This ad is classic KARL ROVE.

Questions for McCain supporters:

1) How is sending troops from Afghanistan to Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan "being there for the troops?"

2) How is keeping 120,000+ troops in a deadly situation for 5+ years (100 years?) and with no mission "being there for the troops?"

Looking forward to your responses.

Jake Tapper hit this nail right on the head:
"New McCain Ad Bashes Obama for Not Visiting Troops Using Footage of Obama Visiting Troops"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/new-mccain-ad-b.html

John McCain's assertions have no basis in reality.

Numerous voters are rightfully rethinking their support for McCain including veterans. I do not know why vets support McCain anyhow considering he votes against their best interests.

More importantly after conceding his position on Iraq to Obama, McCain is left with nothing to run on except throwing the kitchen sink at him.

During a time when the country is about to fall into the abyss voters do not want to hear this BS.

We need to hear ideas, not attacks. Otherwise McCain will sink his own campaign if he hasn't already! I suspect the latter.

John McCain's assertions have no basis in reality.

Numerous voters are rightfully rethinking their support for McCain including veterans. I do not know why vets support McCain anyhow considering he votes against their best interests.

More importantly after conceding his position on Iraq to Obama, McCain is left with nothing to run on except throwing the kitchen sink at him.

During a time when the country is about to fall into the abyss voters do not want to hear this BS.

We need to hear ideas, not attacks. Otherwise McCain will sink his own campaign if he hasn't already! I suspect the latter.

Ummm, John McCain is full of it. First of all, McCain is ranking minority member on a Senate panel with Afgan war oversight and has missed every single hearing for years.

Obama is chair of a sub-committee that has oversight, but the full committee has held multiple hearings which Obama has attended. There's no need for sub-committee hearings if the full committee is holding hearings!

Secondly, Jack">Jack">http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2008/07/27/D926EA580_iraq_civilians_killed/index.html">Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel both say they went with Barack Obama to visit wounded soldiers in Iraq -- no cameras, no fanfare, no politics.

In both cases McCain is talking about himself, throwing stones from his glass house at a mirage.

TPM's Greg Sargent:

"""""I've just done a lap through the coverage by the big news orgs of the ad John McCain put out this weekend attacking Barack Obama for canceling his visit to a U.S. Army base in Germany.

CNN has a piece here, The New York Times has one here, The Washington Post has write-ups here and here, and the Associated Press has one here.

The stories did dutifully note the Obama camp's push-back against the ad. But not a single one of these reports told you that the ad is false."""""

Yes, our media REFUSES to report on the veracity/truthfulness of John McCain's political advertisements.

Our government is controlled by corporate aristocracy and our media is falling in line.

This, my friends, is as close as it gets to American fascism.

Pay close attention, because this is an historic era that will be studied by historians for decades to come. It will be considered the single worst period in the history of American governance.

Still waiting on our Republican friends' responses to my questions.

How is sending 4,124 American men and women to die in Iraq -- and 10s of thousands gravely wounded -- "BEING THERE FOR THE TROOPS"?

How? I'd like to know.

Will anyone from the Right be brave enough to give me a fact-based answer?

Or are you all going to wither in cowardice of the results of your War of Choice like John McCain?

I would like an answer. How is sending these brave, incredible young people to their deaths for no practical reason "being there for the troops" or for that matter "showing good judgment"?

Thank you for your response.

McFlipper just is not able to produce a single exciting, workable solution on ANYTHING.

And the hardest policy swipe he can take is that his opponent "works out at the gym"?????

I would think that McSame is getting a minute-to-minute game plan from Rove by cell phone, but then McSame would have to know how to use a cell phone...

McFlipper just is not able to produce a single exciting, workable solution on ANYTHING.

And the hardest policy swipe he can take is that his opponent "works out at the gym"?????

I would think that McSame is getting a minute-to-minute game plan from Rove by cell phone, but then McSame would have to know how to use a cell phone...

