McCain: Statement on Barack Obama's Canceled Troop Visits

Today, Dr. Danny Jazarevic, who served as the Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery at Landstuhl, issued the following statement on Barack Obama's canceled visit to Ramstein and Landstuhl:

"Last week, Senator Obama skipped a visit with wounded U.S. troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because the Pentagon would not allow campaign staff or media to accompany him into the hospital. I served as director of trauma surgery at that hospital for nearly four years and saw the effect that a visit from a celebrity like Senator Obama could have on morale. During that time, I do not recall a single member of Congress canceling a visit with the troops despite being just a few hours away, but Senator Obama seems to have been more concerned with how the visit would affect him than how it would affect the soldiers recovering from wounds received in the service of their country."

Dr. Danny Jazarevic served as the Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. In 1984, Dr. Jazarevic joined the United States Army and later the Florida National Guard. He has since served in Honduras, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and Iraq. From December 2002 through January 2006, Dr. Jazarevic was assigned to the U.S. Army Hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, where he served as Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery. During this period, he deployed to Iraq numerous times, including with the 101st Airborne Division Forward Surgical Team and as Director of Operations for the 44th U.S. Army Medical Command. He is currently the Chief Trauma Surgeon at a civilian medical center in Florida, and also serves as a full Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. Dr. Jazarevic has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal.

McCain Campaign Conference Call On "Celeb" Television Ad

"Do the American people want to elect the world's biggest celebrity or do they want to elect an American hero, somebody who is a leader, somebody who has the right ideas to deal in a serious way with the problems we face?" -- Steve Schmidt

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with Rick Davis, McCain Campaign Manager, and Steve Schmidt, McCain Campaign Senior Adviser, on the campaign's latest ad entitled "Celeb":

Rick Davis: "I wanted to take an opportunity to bring you up to speed on the latest phase of the campaign we've entered in to. As you know over the course of the last two or three weeks, the Obama campaign began airing an add against John McCain about two weeks ago attacking some of his positions. We then opened up the same front of that campaign by last week beginning to ad an air that contrasted Senator McCain and Barack Obama's position on drilling. This is the second ad in that series that will focus on the distinction between Senator McCain and Barack Obama on energy prices. This ad obviously also addresses a unique facet in Barack Obama's campaign that is unlike any other campaign we've seen in modern political history. A campaign that is focused on the development of an enormous image of celebrity status. It is unique I think in the political realm for the last couple, certainly last three or four election cycles. And obviously, we pay some attention to that as the ad begins.

"The point we are making, if it hasn't escaped anybody, is that, you know, these images of celebrity status and the way he has conducted his campaign to date both in the kinds of events that he has and what he says at these events -- owe more to the development of an international celebrity status than it does to a traditional campaign for President. Maybe that's what the Obama campaign has intended, and we think it is worthy of some attention by our campaign. In the early aspects of the ad, we have images of other celebrities that demonstrate that the focus of the Obama campaign has been as much to create that celebrity status of his as it is to discuss the hard issues that the American public are forced to debate during the course of this campaign.
"We believe the distinction that is made in this ad is a man who clearly has got fans all around the world owing to the unique aspect of his trip to Europe where he held the first ever political rally abroad with his fans in Germany. I think it also shows a contrast on who is ready to lead. Barack Obama's campaign and he as a candidate have talked a lot about raising taxes on energy. He has a number of quotes in the past that have talked about taxing sources of energy such as coal and natural gas, both of which make up the majority of our power generation activity in this country. He is opposed to increased drilling and dropping the moratoriums in Congress against that. And obliviously, another major facet of this campaign has been John McCain's debate on how to properly conduct the war against Islamic fundamentalism which is an issue that even though [Barack Obama] has had many opportunities to discuss, has really avoided engaging in this topic. So , I think the add obviously stands for itself.

"We wanted to give you the opportunity to show how we feel about it and answer whatever questions you might have. I think people, and maybe certain polling trends indicate this, are beginning to make a distinction between the popularity that surrounds Barack Obama as a celebrity and the kinds of events that he puts on with his adoring fans, and there is a distinction I think in the American public's mind between that and actually having a political movement based on ideas and solutions. Senator McCain is prepared to lead this country and tackle the hard issues. He talks about them every day in town halls. He answers questions. He puts out policy initiatives and he is engaged in the debate in front of the American people. We think that is a significantly different kind of debate than is going on with our opponent."

