Without Joe Liebermann standing there beside him to whisper in his ear, John McCain was incapable of making the distinction between Spain and Latin America.

In this interview, the questions were all in English, so there is not a chance that something was mis-translated. I believe that this effectively disqualifies McCain from being President. He is not mentally fit to serve.

See if you find this interview as perplexing as I did. Why was he just repeating the talking points over and over, “We’ll meet with those who are for us, and stand up to those that are against us.”? Okay, good John. That’s pretty much what we expect of anyone in the White House (George Bush excluded).

QUESTION: Senator, finally, let’s talk about Spain. If you’re elected president, would you be willing to invite President Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?

MCCAIN: I would be willing meet, uh, with those leaders who our friends [sic] and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion, and by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very very tough fight against the drug cartels. I’m glad we are now working in cooperation with the Mexican government on the Merida plan. I intend to move forward with relations, and invite as many of them as I can, those leaders, to the White House.

QUESTION: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president itself?

MCCAIN: I don’t, you know, honestly I have to look at relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

QUESTION: So you have to wait and see if he’s willing to meet with you, or you’ll be able to do it in the White House?

MCCAIN: Well again I don’t, all I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us, and standing up to those who are not, and that’s judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America, and the entire region.

QUESTION: Okay… what about you, I’m talking about the President of Spain?

MCCAIN: What about me what?

QUESTION: Okay… are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

MCCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those that do not.

McCain Meant To Reject Spain Meeting, Adviser Says.

John McCain obviously endorses this plan, and is spouting Bush rhetoric about why we need to stay in Iraq. This is about oil, clear and simple. George Bush and John McCain believe that America’s future is tied to maintaining a military presence in the Middle East so that we can preserve our access to oil.

This is placing him at odds with the soldiers and the military families who do not believe that their son, daughter, mother, or father should die for the sake of oil – defending America against aggressors, yes. Guaranteeing corporate oil profits, no.

As a postscript, it is significant that the Republicans blocked the windfall profits tax on oil companies proposal yesterday, along with blocking the removal of the ridiculous tax breaks for the oil industry.

The New York Times describes the reactions of the Obama campaign and Senator John Kerry to McCain’s statements (emphasis mine):

The presidential campaigns clashed Wednesday over strategy in Iraq as advisers to Senator Barack Obama seized on remarks by Senator John McCain to accuse him of being insensitive to the sacrifices being made by American soldiers.

In an interview on the NBC “Today” show, Mr. McCain was asked whether, if the troop escalation he had long advocated in Iraq was working, he had “a better estimate of when American forces can come home.”

“No, but that’s not too important,” Mr. McCain replied. He then went on to say, as he has many times, that the most important goal is reducing casualties in Iraq, and that American troops were still in South Korea, Japan and Germany without any fear of harm.

“We will be able to withdraw,” he said. “But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way.”

Democrats leapt to criticize Mr. McCain for playing down the strains of the war. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, issued a statement calling Mr. McCain’s remark “a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn’t get the grave national security consequences of staying the course. Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished.”

The Obama campaign jumped in with a conference call for reporters, with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2004, and two Obama foreign policy advisers.

“It is unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of Americans, particularly of the families of the troops that are over there,” Mr. Kerry said. “To them it is the most important thing in the world.”

Mr. Kerry, who considered having Mr. McCain as his vice-presidential nominee in 2004, said that military officials had said that they could not sustain the troop levels in Iraq and that the demands of that war had left the United States unable to react to other crises or meet the needs of the war in Afghanistan.

The Obama advisers argued that Mr. McCain has several times seemed “confused” about the situation in Iraq, noting that he has confused Sunnis for Shiites and incorrectly identified whom Iran was supporting.

“On critical, factual questions that are fundamental to understanding what is going on in Iraq and the region, Senator McCain has gotten it wrong and not just once but repeatedly,” said Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state.

Democrats Criticize McCain on Strategy in Iraq - NYTimes.com.