Oh gee, btw, THE SURGE IS WORKING™

"""Female bombers struck Kurdish political protesters in Kirkuk and Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad on Monday morning, leaving at least 48 people dead and 249 wounded in one of the bloodiest sequences of attacks in Iraq this year."""

"""The violence did not deter the marchers, who continued down one of Baghdad’s main thoroughfares, waving green flags, and with Shiite religious songs blaring from loudspeakers. The procession headed toward a sacred shrine named for the Shiite saint Imam Kadhim, whose death the marchers were commemorating. “This is what is called the Iraqi faith and belief,” said Mr. Allawi, the police officer."""

Get us OUT OF THERE. PLEASE.

The point is that Obama has done very little as a Senator. The best thing that should have happened was Obama as VP to Clinton as POTUS, hen after 8 years he could have the experience to become POTUS. But no, the misogynistic democrats, who in spite of feeling self righteous about themselves are severely anti- feminist. The democrats during this election will be studied as examples of the extreme misogyny of the post WW II era. Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson and the others at MSNBC will be quoted and students will be in disbelief that such statements could be made on national TV without anyone losing their jobs. Just like racism in the 1920's, sexism in 2008 is accepted without very many people speaking out. Every week in the US the news reports another woman tortured and murdered for being a woman, not unlike the lynchings of the 1920's. Many Clinton supporters are seething and many cannot vote for Obama because he has done absolutely nothing to heal the wounds of the primary and bring about the unity he uses as a slogan. Does it mean these democrats will actually vote for McCain? We'll see.

>>>the misogynistic democrats

Ha. You mean the Democrats that elected the first Woman Speaker of the United States House of Representatives?

Or the 13 women Democrats in the Senate?

(to the GOP's 3)

Or the 52 women Democrats in the House?

(to the GOP's 20)

THOSE misogynists?

And btw, I'm totally NOT surprised that not a single Republican has the guts to respond to my questions.

How is sending Americans to die in Iraq "being there for the troops"?

How is undercutting our forces in Afghanistan "being there for the troops"?

Any takers?

Didn't think so. Pathetic. Cowards. Liars. Deceivers. Frauds.

It is up to the rest of us -- the 70%+ who think the country is on the WRONG TRACK -- to throw the GOP bums out.

I am done with McCain. I voted for this guy in the primaries of 2000 and 2008 thinking he is a different kind of politician. But this ad and his recent attacks have been simply disgusting. Enough is enough. I do not want 8 more years of Bush/Rove styled negative attacks.

McCain has made this decision very easy for me over the weekend. I can't vote for McCain.

Reading through this liberal dominated Blog reinforces one thing, Liberals do NOT understand the Military. Remember the other day when Obama commented that all the TVs at the Military sites he visited were tuned to FOXNews even though CNN and (in some cases even MSNBC) were available. His first reaction was this must be "Commander-in-Chief" directed. In fact, it is because the Military is overwhelmingly conservative and is supporting a fellow Vet - someone they will not have to teach how to salute when elected. As a Career Military person, I can tell you Obama (like Clinton before him) will NEVER understand us. Clinton couldn't even understand why conduct that would subject a service member to Court Martial was even inappropriate for a "Commander-in-Chief."
-D

McCain, once a decent man has turned into a Rovian styled angry beast. McCain, stop this sh*t.

This is the same sh*tty McCain who voted against vets benefits just last month.

Well, there's a lot to talk about in this ad, but not much of the real discussion resembles what's in this series of responses.

First, the ad itself is yet another of the 1980's style slow-montage, portentious ads we've seen from the campaign recently. Who, exactly, is the target for this ad? Clearly not the committed pro-Obama forces, who will never watch more than a second of it? Probably not the Republicans, who won't see this addressing any of the issues that make them stand off from McCain. So, if they're targetting the independents, what data are they relying on to suggest that independents will be swayed by these images?

That may be the real story here: does the McCain campaign have some data which suggests a particular vulnerability on these specific points for Obama? Given how they're pounding it, seems likely. Would be nice if the OnCall or NJ staff could find some cross-tabs or any other information on this.