...
Steve Schmidt: "I would say that is it beyond dispute that he has become the biggest celebrity in the world. It's a statement of fact. It's backed up by the reality of his tour around the world. He has many fans. The question that we are posing to the American people is this, is he ready to lead yet? And the answer to the question that we will offer to the American people is no that he is not.

"When you look at this election in terms of the economic crisis we are in Senator Obama has a track record of voting to raise taxes on people in the $32,000 bracket, that's people make $41,000 a year, these are middle income American. That's bad policy. That's bad for American families. We're in the middle of an energy crisis in this country. Senator Obama is opposed to more drilling. This is economic quackery. The price of oil is something that rises and falls based on supply and demand. We need to have more domestic production. Senator Obama is opposed to that. He wants to raise taxes on other sources of energy, which is a tax on people's electricity.

"And when we look at his compilation of bad ideas at a time of economic crisis, at a time when we're in an energy crisis, when we look at his bad judgment to our to regard national security situation and the two wars we are fighting. We will pose the question -- stipulating the fact that [Barack Obama] is the biggest celebrity in the world -- do the American people want to elect the world's biggest celebrity or do they want to elect an American hero, somebody who is a leader, somebody who has the right ideas to deal in a serious way with the problems we face? And that will be the fundamental choice that Americans will make as they focus in on who to elect the 44th President of the United States 97 days from now. This is a close election. We've seen much presumption from the Obama campaign whether it is the construction of his own presidential seal and many other presumptuousness on his part and the American people will decide at the end of the day."

Listen To The Full Conference Call

McCain Campaign Conference Call On John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plan

"[P]olicies that affect long term-supply, like the McCain strategies for increasing exploration and production, or strategies that reduce demand in the-long term, incentives for new technology for example, have an immediate impact on today's prices." -- Martin Feldstein

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett Packard CEO and Victory 2008 Chair, Meg Whitman, former eBay President and CEO, Martin Feldstein, Harvard University George F. Baker Professor of Economic and former National Bureau of Economic Research President and John Taylor, Stanford University Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics, discussing John McCain's Jobs for America economic plan:

Carly Fiorina: "As you know our economy faces very serious challenges. And John McCain for the last several weeks and months now has been talking with the American people about his plan to get our economy moving again. His Jobs for American plan is rooted in his fundamental belief that the role of government is to unleash and unlock the creativity, ingenuity and the hard work of the American people and make it easier to create jobs. This is critically important. He has proposed a whole set of things that make it easier to create jobs including a focus on small business. As we know small business is the engine of growth of this economy. Small business creates about two-thirds of the jobs in this economy. And even in the last economic report which was of course quite difficult, it recognized that over 400,000 people have lost their jobs in the first six months of this year.

"And yet, one of the bright shining spots in the economy was small business that created over 230,000 thousand jobs. That's why John McCain wants to make it easier for small business to access capital by keeping the tax rate on capital gains and dividends low. It's why he proposes a depreciation schedule that allows small business to invest in capital equipment and technology and offsets office expenses in the first year. It's why he proposes a portable affordable healthcare plan rather the saddling small businesses with a huge $12,000 payment for a government mandated health proposal for every employee with a family as Barack Obama would do.

"It's also why he has focused so much on the job creation potential of his energy plan, which Martin Feldstein will talk more about in just a few minutes. I think in this particular case the contrast between John McCain and Barack Obama could not be more clear. American families are worried about rising gas prices. They are worried a deteriorating job market. They are worried about shrinking retirement portfolios, and they are worried about falling home prices.
"John McCain's Jobs for America plan is a real strategy to create millions of good American jobs, to ensure our nation's energy security, to get the government's budget and spending house in order, to provide access to affordable health insurance, to bring relief to American consumers, and to allow more Americans facing foreclosure to stay in their homes. Also, in great contrast to Barack Obama, John McCain knows that one in five American jobs depend on world trade, 20% of our jobs rely on world trade. And that's why John McCain would make sure that our workers and our businesses remain the most competitive in the world that they have access to the consumers of the world 95% of whom are outside the United States.