It is clear that John McCain is basically clueless about political affairs and foreign policy. He cannot even remember what he has said regarding Iraq from one day to the other.

On the Run-Up to War

“Look, we’re going to send young men and women in harm’s way and that’s always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”
John McCain, September 15, 2002.

“But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don’t believe it’s going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.”
John McCain, September 15, 2002.

“He’s a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.”
John McCain, on Ahmed Chalabi, 2003.

On Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction

“Proponents of containment claim that Iraq is in a “box.” But it is a box with no lid, no bottom, and whose sides are falling out. Within this box are definitive footprints of germ, chemical and nuclear programs.”
John McCain, February 13, 2003.

“I remain confident that we will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”
John McCain, June 11, 2003.

On Being Greeted as Liberators

“Absolutely. Absolutely.”
John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, “you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?” March 12, 2003.

“Not only that, they’ll be relieved that he’s not in the neighborhood because he has invaded his neighbors on several occasions.”
John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, “And you think the Arab world will come to a grudging recognition that what we did was necessary?” March 12, 2003.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators.”
John McCain, March 24, 2003.

On a Rapid Victory and Mission Accomplished

“I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks.”
John McCain, January 28, 2003.

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight…It won’t be long. It, it’ll be a fairly short period of time.”
John McCain, April 9, 2003.

“We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives.”
John McCain, May 22, 2003.

“I thought it was wrong at the time. Do I blame him for that specific banner? I can’t.”
John McCain, on President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, May 1, 2008.

“Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?”
John McCain, responding to assertion by Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that “many argue the conflict isn’t over,” June 11, 2003.

“I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict — the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it’s very appropriate.”
John McCain, June 11, 2003.

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.”
John McCain, March 7, 2004.

“We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.”
John McCain, November 12, 2006.

“My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years.”
John McCain, February 25, 2008.

On the Safe Streets of Baghdad

“[There] there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.”
John McCain, after touring a Baghdad market wearing a bulletproof vest and guarded by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead, April 1, 2007.

“There’s problems in America with safe neighborhoods as we well know.”
John McCain, March 8, 2008.

On President Bush and His Team

“We are very fortunate that our president in these challenging days can rely on the counsel of a man who has demonstrated time and again the resolve, experience, and patriotism that will be required for success and the hard-headed clear thinking necessary to prevail in this global fight between good and evil.”
John McCain, on Dick Cheney, July 16, 2004.

“I think he strengthened our national defenses. I think he has a good team around him.”
John McCain, on President Bush, September 3, 2004.

“I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence.”
John McCain, on whether he had confidence in Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, December 15, 2004.

On the Non-Existent Alliance Between Al Qaeda and Iran

“But Al Qaeda is there, they are functioning, they are supported in many times, in many ways by the Iranians.”
John McCain, February 28, 2008.

“As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq.”
John McCain, March 17, 2008.

“[Iranian operatives are] “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
John McCain, March 18, 2008.
“[It is] common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”
John McCain, March 18, 2008.
“Al Qaeda and Shia extremists — with support from external powers such as Iran — are on the run but not defeated.”
McCain campaign statement, March 19, 2008.
“To think that I would have some lack of knowledge about Sunni and Shia after my eighth visit and my deep involvement in this issue is a bit ludicrous.”
John McCain, March 19, 2008.
“Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat? Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall…”
John McCain, questioning General David Petraeus, April 8, 2008.
On a Permanent American Military Presence in Iraq
“We cannot keep our forces indefinitely staged in the region. Were we to attempt again to contain Saddam, we would eventually have to withdraw them. The world is full of dangers and, more likely than not, we will need some of those brave men and women to face them down.”
John McCain, February 13, 2003.
“We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds.”
John McCain, June 7, 2007.
“Make it a hundred.”
John McCain, told that President Bush had said American troops could remain in Iraq for 50 years, January 3, 2008.
“I asked McCain about his ‘hundred years’ comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for ‘a thousand years’ or ‘a million years,’ as far as he was concerned.”
David Corn, January 3, 2008.
“The U.S. could have a military presence anywhere in the world for a long period of time.”
John McCain, February 20, 2008.
“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.”
John McCain, May 15, 2008.

