PM

I am amazed at the lack of understanding as to why conditions in Iraq have improved.

Nobody wants to admit they were wrong, as if "winning" in Iraq would justify the invasion, the deaths of innocent civilians and over 4,000 of our best and brightest children.

The purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi government time for political reconciliation, that clearly, has not happened.

John McCain is declaring "Victory" as car bombs go off in Baghdad.

Even Gen. Petreaus says "It is a fragile and easily reversible peace"

So, this is all we've achieved? after all these years and sacrifices? a "fragile and easily reversible peace"?

Nobody wants to admit they were wrong, so they wrap themselves in patriotism and close their eyes.


Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 12:22 PM

Cilezza-what IS the point of this article, huh? The fact that your fake god,still living in the 70's Bob Woodward spoke, therefore, you jumped?

This doesn't tell me that McCain wasn't as "forthcoming" as he "says" he is at all! I'll tell you what it tells me: It tells me that McCain's been out there IN IRAQ, ACCESSING CONDITIONS THERE, AS A SENATOR ON THE ARMED FORCES COMMITTEE-AND THAT HE HAS BEEN ALL OVER THE WORLD ASSESSING CONDITIONS AS PART OF HIS JOB DUTIES, WHICH IS MORE THAN WE CAN SAY FOR THE OBAMA, NOW ISN'T IT? OBAMA, WHO AS HEAD OF THE SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, NEVER TOOK NOT EVEN ONE TRIP TO IRAQ, NOR EVEN ONE BLOODY FOREIGN TRIP AT ALL TO DISCOVER OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE US TROOPS ARE IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS, OR SIMPLY TO FIND OUT ABOUT ISSUES IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO INFORM HIS POSITION ON THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE-NOT EVEN ONE TRIP! IT TELLS ME THAT MCCAIN TOOK HIS JOB DUTIES SERIOUSLY AND THE AS USUAL EFF OFF OBAMA DID NOT-BECAUSE FOREIGN TRAVEL IS HARD ON THE OBAMA-IT'S THAT JET LAG THING YOU KNOW! THAT'S WHAT IT TELLS ME!

IT ALSO TELLS ME THAT ONE WHO IS A PUBLIC FIGURE LIKE MCCAIN CAN RESPONSIBLY SAY THINGS TO THE PUBLIC YET STILL HARBOUR PRIVATE CONCERNS-I'D RATHER HAVE SOMEONE LIKE THAT, THAN A DO-NOTHING, ALL SPEECH NO ACTION FIGURE LIKE THE NOBAMA-WHO DOES SCARE ME, IS UTTER TOTAL LACK OF EXPERIENCE BUT IT IS THE LACK OF INTEREST-OBAMA'S LACK OF INTEREST, CILEZZA, THAT SHOULD BE SO WORRYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC! OBAMA'S UTTER LACK OF INTEREST IN ANYTHING OUTSIDE HIS TINY LITTLE SELF-ABSORBED EGOMANIAC WORLD!

THAT SHOULD CONCERN ALL AMERICANS, QUITE FRANKLY! NOT THIS MEANINGLESS LITTLE BLURB FROM WOODWARD-WHO GETS UNDER MY SKIN WITH HIS DISINGENUOUSNESS AND THAT STUPID SELF-IMPORTANT AIR OF HIS LIKE NOBODY!

Posted by: Arrabbiato | September 13, 2008 12:11 PM

Palin is accused of an Affair,
http://www.theveep.com

McCain throws his cell phone,
http://www.mccanes.com

Ron Paul, to leave republican Party??
http://www.BarrPaul08.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 12:00 PM

Majority of the democrats that I talked to think they are doomed this fall :)

Posted by: linda | September 13, 2008 11:56 AM

Obama and his supporters are just a bundle of lies. Disgraceful to american.

McCain is the true american hero and a mavrick with a huge record of service.

What has obama got in his resume?
pathetic Street organizer.

Posted by: jim | September 13, 2008 11:55 AM

The team is down 20 points with 15 minutes to go. Coach says, we've lost. Not the kind of leadership we need for this country.
I wonder if Team Obama can get Mc/cain's nuber over 600,000 at http://www.bop-o-rama.com.

I agree, what is the point of this article and it's headline?

Posted by: Football? | September 13, 2008 11:42 AM


SATURDAY, AUGUST 30, 2008

BUSTED!! OBAMA CAMP BEHIND PALIN SMEAR WEBSITES!! (Updated)
OBAMA CAMP BUSTED!!
The Obama Campaign is behind the Sarah Palin Smear Website!

