Regressives like John McCain and King George are STANDING IN THE WAY of
Iraqi sovereignty.

It is quite obvious why Senator McCain is keeping his plan for Iraq a secret, for practical reasons. Since he is keeping it a secret, one can infer it is probably not completley in line with the Adminstration's "everything is fine and dandy." Anyone (Democrat or Republican) who faces the reality of Iraq publicly is going to take a hit politically, in some capacity. I'm not suggesting that Senator McCain is necessarily proposing an immediate withdrawl, but whatever it is it won't settle well with the some of the people he needs to please to get the position. Then once on the position, take to the soapbox or whatever.

are you defending mccain, angry id?

Regressives like John McCain and King George are DENYING OUR BOYS
the heroes welcome they deserve!

jen,

not answering for angry id, perhaps this mccain position is such that mccain's aware the slime damage rove can inflict, having experienced it once before in the 2000 run up against their favorite boy, kingbush. if he makes it sound like some form of cut'n run, mccain can forget any support from rove in 2008. that would be the end of mccain as he knows it. mccain has to maintain the party line. but, perhaps it's also a political ploy too? maybe setting himself up for 2008 to take over kingbush's mess ... whoever takes over will be in over their heads with the stench. on another note, queen condi thinking the microphone was off having a few with the russian diplomat...what did she expect? the russian diplomat to help kingbush fix the broken iraq aka repairing the pottery (rule) after the fact? i guess they have to send her. no one would take cheney nor rumsfield seriously. and kingbush, who'd want him except the japanese prime minister who dreams about the king (elvis that is).

Someone thinks I'm defending Senator McCain, from what? I attempted to state logically why the above actions might be true: I forgot to mention Presidential Run, if that's still in the cards. Well I will let you draw your own conclusions as to whether it's a simple statement of fact or a god-fearing defense.

angry id,

maybe it's a rove-fearing defense? rove can be very nasty to repubs that don't follow his line. and of course mccain does want to be president.

I hadn't given thought to the rove factor, but that certainly could be part of the equation. Like I said you don't get to be committee chair by telling people what they don't want to hear.

I meant "god-fearing defense" figuratively, not literally.

everything about the republicans has to be a big secret

what's the big democratic secret to fixing the mess in iraq

GET RID OF THE REPUBLICANS!

and it ain't no secret

It has been ovious to me for quite some time McCain is a Major War Monger. He supports raising the number of troop to some Un-Godly level just to make sure the job gets done. I absolutely swear to you he, mccain does not care about the cost in dollars, or cost in blood, because it will not be his blood or anyone he is close to. However ever since I have listened to him, for several years because he is my senator, it has become obvious he is still upset about us leaving Vietnam the way we did. He would do Anything, and he has said so publically, he would do ANYTHING to take control of this war and show us all how to win it. He has said over and over, and over, the Iraq war must be won, "At ANY COST"! He means just that, he would nuke'em if he thought it needed to be done. He has said, at ANY COST, his words, not mine. God I wish he was up for re-election, he has gone against his party and my old one for on the immigration issue, which I think could cost the democrats the huge win they could have gotten in November, if they would have taken my advice. It was a set up to get Democrats to look like they were against Americans who can vote, and for the Illegal Aliens who can not vote. And just like clock work, the dummies at democratic headquarters fell right for it. Notice how those republicans who voted for that bill, and who were NOT up for re-election are now changing their tunes. I warned our party, many many time. However, I still have hope us democrats can pull off a victory, I strongly feel the future of our country could depend on us winning control back of at least one house. Please I beg all of you, donate more, and go to your states party website and go vol. for things they need done, it will have to be a grassroots effort because we have big oil, and big business totally against us. Good luck all, see you at the polls in November!

Well, Tracy Russo,

Perhaps you have never been part of a bureaucracy. While your ideas are important to someone, they are not necessarily important to everyone until you are in a position to determine that such ideas are that important. Consequently, some Senator can express an idea and it will be one idea among many ideas being expressed by many Senators, or a Chairman can express an idea and it will be the idea that sets the standard for further discussion. If my idea were really good, I think I would wait to become the chairman to express it.

Well, Tracy Russo,

Perhaps you have never been part of a bureaucracy. While your ideas are important to someone, they are not necessarily important to everyone until you are in a position to determine that such ideas are that important. Consequently, some Senator can express an idea and it will be one idea among many ideas being expressed by many Senators, or a Chairman can express an idea and it will be the idea that sets the standard for further discussion. If my idea were really good, I think I would wait to become the chairman to express it.