PERRspectives Blog: Is McCain “Sick at Heart” Over His Own Iraq Mistakes.

Here John McCain flaunts his foreign policy experience by referring to President Putin as the President of Germany. This would be forgiveable except that it seems that John McCain has both a pattern of getting his facts wrong, and not caring about getting his facts wrong.

I agree that casualties matter in Iraq. I also agree that the casualties caused by a fire in a burning house matter as well.

According to McCain’s logic, you do not need to remove someone from a burning house, you just need to figure out a way for them to not be burned. He never takes the logical next step and tells us how he has planned for troops to stay in the burning house (Iraq) and not receive any serious injuries.

McCain makes the case that we have troops in South Korea, Germany, and Japan, and that it hasn’t been a problem. The point Senator McCain is missing is that the South Korean and Japanese “houses” are not on fire, as is Iraq, so it is not appropriate to compare other countries that are peaceful and stable, such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea to Iraq.

I think that any reasonable person, seeing someone in danger inside a burning building, would seek to help that person get out of the dangerous fire. Only an insensitive individual would say that the fire and injuries it caused are not important, and that sometime in the unforeseen future, that fire will die out.

The families of the 10 soldiers who have died this month, as well as the 4,094 other troops who died in Iraq, deserve an apology from Senator McCain. It appears that he has completely abandoned the active soldiers and veterans he claims to honor so much.

This is just the latest example of the McCain campaign having difficulty understanding that any rules apply to them at all. Whether it is FEC campaign rules or calls by the Pentagon for some decorum during the campaign, McCain just ignores the stated rules or current laws.

When called on the fact that the military requested that its members remain politically neutral, McCain just said that it’s okay because Barack Obama does it as well, and showed a picture of him shaking hands with a young soldier.

Sure, they both do it, right? Here is an interesting post from the CarpetBagger Report explaining the difference:

Following up on an earlier item, John McCain’s decision to use a photo of Gen. David Petraeus, in uniform, without his permission, in a fundraising appeal is starting to generate some attention.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reminded those in uniform this week to steer clear of the political arena during the election season. “The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” Mullen said.

The McCain campaign responded this afternoon that using the picture of a general without his permission in a fundraising letter is entirely consistent with Mullen’s directive.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers says using the image of Petraeus is not at all contrary to the spirit of Mullen’s directive. “We’re not suggesting General Petraeus has endorsed anyone in this race. I’m sure you’ll find (attached is one example) that Senator Obama has used pictures of himself with troops in the course of this campaign.”

Now, you can go ahead and look at the image the McCain campaign referred to on Barack Obama’s website and judge for yourself whether it’s in anyway similar to the image McCain used of Petraeus. I think any fair look at this shows how extremely different they are — Obama is shown shaking hands with an anonymous soldier, whose face we can barely see in the picture, while McCain uses Petraeus’ image in a fundraising appeal. The prior is a small picture of a senator meeting a serviceman. The letter is an appeal for cash with McCain tying himself to the head of U.S. operations in Iraq.

The McCain campaign said, “We’re not suggesting General Petraeus has endorsed anyone in this race.” No, they’re just suggesting Gen. Petraeus is a campaign prop that should be used — without his permission — to get Republican donors to pony up some checks.

The Obama campaign hosted a conference call this morning (which I sat in on) with Sen. John Kerry, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, and Obama spokesperson Josh Earnest, with a straightforward message — just a few days after Adm. Mullen said he didn’t want to see troops caught up in partisan politics, the McCain campaign “jumped in with both feet.”

Earnest, in particular, emphasized that it wasn’t just using the picture of Petraeus without his permission that was offensive, but also the fact that McCain would use the picture for fundraising that was disrespectful.

