McCAIN MISTAKE ON, OBAMA "NO GO" TO IRAQ

John McCain has brought up a valid and important point, in the fact, Barack has not been to Iraq for over two years. Any man running to be the President of the United States, when the U. S. is in a war, must be in the fold, in tune with the men and women on the ground, and most importantly in complete lock step with the commanders on the ground and at CENTCOM. Even though, Obama is not for the war in Iraq and thinks it is a complete mistake, he must know what is going on there, with his presence. If he does not, he leaves himself open to countless problems when the troops come home, how to bring troops home, and is basically running the war (if he becomes president) from the "Ivory Towers" and safety of distance.

Barack Obama does have a problem, or perceived problem, with his national security experience and dealing with geopolitical problems. However, John McCain is the one that could be dueling with a double edge sword. The first thing McCain has made a huge mistake bringing this up (Obama's not being in Iraq, for over two years), this early. The topic may have not been brought up, for some time, or McCain could have played his political cards (hoping it was not brought up) using the issue during the debates, after the vice president choices, or more importantly when Obama "officially" has the nomination. Instead, McCain and the VetsForFreedom.org people, have decided now was the time. The cat is out of the bag now, so there is no putting it back in, and now the issue has time to cool down, Obama could go to Iraq and succeed (in the public and military eye), or a number of other scenarios.

The other side of the issue, the republicans are making Iraq a central theme in the election, which will allow other issues to bleed in with it. Down the line, Iran is going to come back to the front page, maybe sooner, rather than later. In Israel, where Michael Chertoff gave an interview with Fox News' Israeli correspondent, said, "Al-Qaeda is minor league team, where Hezbollah is in the Major Leagues." Problem number one, with that statement, Hezbollah is a proxy force for Iran, they are in and threatening Lebanon, and lastly the are constant threat to Israel. The second problem is Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, of Israel, is on his way out fast, thru corruption charges and lack of support. In steps a new prime minister front runner, Tzipi Livni, who is in lock step with protecting Israel (now), against any threat from Iran, Hezbollah, and any threat of nuclear weapons. Lastly, going into the election, McCain may have proven a point, in Obama not being in Iraq for two years is naive, "non-presidential" and/or misguided, but the door is now wide open for overall decision making. McCain voted for the war in Iraq, was a huge proponent of "the surge," and was on the wrong side in backing Pakistani and Saudi Leaders (for gas, drilling, going to war, etc..etc..).

In conclusion, McCain maybe has made some in rows, in showing Obama's lack of interest of the troops, a naive attitude about troop balance and attitude, and some other things overall. However, Obama, MoveOn.org, and any other 527 group (during the general election and during debates) has the door wide open on a bevy of issues. It may be six one way (with McCain winning in the press and American minds now) and half a dozen another (when Obama and crew open fire, deep into the general, causing McCain to be on his heals when it counts). All of this is still to be seen. One thing is for sure, McCain has not just proven a point in Barack Obama not visiting the troops, collaborating and overseeing what "the surge" has done (and failed at), and being in lock step (to take over on day one) with the boots on the ground. John McCain may have opened a door, leading to a multiple faceted picture, where the public will see what McCain wanted (in Obama) short term, but they will see McCain's overall record, where he has succeeded and failed, and most importantly the unknown of Iran, Israel and Israel's reaction to Iran, and the countless unknowns democratic pundits, 527 groups, bloggers, and Obama himself will be shooting, at McCain from here to eternity.

McClellan Book, Uniting Political Figures, of All Stripes

From The Blog Site: "The Thought Spigot" http://www.thethoughtspigot.com/Home_Page.html

Scott McClellan's new book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, has united both people in the White House and also press corp. people and major print, television, and radio figures. It is not a usual day, when people, from vastly different vantage points, in the political spectrum have the same view on a book and the person who wrote it. However, David Gregory (MSNBC Contributer/White House correspondent), Ari Fleischer (Fox Contributer/Former Bush Press Secretary), Dana Perino, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett (All White House Staffers), and broadcast anchors Brian Williams and Katy Couric have all spoken out on the book, with basically the same vitriol. Diametrically opposed political people, hardened news people, and Washington insiders are all saying the same thing, in slightly different sentiment.

In this soon to be released book, in early June, he hammers President Bush, Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, and other White House officials. In fact stating, "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood. It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn't learn that what I'd said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later." This quote involving the Valerie Plame story, Hurricane Katrina, and the war in Iraq. He continued saying that "he and President Bush" were victims of deception, in the Plame fiasco (ruled over by Rove, Libby, Cheney, and others). Yet, he hammered President Bush on his handling of Iraq and the Katrina disaster, and the whole press corps for not doing their jobs, in asking and probing for the correct questions, in the lead up and during the Iraq War.