"Well, Tracy Russo,"

aka you get the approval from karl rove.

US Seen as a Bigger Threat to Peace Than Iran, Worldwide Poll Suggests
· Findings also show fall in support for war on terror
· Decline in America's image 'all to do with Iraq'

by Ewen MacAskill

George Bush's six years in office have so damaged the image of the US that people worldwide see Washington as a bigger threat to world peace than Tehran, according to a global poll.
The Washington-based Pew Research Centre, in a poll of 17,000 people in 15 countries between March and May, found more people concerned about the US presence in Iraq than about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.

The Pew Centre said: "Despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the US presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace."

THE REASON WHY AMERICAN TROOPS ARE IN IRAQ...

BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS

THE PLAN TO SOLVE THE MESS IN IRAQ...

GET RID OF BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

US Seen as a Bigger Threat to Peace Than Iran, Worldwide Poll Suggests

· Findings also show fall in support for war on terror

· Decline in America's image 'all to do with Iraq'

George Bush's six years in office have so damaged the image of the US that people worldwide see Washington as a bigger threat to world peace than Tehran, according to a global poll.
The Washington-based Pew Research Centre, in a poll of 17,000 people in 15 countries between March and May, found more people concerned about the US presence in Iraq than about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions.

The Pew Centre said: "Despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the US presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace."

The survey, carried out annually, shows a continued decline in support for the US since 1999. The US image for most of the 20th century has been relatively positive, being regularly identified with democracy, human rights and openness in spite of criticism from the left, which reached a height during the Vietnam war, and a residual suspicion in the Muslim world.

But even in the UK, Washington's closest ally, favourable ratings have slumped from 83% in 1999 to 56% this year. The pattern is similar in France, down from 62% to 39%, Germany 78% to 37%, and Spain 50% to 23%.

In Muslim countries with which the US has traditionally enjoyed a good relationship, such as Turkey - a member of Nato - and Indonesia, there have also been slumps. In Indonesia favourable ratings for the US have dropped from 75% to 30%, and in Turkey from 52% to 12%.

"It's all [because of] Iraq," Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Centre, said. He added that it was a sign of how "dangerous Iraq is to the US image" that, in spite of common cause between the US and Europeans on Iran, there had been no improvement in the American position in Europe.

bush and the republicans tried unlaterilism and it failed

bush and the republicans are now floundering because they have no multi-lateral or international support

THE PROBLEM IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN

GET RID OF bush and the republicans and win back international support on the war on terror

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

Bomb Blast in Baghdad Kills at Least 66
By KIM GAMEL, AP

DAD, Iraq (July 1) -- A parked car bomb exploded at a popular outdoor market Saturday in a Shiite slum in Baghdad, killing at least 66 people and wounding dozens, authorities said. It was the bloodiest attack to hit Iraq since the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The blast, which occurred around 10 a.m. when the Sadr City market was packed with shoppers, destroyed the stalls where food and clothes are peddled and sent up a plume of gray smoke. Flames shot out the windows of several scorched cars.

Ambulances rushed to the scene and carried the victims to hospitals, where men cradled crying babies as doctors bandaged them. Rasoul Zaboun, an official from the Imam Ali Hospital in Sadr City, said 66 people were killed and 87 wounded.

Police Col. Hassan Jaloob also said 22 shops and stalls were destroyed, along with 14 vehicles.

Angry residents swarmed around the wreckage, with several young men chanting as they rocked the burned out hulk of the car that apparently held the explosives.

No group claimed responsibility for the attack. But car bombings and suicide attacks against Shiite civilians have often been blamed on al-Qaida in Iraq, which al-Zarqawi led until he was killed in a U.S. airstrike June 7.

Al-Zarqawi's death has not brought a halt to the attacks. At least 631 Iraqi civilians and security forces were killed between June 8 and June 30, according to Associated Press figures. That includes 25 people killed Monday in a bicycle bombing in Baqouba.

Also Saturday, gunmen kidnapped a Sunni female member of parliament in a Shiite area of the capital, officials said.

U.S.: Political Motive Suspected In Iraq Troop-Withdrawal Plan

WASHINGTON, June 27, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. media are reporting that General George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, has drawn up a plan suggesting a significant reduction of forces in that country beginning as soon as three months from now.