Oh, and as for the responses, Ethan? It's fairly clear that you don't share the mindset of most people who support the military. So what would be the point? It isn't fear or lack of a response. It's ennui.

>>>It's fairly clear that you don't share the mindset of most people who support the military. So what would be the point? It isn't fear or lack of a response. It's ennui.

So by your argument, you refuse to answer out of disinterest or boredom.

Okay. So I will assume that you consider sending the troops to die in Iraq for no reason, taking them out of an incomplete mission in Afghanistan, and then using soldiers for photo ops ("mission accomplished" "stroll through a Baghdad market") IS showing them support. Thanks for your non-response response.

I'm trying to understand the mind-set. If you would like to explain, please do.

Oh, and I know you have trouble with reading comprehension but for clarification's sake, I wasn't addressing the questions to "most people who support the military" (which implies that I DO NOT support the military which is clearly reprehensible). I was addressing the questions to REPUBLICANS.

So, in other words, there are still NO REPUBLICANS who are willing to confront the topic of "WHY we went into Iraq" and "WHY we left Afghanistan", and how those actions can possibly be perceived -- as John McCain frames them -- as SUPPORTING THE TROOPS.

Still waiting for one single solitary brave Republican soul to answer those questions. Pining refuses to...

Anyone on the Right want to try an answer?

Thank you.

I am one of the Proud Hillary Supporters that will vote against any Democrat running for office in Nov 2008.

Now I am a proud Supporter of John McCain.

Sigh, Ethan, thank you for not swearing or insulting me this time.

Let me try to clear up a couple of points I was trying to make to you:

1) The mindset of those both in and concerned with the military is never really "will I die if we do this?", although that's always a consideration. It's not even "other people will die or property will be destroyed if we do this." Instead, it's generally "is there a bigger reason why we're doing this?" That's why a member of the uniformed services will obey an order of a clearly incompetent leader, even at the cost of the serviceperson's death: there is a bigger point, and for most points, the bigger issues are worth more than death or destruction. Thus, your questions aren't really addressed to those who take that position, since the underlying premise is not agreed. Which leads to my next point:

2) Although you seek answers from those who disagree with you, and even "factual" answers, no one who disagrees with you (and I think I can see the viewpoint of those you are asking to address) sees any value in engaging you in discussion. What would be the point? Is there any serious expectation that YOUR mind will be changed? Is there ANY "fact" which can be offered which might change your mind? Similarly, is there any serious expectation that you are changing the minds of those you purport to be addressing? While there might be some who think a discussion with you might have some effect on the undecided, they would have to decide whether the carrot is worth the stick. And that's what I meant by "ennui:" Disinterest in having the argument (or discussion if you will).

I am not belittling your arguments, Ethan (well, maybe not all of them). When you are not screaming hatred and bile, you can pose interesting questions. Another poster, for example, offered the fact that the full committee has held hearings that Obama has attended even though his subcommittee has not; I found that an interesting, though wrong, argument on this point (which may be why the campaign hasn't stressed it). But people see your posts not as an invitation to debate, but as a motion for cloture.

Response... It's long but I hope you and others take a minute to read it:

1)

>>>>>>The mindset of those both in and concerned with the military

Again, you are leaving people like me out, assuming that people on the Left are "not concerned" with the military. Whether you intended it to mean "directly" or "indirectly" concerned does not matter. This is a false argument on its face and hits directly to the point I am trying to make. The attempted politicization of the military, the DoJ, every govt agency, makes us ALL weaker. Avoiding debate on crucial issues because of partisan politics makes us all weaker.

>>>>>>That's why a member of the uniformed services will obey an order

Which is why I continually refer to servicemen and women as "bravest of the brave".

>>>>>>there is a bigger point, and for most points, the bigger issues are worth more than death or destruction.

WHAT IS THE BIGGER POINT, Pining? THAT is my question!!!