"It's one of the reasons as well he has proposes a comprehensive reform of unemployment insurance programs. Our unemployment insurance programs were designed in the 50's. They no longer meet the needs of the 21st century. His reforms would focus not simply on paying workers who have lost jobs but are as well on preparing those workers to take on new jobs with new skills. As you know, hard-working Americans are also suffering from high gas prices and need relief now and that's why John McCain has proposed for several months now the suspension of the federal gas tax. Barack Obama has opposed that I think on issue after issue. Barack Obama is on the wrong side of job creation and that concerns American families. He would tie small business up in taxes and Washington directed mandates he would discourage job creation at a time when America needs to create jobs urgently.

"He would as well raise the capital gains tax as Americans watch falling markets shrink their retirement savings. Barack Obama, in essence, in a difficult economic time, would raise taxes and become an isolationist protectionist. Those are exactly the wrong times in a difficult economic time. John McCain will spend this week as he has every week for the past couple of months out talking with the American people about how to get our economy working again how put Americans back to work again and how to make sure the government is helping to unlock and unleash the ingenuity and hard work of the American people -- not getting in the way of job creation and growth."

...
Meg Whitman: "I would only underscore three points. One is that John McCain's policy is all around creating jobs. That is the number one priority for the tax policy, all other policies are designed to how do we really create good jobs for Americans going forward.

"Second, most the jobs that most of you know on the call come from small business -- 70% of new job creation in the U.S. comes from small business. So making sure that we have small business friendly policies is very central to John McCain's policy.

"And then third, and this will be a perfect lead in for Marty, is that you can't talk about our economy and the challenge it faces without talking about energy. Because with the high price of oil, the high price of gasoline ... it has filtered into food prices, shipping prices, everything that is driven by oil, which is just about everything we consume is. So we have got to have a national energy policy that is smart, is intact, and makes a ton of sense because if we don't, we're going to have a lot of trouble over time making sure that our economy grows again."

...
Martin Feldstein: "I want to focus specifically on the issues about the price of oil because as you know and you've just heard again the high price of oil is a serious drag on the economy. It reduces the real income of households. In other words, it reduces their standard of living. It reduces their ability to spend on other things and that is dragging down overall economic activity. And what Senator McCain has proposed is a long-term strategy with a number of different parts, but the emphasis is both on increasing supply and reducing the demand for gasoline used in automobiles. To increase supply, he focuses on increasing oil and gas exploration and production. And in terms of reducing demand for oil and therefore the price of oil the critical thing in the United States is that about two-thirds of all of our use of oil is in transportation, is in automobiles primarily and so improving incentives for automobile efficiency for new techno logy is a critical part of his thinking.

"Now many people have reacted to these long-term proposals by saying now what about the price of oil today?' So what I want to focus on is the fact that policies that affect long term-supply, like the McCain strategies for increasing exploration and production, or strategies that reduce demand in the-long term, incentives for new technology for example, have an immediate impact on today's prices. Something's that going to change the supply and demand five years, ten years, twenty years from now will have an impact on today's prices. The reason for that is that if an increase in long-term supply or reduction in long-term demand is perceived by investors and by the oil industry and others as changing the future price of oil, that changes their incentives today in terms of the inventories they accumulate and the prices they charge. If the price is going to be lower in the future because of more supply and less demand that price is going to come down in the future, that gives producers and others an incentive to sell more today rather than hoarding it, inventorying it, or failing to bring it out of the ground. An that's an incentive that affects not just American firms but also the Middle East oil providers who look ahead and see policies coming into place which are going to affect the demand and supply over the long term, and we've already seen it in recent day as the price of oil has come down substantially.

"I think the key thing to understand, and to communicate to readers, is that policies that aim at the long term will have this favorable short term affect on prices."

...
John Taylor: "Let me just mention some contrasts with Senator Obama. I think on the taxes it couldn't be greater. I just don't see how anybody can think of raising taxes in weak economic times like this and that's a key part of what Senator Obama has proposed. In contrast, Senator McCain wants to prevent taxes from increasing on small businesses, on capital gains, on dividends and also wants to give a reduction in taxes on a corporate level and business level so that American firms can compete abroad and create jobs.

"Second, I would say that on reducing the growth of government spending Senator McCain wants to stop the spending binge that we've had, restore trust in government operations, reduce the budget deficits. Very important, he has the most credible plan out there to reduce the budget deficit and bring it into balance by 2013 by reducing the growth of spending and making these very sensible tax changes, which will get the economy and jobs growing again.