The plan would be contingent on the degree of violence in Iraq and the ability of the country's own forces to take over security operations. The report contradicts past statements by U.S. President George W. Bush, who has argued that such a move would embolden Iraqi insurgents. "Despite the sincerity of our motives and the great sacrifice of our troops, we are, at the end of the day, relatively unpopular in Iraq. And we also certainly help the insurgency motivate and recruit its followers." -- O'Hanlon

And on June 22, speaking at the Pentagon, Casey himself said he was opposed to setting a specific timetable for any reduction in U.S. troop strength in Iraq.

"I don't like it. I feel that it would limit my flexibility," he said. "I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable, and I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that is trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."

Casey's Decision

Yet within days, reports were circulating that Casey had drawn up just such a plan. Asked on June 26 about the reports, Bush said troop levels will be determined by what Casey believes he needs to help the Iraqis begin taking responsibility for their own security.

"The New York Times" reported that Casey's plan would eliminate two of the 14 combat brigades in Iraq, and cut three or four more by the end of 2007. A brigade has around 3,500 troops.

"In terms of our troop presence there [in Iraq], that decision will be made by General Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground," Bush said. "And one of the things that General Casey assured me of is that whatever recommendation he makes, it will be aimed toward achieving victory, and that's what we want."

Step Toward Stability

The first report of Casey's plan came on June 25, the day Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki presented a plan in Baghdad for national reconciliation. It included an outline for government policy, but didn't urge a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, as had been demanded by minority Sunni Arab political leaders.

At this stage of the war, is it acceptable for a U.S. general to lay out plans, however conditional, for withdrawal just as a new government is trying to assert its validity? Yes, says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign and defense policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

O'Hanlon says that although U.S. troops are meant to stabilize Iraq, they're also having a destabilizing effect, because Iraqis see them as occupiers. At the same time, he says, Washington is showing its good intentions by making any withdrawal contingent on the stability of the Iraqi government.

"Despite the sincerity of our motives and the great sacrifice of our troops, we are, at the end of the day, relatively unpopular in Iraq. And we also certainly help the insurgency motivate and recruit its followers," O'Hanlon says.

"So I think it's only responsible to be thinking about how you can reduce [forces], and send messages that you would like to reduce," he adds. "On the other hand, you're also indicating a willingness to stay in place and remain resolved and committed. So it's kind of an inherent contradiction, but that's the reality of this type of mission."

Political, Election Issue

The reports of Casey's force-reduction plan followed a week of debate in Congress over the future of U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Members of Bush's Republican Party argued nearly unanimously in favor of Bush's goal of victory.

Democrats offered various counterarguments to that. Many, however, called for a phased withdrawal similar to the plan reportedly outlined by Casey. Republicans responded that Democrats want to abandon the Iraqis.

Polls show the Republicans may lose control of Congress in the November elections. Republicans are vulnerable for a variety of reasons, including the growing unpopularity of the war among American voters.

Question Of History

Could Bush be trying to improve the chances of his fellow Republicans by directing Casey to outline a troop-reduction plan that would begin a month or so before the elections? Not necessarily, O'Hanlon says, because Bush is a second-term president and can't run for a third term.

"Second-term presidents think at least as much about their place in history as they do about congressional midterm elections," O'Hanlon says. "In one sense, historical legacy is the ultimate form of politics -- that a president who begins to sense that his time is limited in the White House wants to be thought of with some of the great leaders of this country's history. And for Mr. Bush, that requires some level of success in Iraq. There's simply no way that he could be seen in historical context as a successful president if this war winds up in failure."

At the same time, O'Hanlon says, if Bush is indeed ready to begin reducing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq for strictly military reasons, he's not unaware that the timing of that decision, and the upcoming congressional elections, would benefit his party.

Timing Is Key

Still, O'Hanlon says, Democrats can feel vindicated that what many of them are thinking is parallel with Casey's own plans. And he says Bush himself would admit that he is not interested in staying indefinitely in Iraq.

But O'Hanlon says there's another way to look at the Bush administration's consideration of reducing troop levels in Iraq: "It's reasonable to say, 'Listen, now that Iraq has a sovereign government in place, we can have a more serious conversation about a strategy for downsizing our presence.' And that's not cynical, that's timed to the reality of this new Iraqi government. Even those of us who might have preferred this kind of conversation to happen sooner -- and might have thought it would bring benefits because it would have reduced the perception of the United States as an occupying power -- we can still see that there is a legitimacy to having this conversation begin now."