Why did we go into Iraq? Why did we not finish the job in Afghanistan?

THAT is the point!

So simple, yet critically important. Questions that remain unanswered.

>>>>>>your questions aren't really addressed to those who take that position

My questions were posed to people of the Republican Party. You infer that people in the Republican Party all agree on Iraq and Afghanistan. You are incorrect in that assumption, and any common-sense view of the state of affairs in our country will come to that conclusion.

Politically, the Right is backed up against a wall specifically because of these questions. I just want an answer as to why those of us who oppose these choices (a vast majority of the country now, not just the Left) cannot get a straight answer on these basic questions. It is truly numbing.

2)

>>>>>>no one who disagrees with you ... sees any value in engaging you in discussion. What would be the point?

How about answering two of the most important foreign policy questions in a generation? That is the point. Your non-response response is just as telling as if you actually had provided a factual response. And that is, when push comes to shove you, and many other Republicans, refuse to answer these questions because -- in my view, based on the last 8 years -- you place party allegiance over support of the military, over the Constitution, over Democracy, over the good of the country. My view is based not on my own partisanship, but on a consistent pattern of actions and statements by the Republican President, Republicans in Congress, and vast numbers of "dead-ender" Republican voters like you.

>>>>>>Is there any serious expectation that YOUR mind will be changed?

No. But should we not have a debate on HOW and WHY we got into Iraq? Or HOW and WHY we left Afghanistan to smolder? You don't want to. You have proven my point. You won't answer these questions because you HAVE NO ANSWER, and you are too afraid to admit it. Not afraid of your party, afraid of admitting that you are fallible and that you made a mistake. It is weak and cowardly to never admit to your mistakes.

It is astonishing to me that not only will you and other supporters of Bush/Cheney/McCain continue to ignore these questions (solely out of partisan allegiance) but that your Presidential candidate is promulgating provably, laughably false assertions time and time again to achieve that political end. He is making a satire out of the very very serious and consequential Iraq/Afghanistan debate.

>>>>>>is there any serious expectation that you are changing the minds of those you purport to be addressing?

I believe that we need to have this debate. Whether it changes people's minds or not, I don't care. But we need to have it nonetheless. We are weaker as a country without a fact-based debate on Iraq and Afghanistan. As has clearly been shown over the years.

>>>>>>And that's what I meant by "ennui:" Disinterest in having the argument (or discussion if you will).

Disinterest in having the discussion with ME, perhaps, but the point I am making is valid. You refuse to address issues of critical importance because you have no answer. And your rationale -- stated or not -- is clearly because you place your allegiance to your political party over the well-being of the troops and the well-being of the country.

>>>>>>I am not belittling your arguments, Ethan (well, maybe not all of them). When you are not screaming hatred and bile, you can pose interesting questions.

Go ahead, belittle me. I can take it. But clearly, you cannot take even the slightest disagreement. I'd love to have a passionate fact-based debate on these issues. But you won't do it for reasons described above. Regardless, we, together as a country, cannot afford to be WEAK on the issue of Iraq/Afghanistan. And we are weak right now because we are divided. We are divided as a direct result of disingenuous and blatantly false assertions from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, McCain campaign subordinates, and elected officials in the GOP.

An intellectually-honest debate where people disagree is one thing. But again, the talking points from the Right are blatantly and provably false. Just yesterday John McCain repeated the 2004-era neocon talking point that we "were greeted as liberators".

You simply cannot have an intellectually-honest discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality. I hope people understand that and see through these tactics. I am sure most do, but I hold out hope that EVERYONE, categorically, across the political spectrum, will reject such transparently false rhetoric in this important time.

>>>>>>But people see your posts not as an invitation to debate, but as a motion for cloture.

Good. We should vote for cloture. All in favor?

We shouldn't even have to have a discussion on these issues in the Year of Our Lord, 2008. Invading and occupying Iraq was a catastrophic mistake, leaving Afghanistan prematurely was a catastrophic mistake, and not acknowledging and discussing these issues makes us weaker as a country.