Here's the Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights website:

It was set up by the Obama Campaign and Charles Johnson has the proof.

Charles Johnson busted the Obama Camp for setting up anti-Palin websites:

Interesting. There’s nothing else on the page. This sure looks like the work of the dastardly right-wing anti-gay attack machine, doesn’t it?

But look who’s really behind this.

In the Linux console, if you enter the following commands, you can learn the secrets of a political dirty trick. First, look up the host of ‘sarahpalingayrights.com’ to get the site’s IP address.

host sarahpalingayrights.com
sarahpalingayrights.com has address 74.208.74.232

Then use the same command to look up the domain name pointer of that IP address.

host 74.208.74.232
232.74.208.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer obamadefense.com

Well, well. “Obamadefense.com,” eh?

And what happens if you enter obamadefense.com on your browser’s address line?

Why, you’re redirected to none other than FightTheSmears.com, the official Barack Obama site that’s supposed to be defending him against smears.

Looks like they may have a second purpose: to generate a few smears of their own.

(Hat tip: sk.)
It all leads back to The One.
Amazing.

Charles Johnson has found 3 more attack websites set up by the Obama Camp.
ObamaTaxCut.com:

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 11:33 AM


From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/hed-rather-win-election-than-tell-truth.html

Friday, September 12, 2008
He'd Rather Win The Election Than Portray The Truth

John McCain ran an honorable campaign in 2000.

He was beaten due to scurrilous dishonesty.

He's learned the lesson well.

He's hired those who did this to him.

And now, they are doing it again.

McCain has said that he would rather win the war than win the election.

In fact, as we have seen time after time this week, he would apparently rather win the election than convey the truth.

This approach brought us George W. Bush--and the dissembling, half-truths, omissions and distortions to come. And, so, brought us the tragic consequences that have followed for individuals and families across the nation and the world.

As Americans, we often have short memories and powerful impulses. We tend to act on the latter. This is why history can repeat itself.

Remember. Remember how driven by emotion many became last time. By impulse. Without thought. Remember the statements that were made. Remember the realities that followed. Remember.

You can feel what you feel now--anger, aggression, glee, without examination of the underlying truth--for a moment.

You will live with the consequences for years, decades to come--perhaps for the rest of your life.

Remember the thoughts and feelings that preceded these last 8 years.

Remember.

According to the non-partisan FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html), McCain has strained the truth about health care. About small business. About education. About taxes. About corporate welfare. About energy independence. About free trade.

We've seen this before.

We were distracted from the truth in just the same way before.

And we've lived the resulting damage--for the past 8 years.

This is the way we need to change the nation: By realizing what is true, rather than realizing what emotes us for the moment.

Think.

Remember.

And act accordingly for your future.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/hed-rather-win-election-than-tell-truth.html

Posted by: Cara Prado | September 13, 2008 11:31 AM

Marist 09/05 - 09/08 805 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Fairleigh Dickinson 09/04 - 09/07 872 LV 47 41 Obama +6
Quinnipiac 08/04 - 08/10 1468 LV 51 41 Obama +10
Rasmussen 08/04 - 08/04 500 LV 52 42 Obama +10
Monmouth/Gannett 07/17 - 07/21 698 LV 50 36 Obama +14

************************

Look out below....there goes New Jersey!
14pt lead down to margin of error in 6wks.
Looks like Sarah's wowing them in Secaucus....and Seattle and Helena Montana and Raleigh NC, and...

Hey Democrats, how's that "Western Strategy" working out against the Senator from Arizona and The Governor of Alaska? Not so well, huh? I suppose to win you'll have to go after NC and Georgia again...oops.

Election 2008 Latest Polls
Friday, September 12
Race Poll Results Spread
Missouri Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 46 McCain +5
Oklahoma Rasmussen McCain 63, Obama 32 McCain +31
Washington Rasmussen Obama 49, McCain 47 Obama +2

Ohio Univ. of Cinci McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4

Thursday, September 11
Race Poll Results Spread
Ohio InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama 47 McCain +1
Florida InAdv/PollPosition McCain 50, Obama 42 McCain +8
Michigan InAdv/PollPosition Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1