O'Hanlon says he believes there have been "a lot of mistakes" in Bush's Iraq policy, but at least now the president is being open-minded about developing a troop-withdrawal strategy.

WHAT'S bush and the republicans POSITION ON IRAQ?

Bush Downplays Talk of Troop Withdrawal

WHITE HOUSE (AP) - President Bush is downplaying reports of plans to sharply cut the number of US troops in Iraq.

Bush says there must be a victory in which the Iraqi government is self-sufficient and can defend itself. He says Iraqis will decide when troops can leave, in conjunction with recommendations from the U.S. military commander.

Earlier, Bush spokesman Tony Snow played down reports that as many as 7,000 U.S. troops, or two combat brigades, might leave Iraq in September.

Snow said, "Maybe they will, maybe they won't." He said it depends on factors that can't be predicted at this time.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IN IRAQ?
bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN?

GET RID OF bush and the republicans

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

COST OF WAR

Below is a running total of the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War. The number is based on Congressional appropriations.

The War in Iraq Costs

$292,618,553,431

See the cost in your community

Or compare to the cost of:
PRE-SCHOOL
KIDS' HEALTH
COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIPS
PUBLIC HOUSING
PUBLIC EDUCATION

Notes and Sources
Embed a counter in your own web page!
Set up an LED counter on Main Street in your town.

In April, 2003 an intergenerational team of Niko Matsakis of Boston, MA and Elias Vlanton of Takoma Park, MD created costofwar.com. After maintaining it on their own for the first year, they gave it to the National Priorities Project to contribute to their ongoing educational efforts.

WHY IS AMERICA IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND PLAN TO FIX IRAQ

GET RID OF bush and the republicans

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

WHEN bush and the republicans INVADED IRAQ DID THEY HAVE A PLAN?

No.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN?

Get rid of bush and the republicans

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

WMD report hardly comes as a surprise

Fernando Sereix
Cooper City
Posted July 1 2006

Re Kathleen Parker's column, "Why the muted response to WMD report?": The recovery of 500 weapons munitions (weapons and ammunition) that contain degraded chemical agents since 2003 does not sound like a reason to jump for joy and conclude that the administration's claims prior to the invasion were indeed correct.

First of all, it falls well short of the tens of thousands of pounds of chemical weapons thought to be in Saddam Hussein's arsenal along with his capability to deliver a nuclear weapon in 45 minutes.

Then there's the possibility that some of these recovered munitions could have come across the border along with all the foreign fighters since the invasion.

No, the muted response is not a surprise. The administration has already admitted that the Iraqi pre-invasion intelligence was flawed as well as the post-invasion occupation.

WHERE ARE THE WMD'S?

bush and the republicans were wrong.

WHY AREN'T WE REDPLOYING TROOPS

bush and the republicans.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH IRAQ?

bush and the republicans.

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans.

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN TO FIX IRAQ?

get rid of bush and the republicans.

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

WHO'S CUTTING TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY?

bush and the republicans

WHO'S RUNNING UP THE FEDERAL DEFICIT?

bush and the republicans

WHO'S THE "CUT AND RUN" PARTY?

bush and the republicans

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHY ISN'T THE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?

bush and the republicans

WHY ARE OUR SOLDIERS DYING IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHY DIDN'T THEY FIND WMD'S IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHY AREN'T WE REPDEPLOYING TROOPS?

buhs and the republicans

WHY WASN'T THERE MULTI-LATERAL SUPPORT FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN TO FIX QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ?

get rid of bush and the republicans

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

WHEN bush and the republicans INVADED IRAQ DID THEY HAVE A PLAN?

No.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN?

Get rid of bush and the republicans

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

Because OCCUPATIONS ARE NEITHER WON NOR LOST, one has to assume that regressives like John McCain and King George want a DRAFT!

Why do they need a draft? A growing number of our troops over there are illegal aliens. They have a steady supply of foreign mercenaries at their fingertips. Just promise them citizenship and then redeloy them till they die.

hey i got an idea...

...let's draft the bush twins...

...let's send those two brats to iraq...

...i'm sure they would make great soldiers in the war on terror!

Osama Bin Laden is trying to bankrupt our country!
Why have John McCain and King George sided with the enemy?

the self professed psychologist has spoken

criticize the messagenger...

...when you can no longer criticize the message

WHERE ARE THE WMD'S?

bush and the republicans were wrong.