This whole discussion started because of John McCain's false -- and in many eyes -- irresponsible ad.

More than 70% of the country thinks we are on the wrong track.

John McCain is using the exact same divisive political techniques as the Bush Administration...

Bottom line: we cannot trust this same group of people to have an honest debate. And so they must not be allowed to hold positions of power.

Sigh. I don't know why I'm not taking my own advice, but my religion teaches me that we must look inside every person for the Light. Even though when I asked: "Is there any serious expectation that YOUR mind will be changed?" You responded: "No."

So I won't go through each of your points, not because I "HAVE NO ANSWER" but because if you won't change your mind, why should I engage in a debate with you. Some people simply like debating. Nothing wrong with that; it is, for example, part of the essential learning process in school. But you waste my time and the time of many readers if all this is an endless recitation of talking points, which you have shown by your admissions, is what you want. I mainly post here to comment to Jennifer and other editors; I have no real expectation of much else.

Nevertheless, and against my best judgment, I will give you a little bit of what you so eagerly seek, as I have done in the past. You asked: "But should we not have a debate on HOW and WHY we got into Iraq? Or HOW and WHY we left Afghanistan to smolder? You don't want to. You have proven my point. You won't answer these questions because you HAVE NO ANSWER, and you are too afraid to admit it. Not afraid of your party, afraid of admitting that you are fallible and that you made a mistake. It is weak and cowardly to never admit to your mistakes."

I believe, Ethan, that this debate is going on and has been going on. That is what is behind many of the commercials and discussions throughout this country. And I believe that many people have have come to the conclusion that the original impetus for the war was false. Wrong, and badly so. I think it was wrong, and badly so. And I admit that my support for the war, based on what I read and heard, was also wrong. Happy? I don't think that's really an issue much more; I believe that the real issue now is that, having made a mess, what do we do to clean it up and get as close as possible to where we should be: with a functioning Iraq, as close to a democracy as it could be.

But the big difference, Ethan, and why I began with the mindset discussion, is between what you think the motivation was, and what I do. I believe the motivation was, at least in part, to protect this country. Was George W. Bush an idiot about it? Sure, as were many people around him. But the motivation for invading Iraq was to protect this country. And that is the motivation for many, if not all, of the servicepeople you claim to admire. They simply want to protect the people back home. And you're wrong about them being the "bravest of the brave," if by that you mean that they are remarkably different. The truly amazing thing about our men and women in uniform is how they are normal people, who just rise above the distressing political "debates" like this one to do what they believe needs to be done to allow us to have those debates. That's not "bravest of the brave," it's sacrifice. Sacrifice. The willingness to give up ALL to support someone and something you might actually disagree with. Our military is working in some of the worst hellholes on Earth, in essential secrecy, to lay the groundwork which might, just might, someday be useful to protect the national interests of the United States. The understanding of the meaning of sacrifice is what I meant when I said you don't understand their mindset.

But I digress; back to your (and now my) point about the motivation for the war. How did we get in there, and would it happen again? Obama seems more interested lately, in the "protection" motivation. Most strikingly, take a look at Obama's latest big ad push: the biggest problem facing the world is "loose nukes." Why is Obama promoting that problem? To avoid nuclear dumping in Antarctica? No, it's because he wants to protect the U.S., and probably the rest of the world, from the effects of loose nukes. Is Obama alone in that thought? No, as I pointed out in an earlier post, this effort started in 1947, and picked up steam under the Bush and Clinton Administrations, when there really were lots of loose nukes. The problem of loose nukes, by the way, is a lot less now, when Russia is rebuilding its armed forces, than back then, when there was literally no one guarding them. The Russian troops weren't being paid, and the stuff just sat outside and rusted.

But again I digress. You also said: "It is astonishing to me that not only will you and other supporters of Bush/Cheney/McCain continue to ignore these questions (solely out of partisan allegiance) but that your Presidential candidate is promulgating provably, laughably false assertions time and time again to achieve that political end. He is making a satire out of the very very serious and consequential Iraq/Afghanistan debate."