"A third I would mention, on international opening of markets. Senator Obama has called into question trade agreements, doesn't want to sign the ones that are out there already. Senator McCain wants to create jobs by creating more export opportunities for American workers.

"Go right down the line to make sure workers are in good shape. [John McCain's] proposed health care tax credit for portability. He's suggested big improvements in our education system focusing on the poorest urban areas in the NAACP speech. So right down the line, its everything that I see in Senator McCain's proposals is for creating jobs getting American growing and it seems on every issue Senator Obama is on the opposite side which goes in the other direction."

Listen To The Full Conference Call

McCain: "Obama's Missed Visit"

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama evidently cared more about criticism back home than visiting wounded American soldiers in Germany." -- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

"Obama's Missed Visit"
Editorial
Pittsburgh-Tribune Review
July 30, 2008

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama evidently cared more about criticism back home than visiting wounded American soldiers in Germany.

That's the explanation from a spokesman for the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee when asked why Mr. Obama canceled a planned visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center during his tour of the Middle East and Europe.

The Obama campaign couldn't keep its story straight.

The first explanation was that the junior senator from Illinois had decided to cancel the visit because the campaign-funded trip might have been viewed as inappropriate. Later, the campaign blamed the Pentagon for classifying the visit as a campaign stop.

The Department of Defense disputed the original Obama spin -- and then the backspin.
As a U.S. senator, Obama most certainly could visit the wounded and brought office staff -- just not from his campaign. "(R)ather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been considered a political controversy of some sort, what we decided was that we not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops that were there," Mr. Obama told The New York Times.

He still could have visited had he kept his Big Media fawners behind. Presumably, that would have been too audacious for the self-proclaimed agent of change.

Read The Editorial

---
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Community News You Can Use
---

Statement by Mayo Clinic re: John McCain

Michael Yardley, Chair of Public Affairs at the Mayo Clinic, today issued the following statement:

"Senator McCain visited the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, yesterday for a routine check of his dermatological health. The biopsy that was performed did not show any evidence of skin cancer. No further treatment is necessary."

Statement by John McCain on the 50th Anniversary of NASA

U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement on the 50th anniversary of NASA:

"Fifty years ago today, President Eisenhower signed the bill that launched the United States on the magnificent journey to space discovery and exploration. In doing so, he sent a powerful message to the world that the United States would harness its creativity, inventiveness and drive to lead all others into this most distant frontier. Since that time, Presidents of both parties have remained steadfast in guaranteeing U.S. leadership in space. Under current plans, the United States will retire the space shuttle in 2010 after its final mission to the International Space Station, and thus lose the capability to send on our own, an American, to space. While my opponent seems content to retreat from American exploration of space for a decade, I am not. As President, I will act to ensure our astronauts will continue to explore space, and not just by hitching a ride with someone else. I intend to make sure that the NASA Constellation program ha s the resources it needs so that we can begin a new era of human space exploration. A country that sent a man to the moon should expect no less."

McCain: "Obama The Unknown"

"'Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire,' I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech. On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe." -- The Washington Post's Richard Cohen

"Obama The Unknown"
Richard Cohen
The Washington Post
July 29, 2008

"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.

On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam prisoner of war to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.

But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position -- virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.

Obama argues that he himself stuck to the biggest gun of all: opposition to the war. He took that position when the war was enormously popular, the president who initiated it was even more popular and critics of both were slandered as unpatriotic. But at the time, Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. He either voiced his conscience or his district's leanings or (lucky fella) both. We will never know.

And we will never know, either, how Obama might have conducted himself had he served in Congress as long as McCain has. Possibly he would have earned a reputation for furious, maybe even sanctimonious, integrity of the sort that often drove McCain's colleagues to dark thoughts of senatorcide, but the record -- scant as it is -- suggests otherwise. Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once that position or person becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)

All politicians change their positions, sometimes even because they have changed their minds. McCain must have suffered excruciating whiplash from totally reversing himself on George Bush's tax cuts. He has denounced preachers he later embraced and then, to his chagrin, has had to denounce them all over again. This plasticity has a label: pandering. McCain knows how it's done.

But Obama has shown that in this area, youth is no handicap. He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol -- a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.