WHY AREN'T WE REDPLOYING TROOPS

bush and the republicans.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH IRAQ?

bush and the republicans.

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans.

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN TO FIX IRAQ?

get rid of bush and the republicans.

WHO'S CUTTING TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY?

bush and the republicans

WHO'S RUNNING UP THE FEDERAL DEFICIT?

bush and the republicans

WHO'S THE "CUT AND RUN" PARTY?

bush and the republicans

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHY ISN'T THE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?

bush and the republicans

WHY ARE OUR SOLDIERS DYING IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHY DIDN'T THEY FIND WMD'S IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHY AREN'T WE REPDEPLOYING TROOPS?

bush and the republicans

WHY WASN'T THERE MULTI-LATERAL SUPPORT FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN TO FIX QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ?

get rid of bush and the republicans

WHEN bush and the republicans INVADED IRAQ DID THEY HAVE A PLAN?

No.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM IN IRAQ?

bush and the republicans

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION AND THE PLAN?

Get rid of bush and the republicans

AND IT AIN'T NO SECRET

ann coulter criticizes the 911 wives

bush doesn't give Cindy Sheehan the time of day

but when someone suggests the bush "brats" sign up for the army...

...ooooohhhh, they must be crazy

that's the republicans for you.

nothing but a bunch of war mongering chickenhawks...

who are brave enough to send other people to fight a war that no one supports but the oil industry

but are too chicken s**t to send their own children

bush and the republicans are cowards

bush is brave enough to send americans children to die in a war based on lies...

...but he is too much of an uncompassionate coward to even look at Cindy Sheehan eye to eye.

bush and the republicans are cowards

New Poll: do you support the war if you must also support a draft?

Why don't we democrats forcefully ask the american people their opinions of the war based upon requiring a draft as a prerequisite for supporting the war? If we drove this point hard, couldn't that help bring the war into a more reasonable light in terms of how much support it really has? I am so sick of these lazy-boy chair warriers who only see real blood when they get paper cuts reading their stock option reports, or their draft deferments during Vietnam. Every poll on the war that doesn't require those who support it to commit something to it is invalid. This is real life ladies and gentlemen, not sega or gameboy. When people die in war, they are really dead and our kids are dying every day. The elections are coming. Its time to tighten the noose.

isn't it funny how when republican apologists can no longer come up with excuses for the failed republican policy...

that there predictable response is...

it's the democrats fault because they don't have a plan

wah wah wahhhhhh

i'm not voting democrat because it's the democrats fault that the republicans invaded iraq

wah wah wahhhhhh

republicans love to blame the democrats for their failed policies

republicans predictably start blaming the democrats because they don't have a plan...

the reality is the republicans don't either...

the republicans haven't the slightest clue what they're doing...

and the republicans blame the democrats because of the republicans are ridiculously clueless

wah wah wahhhhh

the republicans have screwed everything up...

why don't the democrats have a plan.

the republicans are ridiculous idiots...

why don't the democrats have a plan.

wah wah wahhhhhh

wah wah wahhhhhhhhhhh

"i am a disgruntled republican

who thinks the war in iraq was a mistake

and because the DEMOCRATS don't have a plan

i plan on voting republican

that'll show those DEMOCRATS whose boss"

wah wah wahhhhhhhhh

wah wah wahhhhhhhhhhh

"i am a disgruntled republican

who thinks the war in iraq was a mistake

and because the DEMOCRATS don't have a plan

i plan on voting republican

that'll show those DEMOCRATS whose boss"

wah wah wahhhhhhhhh

Any chance of someone providing a synopsis, or a list of Rovian Telling Points (not common sense talking points) that I can reflect on? Unfortunately the Financial Times has a subscription-based login that I have no intention of pursuing, even if it is to INTELLIGENTLY comment for my favorite 2008 Presidential Candidate. But by all means feel free to resort to salacious rumormongering and the like. Maybe I can pick out the new account Karl Rove$ is using (as if I can't tell from the 46 postings).