And this goes to the point about having the debate with you, Ethan. As you have shown time and again, and really admitted above, you are not interested in actually having a substantive debate, with an eye toward the future. All you seem to care about is attacking Republicans. Could you, for example, believe that it might be pure incompetence which caused breakdowns in pre-war intelligence. Remember the military mindset discussion we just had? Everyone who's ever had any contact with military or intelligence communities knows that incompetence is so ubiquitous that it is amazing that things work so well. Want to know why the military does certain things certain ways? Because they assume people will mess up, and they work hard to find ways to minimize the fallout when it does happen. Think about changing the Rules of Engagement during a battle? Happens all the time these days. Or a friend of mine was in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded, laying the groundwork which became "Charlie Wilson's War" in the popular venacular. Helping what became the Taliban, because they didn't know they'd become the Taliban. But I'll bet that you have to believe that what I see as sincerely-intended incompetence was intention deception or evil. "Lies" or something like that. And you transfer that perceived intention to make political points, and really only rhetorical political points.

For example, you might say, there was no WMD in Iraq (I don't recall that you actually said that). You might say Bush lied about there being WMD to justify going to war. To digress again: just last week, the U.S. and its international allies concluded one of the most important clandestine missions of recent years: the removal of many tons of yellowcake and other uranium products from Iraq. The last 700 tons landed secretly in a Canadian port, as part of a months-long effort to get it out of Iraq without its diversion to Iran or somewhere else. That's as big a success as the program to control "loose nukes." Yet it was buried inside the Washington Post and other papers. Does it show that the war was justified by WMD? Perhaps, perhaps not. It does show that Iraq had raw materials from which to prepare dangerous weapons, even after the Israelis took out their reactors. So I wonder whether there were, in fact, "lies" or not, or just a frantic push to get public opinion behind a course of action intended to protect the same public.

Well, this little pointless exercise has gone on long enough. I only wanted to show you that there are fact-based arguments; whether you believe or not is irrelevant, Ethan, since you said your mind wouldn't be changed.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled discussions.

>>>not because I "HAVE NO ANSWER" but because if you won't change your mind, why should I engage in a debate with you.

Because I want everyone viewing this -- including me -- to see what you have to say for yourself, that's why.

>>>an endless recitation of talking points

Be that as it may, but I am trying to get around the sound bytes and talking points to get to the base, honest viewpoint of someone like you. I explain myself, too much, granted, but only in the hopes that we can have an honest, fact-based discussion and NOT to simply regurgitate talking points.

>>>I admit that my support for the war, based on what I read and heard, was also wrong. Happy?

Yes. Absolutely that makes me happy. Not to point my finger in your face and say "see you were wrong" but -- and I mean this in all sincerity -- you CANNOT have an honest debate without two sides being on the same playing field, namely, debating in an intellectually honest fashion on the merits of the facts. Again, that is the entire point of my trying to have a discussion -- any fact-based discussion -- with someone on the Right. If you think that amounts to a pointless waste of time and repetition of talking points, that is your loss. But to me this, now, is just the beginning of a positive substantive discussion. Something that is exceedingly rare between the parties.

It shouldn't be this way. I shouldn't have to accuse someone of being unable or unwilling to have an honest debate to elicit a fair comment. And I have noticed this pattern again and again with the Right. Lie, deceive, deflect, spin... Until you call them a coward, then they begin to change their tune. It is a clear pattern that I have seen. Pretty remarkable, really. Unfortunately for you, I am pretty stubborn and refuse to accept disingenuous arguments.

>>>I believe the motivation was, at least in part, to protect this country.

Wow. I guess you really believe that. Well, in all honesty, good for you for staying true to that belief.

It should come as no surprise that i find that view unbelievably naive.

>>>that is the motivation for many, if not all, of the servicepeople you claim to admire. They simply want to protect the people back home

That much I am 100% confident about. And I hope that it is one point where we can find unequivocal unmitigated agreement.