John Kerry’s office issued a statement around the same time as the call:

“It’s deeply disappointing that Sen. McCain is using a picture of General Petraeus in uniform to raise money and launch negative attacks. Just last week Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen spoke out of conviction that our men and women in uniform should be left out of politics, not invoked for partisan purposes. The truth is, our troops and the American people deserve better than political stunts and spin about troop levels, they deserve a real and honest debate about how to change a policy that isn’t making us safer. There will be a clear choice this November between four more years of George Bush’s Iraq policy with Sen. McCain, or ending this war, getting out of Iraq responsibly, and strengthening our security with Barack Obama as President.”

Also, I spoke with someone this morning who reminded me of the specific regulations in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which, among other things, prohibit active members of the Armed Forces from participating in “partisan political fundraising activities” or helping candidates “solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for any political cause or candidate.”

Now, in this case, it seems obvious that Petraeus didn’t violate the UCMJ himself, because McCain did this without checking with Petraeus first. It’s important, though, that Petraeus let McCain know this is entirely unacceptable, and it’s incumbent on McCain to apologize and pull the fundraising appeal.

Unauthorized use of a general’s picture in an email solicitation is a cheap and tawdry move for anyone, better yet a presidential candidate.

McCain’s uninvited exploitation of Petraeus draws fire - The Carpetbagger Report.

In a very distasteful joke, Huckabee talked about aiming a gun at Obama. I guess it’s okay if you are a white guy to make suggestive comments like that. Of course, I never expected the governor of Arkansas to not be racist, but these remarks strike me that Huckabee should be a candidate for Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World”.

(CNN) – During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Huckabee jokes about Obama ducking a gunman « - Blogs from CNN.com.

There is nothing to say that the price at the pump cannot just remain the same once a tax holiday takes place, with the oil companies pocketing even the $28.00. In fact, Paul Krugman, Economist, and columnist for the New York Times, said:

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was similarly underwhelmed: “It’s Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies,” he wrote on his blog on Tuesday.

Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday slammed as bad idea.

There are many more effective ways to help consumers with the cost of gas than passing on a cost-savings to oil companies.

Over the past several days, some of the nation’s leading economic and political pundits have weighed in critically on the proposal of both Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain to institute a gas tax holiday this summer.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times said on Tuesday that Clinton’s idea, while less “evil” than McCain’s, was still “pointless” and “disappointing.”

One day later, Tom Friedman, also of the Times, called the idea “so ridiculous…it takes your breath away.”

And Jonathan Alter of Newsweek piled on: “Hillary Clinton has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year — an idea that actually could aid the terrorists.”

Surely, however, there must be someone out there not associated with a politician or a candidate who supported the idea of a gas tax reprieve — especially if, as Clinton suggests, it would be paid for by an excess profits tax on oil companies.

I emailed Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s spokesperson, asking him to put me in touch with an economic or environmental analyst who favored his boss’ plan. He never wrote back.

So I took the task upon myself. I would call experts from all sides of the ideological aisle to get a sense of where the debate stood. In the end, every single analyst I surveyed judged the gas tax holiday proposal to be, roughly speaking, a silly, superfluous, or outright pandering idea.

I started with what I thought would be my best shot, the libertarians. Jerry Taylor, a fellow for the Cato Institute, unfortunately, called the proposal a “holiday from reality.”

“What would happen more likely than not, gas taxes would be cut, but pump prices wouldn’t go down, service stations would just continue charging what they are charging,” he said. “I’m a Libertarian and I don’t mind that. But you might not be a Libertarian and you might believe the federal treasury needs that money… Now if this were a permanent reduction of the tax, I would be all for it.”

Alright, one “no.” Perhaps the free-marketers would be of a different ilk. I was wrong.

“I think it is close to political pandering,” said Max Schulz, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “It is bad policy and political gimmickry. If you want to deliver relief to folks you have to do more than just this little holiday from the gas tax.
You have to address what is driving the price of crude oil, even problems with the weak dollar. You aren’t going to win any points doing that, however. But you will get points if you get up and say let’s suspend the gas tax for a few months… I never have seen the wisdom of playing gimmicks games of the tax code.”