What are you saying McCain?

he's not really saying anything

"Sometimes, unfortunately, the debate seems to have deteriorated into slogans, but overall I think this debate has been very helpful. I want to reiterate the fact that we should respect the views of those who disagree with us. I respect and have known my colleagues that are sponsors of these amendments, and believe a good, healthy, strong debate is what this nation needs. "

"Madam President, there is an old line about those of us who ignored the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Afghanistan is the classic example of what could happen in Iraq. After years and years of incredible assistance to those who were seeking freedom from the then-Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan, the Russians were driven out. Then, incredibly, the United States of America totally disengaged from Iraq. I recommend to my colleagues the reading of a book called “Ghost Wars” by Steven Cole, which won a Pulitzer Prize. Of course, came the Taliban. The Taliban then obviously was not only a terribly oppressive, brutal, cruel regime, but it also became a hotbed of training for terror today. A failed state in Iraq would pose a clear, present, and enduring danger to the security of our country. "

"I also ask if we withdraw and the violence actually worsens, or if the terrorists enjoy save haven and make plans against America and our friends? Do we then face the options of tolerating the situation in perpetuity or reinvading the country? We have just one choice in Iraq. Understand, that is to see our mission there through to victory. "

"Many of us have been terribly frustrated by the inflated estimates and over optimistic statements that so frustrated us and the American people when the conditions don’t warrant it. And it’s still tough today. And we cannot fall prey to wishful thinking. We shall put the costs and difficulties and the difficult frustrations aside. "

"Madam President, I want to congratulate my colleagues for their participation in this debate. The American people expect nothing less of us. I hope that we are a better-informed nation and a better-informed body as we - -when we vote on this, and it will probably not be the last time that we address this issue. But I think it’s been done in a comprehensive fashion. I would close by reminding my colleagues, it was the United State that led the invasion of Iraq. The United States led the occupation and the United States, with our Iraqi partners, has the responsibility to see this through. It’ll take more time, more commitment, more support, and sadly more brave Americans will lose their lives in the service this great cause. And despite our cajoling, nagging, and pleading, few other countries around the world will share much of our burden. Iraq is for us to do, for us to win or lose, for us to suffer the consequences or share in the benefits. But in the end, there’s only one United States of America, and it is to us that history will look for courage and commitment. "

Exerpted from http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1777

So I now know that John McCain has no faith that the current Iraq situation (not War) can be Evolved into an arms-length assistance pact similar to what we have with present-day South Korea. But I see no mention of "Secret Plan" or "Hidden Agenda" in this exerpted speech, nor from whatever media I find competent.

McCain was the sole US Senator (Congress-critter, even) who stood up for John Kerry when Kerry was being unjustifiably swift-boated by each and every Conservative Rednecked Republican. I believe the same should apply.

no.

the United States was not behind the invasion of iraq.

that was an abused and uni-lateral decision by bush and the republicans

Why does MCCain persist in thinking the GOP would give him a chance to enact any Iraqi plan? He's sort of the Hillary of their party.

Think about it. They both have name recognition, are admired for their war records, are always welcome to speak at functions, but are preceived as being too liberal by the Republican base.

So it doesn't really matter if he has a plan or not. He'll never win the nomination.

That is really the hell of it ... Republicans can't help but use McCain as a Poster Boy for all that is good in the Republican Party - Honor, Conviction, Truth and Compassion; its just that he is too honorable, too truthful, too compassionate, and has convictions everyone can identify with. Basically, a Boy Scout.

How can a party so corrupted handle such an untamable person? Karl Rove, and ony by flinging that smelly mud around!!!

As poorly as McCain was treated in Vote 2000, it is wonder why he didn't defect or run an independent campaign. If he is trying to reinvent the Republican Party, then Godspeed. If the Republicans pull the same stunt as before, then I guarantee my vote for the Democratic Candidate (Conyers 2008?)

McCain's plan has always been and will continue to be PNAC's plan . McCain was president of the New Citizenship Project that initiated the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Once a Neocon, always a NeoCON:

http://www.democrats.com/node/9116/print

"The Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) is the elusive "cabal" that is hardly mentioned in the news, and never called by name. PNAC was co-founded by William Kristol and Dick Cheney & other familiar people. This cabal is the group that is presently in power. Needless to say, our American press has not been reporting all the facts regarding the current Bush Administration , so PNAC is rarely mentioned by them, if ever. If you google PNAC you will find it all over the internet , and many websites attempt to expose and "out" the PNAC. The UK press reports on PNAC all the time now, starting with an article by Neil Mackay in 2002 in the Scottish Sunday Herald:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

PNAC is a small group who claim to act on behalf of you and not the elites. They hold many of the key positions of power in the federal government. But really, these are the people who brought us:

* the war in Iraq
* plans for simultaneous, multiple wars
* legal 'justification' for torture
* the 'Patriot' Act, expanded presidential powers and reduced citizens' rights
* warmongering and war profiteering and on and on