>>>The understanding of the meaning of sacrifice is what I meant when I said you don't understand their mindset.

See, now. I just don't understand how you can say that. Do you HONESTLY think that I don't understand the sacrifice that the troops have made? It is just mind-boggling. You must think I am other than a human being. I might add that while I do not sacrifice in the same way or even nearly at the same level, I do sacrifice much for my beliefs. And I hope you would recognize that I do so out of good will for our country and the better of the planet. Beyond this surface-level discussion, the capability of sacrifice is -- while not unique to our species -- clearly a defining sociological condition of human beings since before the advent of civilization. Any attempt of people in this day and age to try to co-opt that sacrifice as being definitive to one political party or solely members of the U.S. military is laughable. That is said not to minimize that sacrifice in the least, but to point out what is, and should be, common sense.

>>>The truly amazing thing about our men and women in uniform is how they are normal people

They may be normal people, but they have volunteered their lives -- and made the aforementioned sacrifices -- during a dangerous time and for a dangerous set of circumstances. That to me highlights their bravery.

>>>loose nukes

I agree with your comments. I don't think loose nukes are the biggest security challenge. But I do think that the point of the ad -- to show Obama's ability to work across the aisle on matters of extreme importance -- is incredibly valuable for people to see. Experience is important, but so is common sense and pragmatism.

I do think security and terrorism are major dilemmas that needs to be addressed. I also do sincerely think that Barack Obama is more than capable of leading the fight against the terrorists. And I do sincerely think that neglecting the opium/heroin production in Afghanistan and neglecting the border regions of Pakistan ARE the major continuing threats to the fight against terror. Both issues that imho Bush and McCain are far too slow in admitting or recognizing, much less in issuing calls for action.

>>>you are not interested in actually having a substantive debate

Not true. I said I would not change my mind. Two very very different animals.

>>>Could you, for example, believe that it might be pure incompetence which caused breakdowns in pre-war intelligence.

No. Based on publicly available information, no, I could not believe that. I don't think any new information would change that opinion simply because of sheer volume of documented evidence that the Bush Administration cherry-picked certain evidence and repeated them ad nauseum, while making the conscious decision to minimize and subvert other evidence. This is documentary, Pining, not unsubstantiated assertions. I am talking about a litany of documented evidence that backs these facts.

>>>Re: yellowcake

Newsweek:

"""Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."""

Raw materials? Yes.

Reconstituting a nuclear weapons program as we were told? Clearly not.

I think the clandestine mission is a remarkable show of the capabilities of the U.S. military. The lack of reporting on the subject is notable especially in light of the infamous 16 words in the SOTU and in regards to the Plame affair. Clearly Saddam was not a threat and the intelligence, particularly the Niger claim, was twisted to persuade the American people to support War in Iraq.

As for the rationale for the invasion that you claim to be national security... At the end of the day, I don't think we'll ever know for sure, but in my honest opinion I believe it is a nasty combination of oil, contracting (KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater), and the short-term political expediency of War-time politics.

All told, I do agree that the debate needs to be refocused on the national stage to "where do we go from here"?

And I think it behooves all of us -- Right, Left, Indie, the media, everyone -- to get clear, honest answers about that before the election.

So far it seems that Obama has a clear plan of a conditions-based phased withdrawal from Iraq and re-engagement with Taliban/terrorists in Afghanistan/Pakistan.... And John McCain... Well... It could be anything from 100 years or longer in Iraq and no change in Afghanistan, to impugning Barack Obama for playing basketball with the troops.

But, to your point about moving forward with the discussion, Pining, the position of "see the surge is working" does not cut it. Nor does having a different answer each time you are asked.

I was looking forward to McCain's campaign being -- finally -- a fair discussion on the issues. It has turned into more of the same, Rovian gutter politics. Let's see if McCain can rescue himself from his self-imposed rhetorical morass. I hope he can for all of our sakes.