Who, I asked, would favor the proposal? “Political advisers to candidates,” was Schulz’s response. “It is entirely due to the focus of the presidential election coinciding with the summer.”

From Schulz, I moved on to the conservative crowd. But Ken Green, an energy expert for the American Enterprise Institute, ended up being similarly dismissive.

“There would be economic sense in eliminating the gas tax completely and replacing it with tolls. That would make sense,” he said, “but if you remove the tax now, the things being funded with the money will still need funds. Or it will be funded with taxpayer’s dollars from other things. So it will be less at the pump and more in your tax bill.”

He went on: “All of these candidates claim to be environmentally conscious people, so what do they want to do? Lower the cost of driving in the summer time when it is the highest demand in the first place.”

“I’m afraid,” he summarized, “that your record is going to be unbroken in terms of finding someone who will like this idea.”

Sigh. I tried my hand with the progressive wing of the ideological spectrum. There too, however, the idea of a gas-tax holiday was dismissed as ineffectual and publicity-driven.

Bob Sussman, an energy analyst with the Center for American Progress, and, for full disclosure, a supporter of Barack Obama, saw little benefit or popularity to either Clinton or McCain’s proposal.

“Rather than indiscriminately suspending the gas tax, if we have a revenue source here to help people in need, we out to target the money to people who really need it. And if you suspend the gas tax you are giving a small break to every body instead of a significant break to the people pinched by the high prices,” he said. “They might appreciate a small economic break. But I haven’t heard anyone clamoring for this.”

But Sussman offered a glimmer of hope. He suggested I might be able to find support from transportation workers, unions and organizations.

So I tracked down Roger Tauss, the International Vice President for the Transport Worker’s Union, which supports Obama but would, nevertheless, stick to its issues. The results were more of the same.

“It is crazy,” he said. “There is a bunch of different reason it is crazy and all the economist are saying it is nuts. First of all it is pocket change and it doesn’t do anything short term. It will just put more money in the oil companies pockets. It is typical Washington beltway crap. It is just like typical. They make a big fight over a small, nothing issue, and nothing will ever get done.”

Finally, I got a quote from Robert Shapiro, formerly the undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and the author of “Futurecast.” An independent voice with ties to the former first lady, however, did not give the expected results.

“Stated as clearly as I can,” he wrote, “it’s utterly misguided both environmentally and economically. Environmentally, it does actual harm, since it reduces the price of producing greenhouse gases. And economically it’s trivial or worse — by reducing the price of driving it encourages more of it, thereby increasing demand for gasoline, which inevitably pushes the price back up - the consumer gains nothing, and the oil companies and OPEC collect the extra bucks instead of the government.”

UPDATE: Even the American Trucking Association, the group the Clinton camp says is most favorable to it’s idea, offers a tepid thanks but no thanks. From the group’s spokesperson:

ATA appreciates the effort and supports the proposals. But we do have concerns that any fuel tax suspension proposal could damage the already ailing Highway Trust Fund.

To the extent that McCain and Snowe’s proposals use general revenue funds to offset the hit to the trust fund, that concern is addressed.

ATA did not ask for this legislation. And we believe it is only a very short term answer that does not do anything to address the longer term issue of rising fuel prices. ATA recognizes that rising fuel costs have a disproportionate impact on small trucking companies where even a small savings can be the difference in their staying in business.

Clinton, it should be noted, would not pay for the tax break from the Highway Trust Funds. But the message seems the same: this is not the answer needed.

Expert Support For Gas Tax Holiday Appears Nonexistent - Politics on The Huffington Post.

The White House has been in spin mode regarding the subject for five years, but now finally admits that, despite Bush’s denials, the White House did create the banner:

“He [Bush] said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later said the ship’s crew asked for the sign, and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor.”

So Bush just lied to us about the banner, and that is acceptable? Remember when a President was supposed to conduct himself/herself with honor, or at least make a pretense of honor by telling us lies that respect our intelligence?