If Scott McClellan is correct, stating the press didn't do their job, McClellan himself was completely deceived, and the White House is working against the American people. Why do all of the different figures (again, with VERY different political ideologies and views) say the following:

David Gregory, "I think the questions were asked (about the Iraq war before, and during). I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the President. I think, not only those in the White House Press Corps did that, but others in the landscape of the media did that.

Dana Perino (W. H. Press Secretary), "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad-this is not the Scott we knew."

Frances Fragos Townsend (Former Homeland Security Adv.) "Often times, the press secretary will be briefed, after, some of these more sensitive meetings. The press secretary does not participate in the briefings for the Secretary of Defense.

Ari Fleischer (Former W. H. Press Secretary) "If Scott had such deep misgivings, he should not have accepted the press secretary position as a matter of principle."

Pat Buchanon (MSNBC contributor, historian, former Presidential Candidate, etc..etc...), "Well, you have got to ask why did Scott McClellan did not resign, for Heaven sakes. He said, basically, that the Bush White House was propagandizing for war, cherry picking for information, making the case, as a prosecutor would for a war in which he (McClellan), did not believe in. I wonder why a man would participate in something like that (the job he held, did not speak up in), if he disbelieved, in the cause, or in the war. I can't explain that, (I haven't read his book), but I have read what he said (the direct quotes from the book).

Dan Bartlett (Scott McClellan's boss, at the W. H. ), "Scott McClellan did defend this war and these things from the podium, in fact, in the most private of moments, within the West Wing of the White House. With his closest friends and colleagues, he did not raise these concerns, that he is now raising in this book? I have known him for more than a decade, and there is no one more shocked, than I, with these things he has leveled."

Then the two sides of McClellan, himself. The side, when he was the White House Press Secretary and the McClellan in "book form": Scott McClellan, in his own words, on his last day of office (in front of the press corps and White House he has blatantly hammered), "Mr. President, it has been an extraordinary honor to have served you and the White House for seven years now." However, now McClellan in his book, states, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

It is really hard to believe, that a man in the political arena for his whole life (going back with the Bush family, to Texas Governor), could have such a change of heart, recollection, and candor in a little under a year. After all, he did appear on the "Bill Maher Show" and defended President Bush's White House and his position, just eleven short months ago. A man does not work in the White House for seven years, previed to the knowledge he had, stand up in front of the press corps and millions of Americans lying (day in and day out), is asked to step down from his post, then have a change of heart, or conscious. It sounds more like a man, who was disgruntled for being shown the door, a little earlier, than he may have wanted, and now it is sour grapes. If you do not believe that, then why do so many people of different political stripes, have basically the same things (above) to say?

SCOTT McCLELLAN, OBAMA, & STONE: THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

Three major stories surfaced, over the flat and guarded media holiday, Barack Obama's Memorial Day Story (on one of his uncle's being the first to save a concentration camp, of Jewish people, in W.W.II) and Sharon Stone (in Cannes, France) at the Cannes Film Festival's Red Carpet, where she made a comment about China's Earthquake, being "Karma" for their treatment of the Dalai Lama and Tibet. Finally, Scott MCClellan has come out with a brand new book, which levels huge dispersions, against the Bush White House, cabinet members, and other things which may, or may not have been 100% accurate. All three of these stories, which have just broken over the last 24 hours (in the US), have legs, but are the actually being reported and discussed accurately?

First, Barack Obama stood in front of a captivated audience, in New Mexico. He was speaking about the United States troops, both past and present, when he broke into a story from his past.

He said, "I had an uncle, who was one of the, um, who was part of the first American troops to go in Auschwitz. And liberate the concentration camps. The story of our family, was when he came home, he just went up to the attic and did not come outside the house for six months."

A truly compelling story, on a day that is meant for reflection and remembering those who are serving, or who have served. However, upon the media's digging, "The Red Army" was the group that liberated Auschwitz, not Obama's uncle, Obama's uncle's unit, not even an American force. However, upon further evaluation, Obama's uncle (Charles Payne) was a member of a unit, in W.W.II, that did liberate a concentration camp, in Buchenwald. Mistakes are made in speeches and/or taken out of context, but Alex Conant (of the RNC, Republican National Convention, spokesman) issued a press release on the mistake.

He said (on behalf of the RNC), "Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead, as commander-in-chief."

Obama's campaign, then had to take care of damage control and issued the actual story and clear up the misconception (mistake, if you will). Bill Burton, of the Obama campaign said, "Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically."