MY VOTE IS UP FOR GRABS BY THE PERSON THAT IS WILLING TO HELP WITH THIS SITUATION BECAUSE SO FAR NO ONE SEEMS TO THINK IT IS THEIR JOB

TELL US WHY THIS IS HAPPENING AND WHY THE GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN NO NEED TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS FROM LOSING THIER KIDS WHEN THEY ARE DEPLOYED. YOUR REWARDS TO OUR TROOPS IS A PRICE TO HIGH FOR THEM TO HAVE TO PAY AND THE DEVISTATION TO THEM FINACIALLY THEY CERTAINLY DON'T GET PAID ENOUGH TO ENDOR THE COST OF LAWYERS.

WE REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE REASONS FOR THIS

MILITARY TROOP DEPLOYMENT AND CHILD CUSTODY
There is a war going on...but, you already knew that.
Did you know that throughout our country something has been happening for years that people are not aware of, including our military men and women.

When they are deployed in the service of their country, they are at risk of losing their children to a non-custodial parent. Even if the non-custodial parent is a virtual stranger, and has had little or no contact with the children.

The military requires its personnel to have, in effect, a 'Family Care Plan'. Most service men and women are under the assumption that the plan will maintain the family unit that they have established prior to being
deployed. Most Family Courts may or may not know of the Military's 'Family Care Plan', therefore, they may choose not to acknowledge it, and so change the custody of the children, on a temporary order, to the non-custodial parent. When the custodial parent returns from active duty, he/she is faced with having to fight for the return of custody of their children. In many cases, custody of the children is not reversed.

There are several states such as California, Arkansas, and Wisconsin, to name a few, which have already passed laws to protect soldiers from the courts which are allowing this to happen. Since this is a national
problem, there should be laws in every state to protect military personnel, and these laws should be backed by the Family Courts.

There was a law passed in January, 2008, which was an amendment to the Service Members Civil Relief Act, but it does not provide strong enough language explaining to the courts what they should do. The new bill
HR6048 will give clarity to the previous law. This law is attached to 5658 section 4510, section 208 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization, attached to the 2009 Budget #1218 which is now in the Senate Committee for debate. When HR6048 passes, it then becomes the state's responsibility to adopt the new law
giving the family courts much needed direction.

Children can now be taken thousands of miles away from the families and friends who have raised and cared for them, and placed into the care of strangers. What will be the effects to their stability and well-being? Is this what is really "in the best interest of the child?"

How did we know this is happening? We didn't, not until our four year old grandson was taken three thousand miles away to a parent, a stranger, he had only seen three times, briefly, in the last two years. This court action happened two days before his father was deployed.

It does not matter what your personal feelings are about the war. This is something that should not be
happening. Our soldiers are putting their lives on the line for all of us. In most cases, no action would have been taken against them had they not been deployed.

The effects of these events are leaving our soldiers going off to war without knowing what is happening to their
children. Concern for their children distracts them from being able to concentrate on their duties.

Would men and women be willing to volunteer for service if they new their children could be taken away from them? If they don't volunteer, WHO WILL?

Many of our Senators and Congressmen have been informed of this issue. However, they have not taken enough action to pass the law which is presently waiting in the Senate. This law, combined with state laws, will protect our soldiers from such an action.

We need to stand behind our soldiers and protect them while they are fighting a war to protect us. It is our
responsibility to them.

The responsibility of a Family Court Judge is to uphold the laws of the state in which he/she presides. We must give them stronger laws and consequences for not adhering to them.

We have all seen our flag displayed in every courtroom.

Our Judges are supposed to apply the laws of the land, but sometimes it seems they have been sitting in front of the flag for so long, they have forgotten about the men and women who are willing to stand behind it!

Very few people know this is happening across the country. But now YOU know.

Don’t wait for this to happen to you or your loved ones…

Tell people. Tell everyone you know.

If you would like further information please contact Kathy at kmfcad@aol.com

Attleboro Massachusetts