Colorado InAdv/PollPosition Obama 49, McCain 46 Obama +3
Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 56, Obama 38 McCain +18
Nevada InAdv/PollPosition McCain 46, Obama 45 McCain +1
Wyoming Rasmussen McCain 58, Obama 39 McCain +19
Alaska Rasmussen McCain 64, Obama 33 McCain +31
Idaho Rasmussen McCain 68, Obama 29 McCain +39

North Carolina Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 38 McCain +17
New Mexico Rasmussen Obama 47, McCain 49 McCain +2

Mississippi Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 37 McCain +18
Ohio Strategic Vision (R) McCain 48, Obama 44 McCain +4
Michigan CNN/Time Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4
Virginia CNN/Time McCain 50, Obama 46 McCain +4
Colorado PPP (D) Obama 47, McCain 46 Obama +1
Missouri CNN/Time McCain 50, Obama 45 McCain +5

Georgia Strategic Vision (R) McCain 52, Obama 39 McCain +13


Pennsylvania Quinnipiac Obama 48, McCain 45 Obama +3

Florida Quinnipiac McCain 50, Obama 43 McCain +7


Alabama AEA/Capital Survey McCain 55, Obama 35 McCain +20
Wednesday, September 10
Race Poll Results Spread

Montana Rasmussen McCain 53, Obama 42 McCain +11
North Dakota Rasmussen McCain 55, Obama 41 McCain +14

North Carolina SurveyUSA McCain 58, Obama 38 McCain +20
Pennsylvania Strategic Vision (R) Obama 47, McCain 45 Obama +2
West Virginia MBE McCain 44, Obama 39 McCain +5

Posted by: Scott | September 13, 2008 11:27 AM

In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

Posted by: politicjock | September 13, 2008 11:24 AM

So what exactly is the point of this article? John McCain held out for victory in Iraq even when that was an unpopular position. He showed great fortitude in that decision. If America had followed Obama's plan, it would have been a disaster. Obama never served in the military, never ran a business, and has never governed a city or state. Sorry Obama, "community organizer" just doesn't cut it. Obama is a joke.

Posted by: Dave | September 13, 2008 11:23 AM

Michael Barone in Today's US News and World Reports-


"...Then team Obama and its many backers in the media failed to Decide correctly, so when they Acted they got it wrong. Their attacks on Palin tended to ricochet and hit Obama. Is she inexperienced? Well, what has Obama ever run (besides his now floundering campaign)? Being a small-town mayor, as Palin said, is like being a community organizer, "except that you have actual responsibilities."

Is she neglecting her family? Well, how often has Obama tucked his daughters in lately? For more than a week we've seen the No. 1 person on the Democratic ticket argue that he's better prepared than the No. 2 person on the Republican ticket. That's not a winning argument even if you win it. As veteran California Democrat Willie Brown says, "The Republicans are now on offense, and Democrats are on defense."

Perhaps the Obama campaign strategists expected their many friends in the mainstream media to do their work for them. Certainly they tried. But their efforts have misfired, and the grenades they lobbed at Palin have ricocheted back and blown up in their faces. Voters are on to their game.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 68 percent believe "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win" and that 51 percent -- more than support McCain -- believe the press is "trying to hurt" Sarah Palin. The press and the Democratic ticket are paying the price for decades of biased mainstream media coverage.

I am not the only one to notice that John McCain and Sarah Palin have gotten inside the Obama campaign's (and mainstream media's) OODA loop. Blogger Charlie Martin sprang into pixels on www.americanthinker.com before I could spring into print with this column. But as I write, Barack Obama is in his second daily news cycle of explaining why his "lipstick on a pig" comments are not a sexist attack on the hockey mom who compared herself to a pit bull with lipstick.

Robert Coram describes what can happen when one player gets inside another's OODA loop. "If someone truly understands how to create menace and uncertainty and mistrust, then how to exploit and magnify the presence of these disconcerting elements, the loop can be vicious, a terribly destructive force, virtually unstoppable in causing panic and confusion and -- Boyd's phrase is best -- 'unraveling the competition.' ... The most amazing aspect of the OODA loop is that the losing side rarely understands what happened."

John Boyd would have been a terrific political consultant."

Posted by: Scott | September 13, 2008 11:22 AM

1) The Surge was the most important military and foreign affairs issue of the last three years. 2) The Surge worked. 3) Obama voted against the Surge. Therefore, Obama needs to just hang his head down in shame and get off the national stage. He has clearly shown that he does not have the judgment or the fortitude to lead out country.

Posted by: Dave | September 13, 2008 11:14 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company