The next snafu of words, was not from a politician, but a Hollywood elite and friend of the Dalai Lama, Sharon Stone. Stone was asked a question, from an Asian reporter (on the red carpet of a film festival), about the situation in China and the earthquake that has killed over 80,000 people, with thousands still in hospitals and missing. Ms. Stone had a staggered approach to her answer, to the question, Staggering it in a linear and time line, in her own head, as she answered.

She openly said, "Well you know it is very interesting, because at first I was not happy about the Chinese and the way they were treating the Tibetans, because I do not believe that anyone should be unkind to anyone else. And so, I have been very concerned and have had to think, about how and what to do about that, because I don't like that. Then I was, like, how to we (the US) deal with the Olympics? Because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine. And then this earthquake happened and I began to think. Is that Karma, when you are not nice and then the bad things happen to you? And then I got a letter, from the Tibetan Foundation, and they wanted to go and be helpful, and that made me cry. And they asked me if I would write a quote about that? And I said that I would, because it was a big lesson to me, that sometimes you have to learn and put your head down, be of service, even when people are not nice to you."

When the Sharon Stone quote is read, it is an obvious reflection of how she felt like she was wrong, in thinking that the earthquake was "Karma" and the Chinese deserved whatever they got. In turn, she was actually saying, no matter who a person, group, country, or ideological society is and what they are doing (right, or wrong), a person is still to "put their head down" and do the right thing. However, on Greta Van Susteren's show, "On the Record" on Fox News Channel, Greta and Dawn Yaneck, of Life & Style Weekly, put Sharon Stone thru the ringer. Stating only the facts, of the "Karma comment" and leaving out the totality of her comments. They insinuated (even using the frozen graphic, under the interviewer and Susteren) and blatantly stated, "Actress Sharon Stone suggests earthquake in China was Karma." When this could not be any further from the truth, as shown, by the complete remarks, above.

Finally, former official White House Spokesman/Press Secretary, Scott MCClellan, has written a book, What Happened. In this soon to be released book, in early June, he hammers President Bush, Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, and other White House officials. In fact stating, "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood. It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn't learn that what I'd said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later." This quote involving the Valerie Plame story, Hurricane Katrina, and the war in Iraq. He continued saying that "he and President Bush" were victims of deception, in the Plame fiasco (ruled over by Rove, Libby, Cheney, and others). Yet, he hammered President Bush on his handling of Iraq and the Katrina disaster.

One of these quotes is especially appealing, to look at, he states in the book, "History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know without absolute certainty, how the war will be viewed decades from now, when we can fully understand its impact. What I do know is war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war, was not necessary." He continued on stating, "the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the country."

What is amazing about the MCClellan story and soon to be released book, is every person in the White House Corps, has come out stating that Scott never broke rank, raised any objections to policy, and stayed in lock step (rather than speaking out, until now, in book form). However, his job description, as all White House officials, is to speak up and take a stand in things they could sway, not agree with, and most of all speak out against things, they believe to not be in the nation's interest, but also with their own interests. MCClellan has leaked these several quotes out, just days before his book hits shelves, using Politico.com to speak at his behest, just giving the interviewer, enough of a carrot to take to the major media, news media, and talk radio media outlets, to create a buzz for his book sales. When working for the White House and President Bush, Scott MCClellan was a "yes man" (with no shadow of a doubt), now he looks more like a Huffington Press blogger/hit man.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The amazing thing about the three of these stories: Barack Obama made a simple mistake, in a setting that was non-scripted and in front of a live crowd of people (on a National Holiday). Everyone is entitled to a mistake, which Obama obviously made, then corrected. Sharon Stone made a linear statement, once again live and off the cuff, and she spoke from the heart, was eloquent in her point and ending. Although, was crucified by the television people, taken out of context, and was put as the antipathy of good taste. The media people going almost to the point, of saying she thought the Chinese people deserved to die, in the earthquake (which was not at all, what she said). Finally, Scott MCClellan, spills just enough venom and twists some words out of his book, to a web site reporter, to stir a buzz, just to sell books. He has thrown everyone under the bus, and looks transparent and weak, in his statements.

Where the truth begins and the distortion begins, is sometimes hard to find. However, when dealing with clear cut quotes, actual scenarios, and a book in print, there should not be any real disputing whole details. Should there? Three different scenarios, above, on the same day in the news, but three different outlooks, smearing campaigns, and an overall self serving outlook. Whether it is the Clintons (or republicans) hammering Obama for political gain, Greta Van Susteren and some mediocre tabloid beauty for rating, or a former White House official distorting his experience in the White House (when he was not in classified oval office meetings, things he alluded to and did not give full answers, and he never spoke up when being employed by the White House) to sell books. It all boils down to some kind of narcissism and sadly anyone is a target, to the whims of people serving themselves.