The lying is horrible, but the disrespect Bush has for the American people and the other branches of government is what has rightfully earned him the title of America’s worst President. Some go so far as to say that it is not possible for there to be another President in the future who will perform this badly, and label Bush: Worst. President. Ever.

Now his press conferences resembles those of a man who feels he no longer has to look or act presidential. He has become the class clown, and is unapologetic, stating that “History” will judge his lies that got us into war much more kindly than we do now.

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the “Mission Accomplished” banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Bush’s dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said at the time. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.” The “Mission Accomplished” banner was prominently displayed above him — a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.

After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the “Mission Accomplished” phrase referred to the carrier’s crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq. Bush, in October 2003, disavowed any connection with the “Mission Accomplished” message.

He said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later said the ship’s crew asked for the sign and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor.

At least 49 U.S. troops died in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month since September when 65 U.S. troops died.

Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.

Bush, in a speech earlier this month, said that “while this war is difficult, it is not endless.”

White House admits fault on ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner - Yahoo! News.

Since making these “misstatements”, political pundits have wondered whether or not John McCain had really stumbled over his words, or whether he was intentionally trying to link Al Qaeda and Iran, to begin to make the case for war against Iran.

In this video of his exchange with General Petraeus, John McCain obviously has confused Al Qaeda as belonging to the Shi’ite group of Muslims, when in fact, Al Qaeda is Sunni. McCain quickly recovers and glosses over his error, but it still seems that John McCain may suffer from some type of racial, ethnic, or religious blindness that he cannot distinguish one sect of Muslims from another.

Here, he actually cuts off General Petraeus’s remark, interjecting with a gloating smile, that Al Qaeda is not some obscure sect of Shi’ites. General Petraeus looks blankly at John McCain, who quickly corrects himself.

When viewing this video, keep in mind that John McCain *is* intentionally conflating Al Qaeda, which is based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with Al Qaeda in Iraq, which did not exist until 2005, and is not the Al Qaeda that attacked us on 09-11-2001.

The misuse of the term “Al Qaeda” instead of referring to the terrorists as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” is a recurring rhetorical trick that occurred not only in the hearing with General Petraus, but almost any time that the Bush Administration or Republicans speak of Iraq.

It is very helpful to their cause to have the average citizen believe that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Standing ever at his side, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman carefully guide the Republican Presidential candidate during the minefield of questions during press conferences and campaign appearances.

The Joe Lieberman incident where he was caught on video and audio whispering to John McCain about the true relationship of Al Qaeda and Iran is now iconic. Politico.com explores the relationship of John McCain’s to his other helpmate in the Senate, Lindsay Graham:  (emphasis mine)

If anyone else called him “little jerk,” Sen. Lindsey Graham might be offended.

But the jab comes from Sen. John McCain, so he wears it like a badge of honor.

“If John’s not belittling you, you’re in trouble,” Graham said. “He calls me lots of other names, too, but they’re not appropriate for the newspaper.”

McCain and Graham aren’t just friends. They’re inseparable, so much so that colleagues, staffers and journalists have begun making cracks about the relationship between the freshman senator from South Carolina and the man who would be president.

Some call Graham a lapdog. Others say he acts as though he’s one of McCain’s legislative aides. One Senate aide, who called Graham and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) “Pips” to McCain’s Gladys Knight, said that Graham “fawns over McCain like there’s no tomorrow.”

In the run-up to this week’s hearings for Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, The Washington Post’s Tom Ricks said Graham “sometimes seems like McCain’s ‘Mini-Me.’”

“I think it’s almost a father-son relationship,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), a friend of both senators and another member of their Senate clique. “I think Lindsey looks to [McCain] and relies on him. But I think John draws on Lindsey’s energy and relies on him for a laugh.”
 
McCain spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield said the two senators “have the kind of friendship that will outlast their political careers.”