In the past 5 years , only two well-known Americans have been videotaped publicly exposing the PNAC just this year: Helen Thomas "the first lady of the press" , & Stephen Colbert, the comedic anchor of the "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central ! :
http://tinyurl.com/loxz3

Here is PNAC's actual website , founding members & Statement of Principles:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

They wrote a letter trying to urge Clinton in 1998 to attack Iraq:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Practically everyone in this organization is also in the Bush Administration, however W himself is not a member of the PNAC. Many bloggers surmise this is because he is the cabal's puppet to be kept "untouchable" in case of a need for pardons for the rest of the group. Even Jeb Bush is a member , but not W !

The Iraq and potential Iran wars were already planned on their PNAC website in this document "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, & Resources for a New Century" (remember , this is a non-profit organization , NOT a government entity, yet they came into power two months after this was written in September 2000):
http://tinyurl.com/7onk

There are hundreds of websites and blogs about the PNAC. Here are a few well-known favorites:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

http://www.pnac.info/

http://tinyurl.com/mzrcv

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3544.htm

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html

This information is enough to not overwhelm you, but will bring you up to snuff for now. Here is a good & quick video that exposes the PNAC:

PNAC exposed.

"What Barry Says"
This is the Hi-Fi version.

Video = WMP = http://www.knife-party.net/wmv/barry.wmv "

New Citizenship Project and what they support:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=258

I can see I have a lot of reading to catch up on to match wits with the people here. The little I've seen is that John McCain was indeed President of the New Citizenship Project, but for some reason had a falling out from the "Project for a New American Century" cabal which includes another of my favorites, William Bennett, before Bennett became untruthful and a very careful parser of words.

I would ask, even beg, John McCain to clarify his efforts as President of this New Citizenship Project, and why didn't he make the jump to PNAC?

Meanwhile, I'm gonna scour the Inet for mention of NCP (minutes from meetings, action items, talking points & the like). Thank God for Wikipedia.

I found only one instance of John McCain in the Project for a New American Century website. It was a letter to the EU Governments and NATO, where 100 leaders signed on to a letter prepared by PNAC, but this only appears to be a single friendly instance - done at arms-length only because of a single agreement about supporting democracy in Russia. I wonder if he and the other signatories even know it was a PNAC-generated document?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

The jump from NCP to PNAC is not that far, as they share the same address and suite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Citizenship_Project

John McCain is a committed NeoCON , as evidenced by his presidency of the NCP and is involvement with the PNAC. The fact that he has signed only one PNAC document does not distance McCain from the PNAC. George W Bush has not signed any PNAC documents, yet all the bloggers logically conclude that W is PNAC's puppet. McCain is obviously trying to distance himself only for the presidency in 2008, but he has not divorced himself from NeoCON philosophy in reality. That's why the bloggers know McCain is a phoney and a "mythical maverick". McCain's affiliations with the NeoCONS go beyond NCP & PNAC, as he was also a member of the intentionally misnomered "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", a stronghold of NeoCONS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_Liberation_of_Iraq

In spite of W's lack of membership, please note that his brother Jeb Bush is a founding member of the PNAC.

I'm still trying to nail down John McCain's involvement in NCP, specifically the period when he was President (or is it Chairman?). Otherwise, the one document I cited had "100 signatures" which had every appearance of being a chain letter - where PNAC members coerced notable friends to sign onto a letter advocating, quite simply, democracy in Russia. Who was snookered to sign onto this letter, along with John McCain? Senator Joseph Biden, Foreign Government Officials, Scholars from Foreign Universities (Oxford, Bonn, Potsdam) & Institutes (Center for International Studies and Research in France, Institute of International Affairs in Denmark). Overall,

1 Albanian : Prime Minister
2 Bulgarians : Prime Minister + Scholar
2 Czech Republic : President + Foreign Minister
2 Denmark : Foreign Minister + Scholar
2 Estonians : Prime Minister + Foreign Minister
5 French : UN Special Envoy + Researchers + Writers
14 Germans : Everything
1 each from Greece, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania , Serbia, Turkey : Former Ambassador
5 Italians : Prime Ministers + Researchers + Citizens
6 Poland : Foreign Ministers + Ambassador + Newspaper + Researchers
3 Slovakians : Foreign Ministers + Ambassador + Newspaper
2 Spanish : Scholars
3 Swedes : Prime Minister + Member of Parliament
5 UK