The two have grown so close that a Fox News anchor felt compelled to ask Graham last week if he might be McCain’s running mate — a suggestion Graham laughed off by saying that McCain “doesn’t have anything I want or need.”

That’s not exactly true. As Graham himself admits, his close relationship with McCain affords him opportunities and access that most neophyte senators don’t usually enjoy — as long as he’s willing to put up with the abuse that goes along with it all.

Tuesday morning was typical. As a curtain raiser for Petraeus’ appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain, Graham and Lieberman appeared together outside the Capitol at an event organized by Veterans for Freedom.

The TV cameras turned out to catch the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, but Graham got some of the attention and a bit of the ribbing. “Lindsey Graham was a colonel — that’s the good news,” McCain told the crowd. “He’s also a lawyer — that’s the bad news.”)

Tuesday was McCain’s first day back at the Capitol in a few weeks. The last time he was there — for votes on the massive budget bill — he and Graham could be seen walking side by side in the Russell building and riding together on the Senate subway. During the late-night vote-o-rama, the two men cracked jokes in the back of the chamber like two grade school pranksters.

Lindsey Graham: McCain’s ‘little jerk’ - Politico.com.

What’s really interesting is to see Dr. Ron Paul just shaking his head, as if to say, “Nice try, but no cigar!”.

The problem with John McCain’s 100 years in Iraq formulation isn’t that he’s calling for 95 more years of combat–he isn’t–but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea.

That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. It may well be possible to station U.S. troops in small, peripheral kingdoms like Dubai or Kuwait, but Iraq is–and has always been–volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement.

Furthermore, McCain’s frequent “You don’t know anything” tirades about national security might be more effective if he had a better sense of the war in question. When I asked him about Basra in January, he assured me that it was “not a problem.”

Last week, he seemed to think it was a good idea for the militia that calls itself the Iraqi Army to attack the militia that calls itself the Mahdi Army. So did George W. Bush, who posited it as the good guys fighting the “terrorists.” This betrayed a fundamental lack of knowledge about Shi’ite politics, something any good President or presidential contender–especially one who styles himself a “national security” expert–needs to study.

McCain surely knows more about the military than Barack Obama does–and Obama certainly needs to learn more–but McCain’s carelessness and oversimplification, and wrong analysis, when it comes to the situation in Iraq puts him in a surprisingly vulnerable position.

100 Years War - Swampland - TIME.

Steve Benen had some very insightful comments on this on Crooks and Liars.com:

Quite right. I’d just add, however, that McCain already knows this. In fact, he’s admitted as much.

The point seems to have been largely forgotten, but back in November, after months of insisting that Korea could be a model for a long-term troop presence in Iraq, McCain abandoned this position, saying he doesn’t want to use Korea as a model, and adding that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make withdrawal inevitable.

Soon after, McCain went back to his original position again, saying that a Korean model is entirely appropriate. So, for those keeping score at home, McCain 1) endorsed a multi-decade presence in Iraq; 2) denounced a multi-decade presence in Iraq; 3) re-embraced his first point; and 4) blasted those who agreed with his second point as being incompetent.

At the risk of sounding impolite, this guy is starting to make Bush look like he’s engaged and knowledgeable.

Crooks and Liars - McCain’s Century Long Problem

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was “surprised” by violent clashes between central Iraqi government and militias connected to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr last week in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. “Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,” McCain told reporters on his campaign bus.As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted last night, at the same time McCain expressed surprise about the developments in Basra, he also got basic facts wrong about the ceasefire that halted the violence on Sunday. McCain claimed that “it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire,” not Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki:

Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see.’’

As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’s description of what happened is “completely misleading” and wrong. In fact, Sadr’s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki’s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him:

The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.

According to the AP, “the peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces” not only “left the cleric’s Mahdi Army intact,” but it also left Maliki “politically battered and humbled within his own Shi’ite power base.”

This is not the first time in recent memory that McCain has gotten basic facts about Iraq wrong. Two weeks ago, he repeatedly made false claims that Iran was training al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.