Obama is often likened to John F. Kennedy. The comparison makes sense. He has the requisite physical qualities -- handsome, lean, etc. -- plus wit, intelligence, awesome speaking abilities and a literary bent. He also might be compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt for many of those same qualities. Both FDR and JFK were disparaged early on by their contemporaries for, I think, doing the difficult and making it look easy. Eleanor Roosevelt, playing off the title of Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, airily dismissed him as more profile than courage. Similarly, it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt.

My guess is that Obama will make a fool of anyone who issues such a judgment about him. Still, the record now, while tissue thin, is troubling. The next president will have to be something of a political Superman, a man of steel who can tell the American people that they will have to pay more for less -- higher taxes, lower benefits of all kinds -- and deal in an ugly way when nuclear weapons seize the imagination of madmen.

The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.

Read The Op-Ed

John Oxendine to Speak in Fayette on Saturday

John Oxendine, current Georgia Commissioner of Insurance and candidate for Georgia Governor, will be speaking Saturday at the International House of Pancakes in Fayetteville. The meeting is open to the public. No RSVP required.

Oxendine will be speaking to the Fayette County Republican Party and guests. If breakfast is desired please arrive at 8:30 a.m. To listen to Oxendine and a brief presentation by current Fayette County run-off candidates, 9:00 p.m. is the official start of the meeting.

This is the regular First Saturday GOP Breakfast which is always open to the public, membership is not required.

Mayo Clinic Statement re: John McCain

Michael Yardley, Chair of Public Affairs at the Mayo Clinic, today issued the following statement:

"This morning, as part of his commitment to monitor his dermatological health on a regular basis, Senator John McCain visited the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, for a routine examination. As a precaution, a biopsy was ordered of a very small area on Senator McCain's right cheek. This is a routine minor procedure."

John McCain On ABC's "This Week"

I think people make a judgment by what we do and what we don't do. He certainly found time to do other things." -- John McCain

John McCain
ABC's "This Week"
July 27, 2008

ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "There's also been a flap about Senator Obama's decision in Germany not to visit the troops at Landstuhl. He now says that, based on what he was hearing from the Pentagon, there was no way that wouldn't be seen as a political trip, which is why he decided not to go. Do you accept that explanation?"

John McCain: "Well, I know this, those troops would have loved to have seen him. And I know of no Pentagon regulation that would have prevented him from going there without the media and the press and all of the associated people. Nothing that I know of would have kept him from visiting those wounded troops. And they are gravely wounded, many of them."
...
"In Landstuhl, Germany, when I went through, I visited the hospital. But the important thing is that, if I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event. And so, I believe he had the opportunity to go without the media. And I'll let the facts speak for themselves."
...
"There was nothing to prevent him from going, if he went without the press and the media and his campaign people. But we'll see what happens."
...

"I think people make a judgment by what we do and what we don't do. He certainly found time to do other things."

Watch John McCain

McCain: "Baghdad, Berlin, Barack"

" Mr. Obama also knows that Gen. Petraeus opposes setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This military judgment ought to count for something, particularly since Congressional Democrats have long scolded President Bush for failing to pay sufficient heed to the advice of generals such as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. Yet Mr. Obama, who has always been careful to cite the views of military commanders to justify his 16 month withdrawal schedule, now says that heeding less congenial military advice would mean an abdication of his responsibilities as a prospective commander in chief." -- The Wall Street Journal

"Baghdad, Berlin, Barack"
Editorial
The Wall Street Journal
July 25, 2008

For our money, the best line in Barack Obama's speech yesterday in Berlin came in the form of a quote from Ernst Reuter, the city's mayor during the period of the Soviet blockade and the American airlift, in 1948:

"But in the darkest hour," said Sen. Obama, "the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. 'There is only one possibility,' he said. 'For us to stand together united until this battle is won... The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty'." This, from a U.S. Senator whose consistent message to the people of Baghdad, a similarly besieged city, also dependent on America's protection, has been, in effect, to give up.

Mr. Obama reiterated this view earlier in the week while traveling in the Middle East, in an interview with ABC's Terry Moran. Mr. Moran asked the Illinois Democrat whether -- "knowing what you know now" -- he would reconsider his opposition to last year's surge of U.S. troops in Iraq. "Well, no," Mr. Obama replied.

What Mr. Obama "knows now" is that the surge he opposed has saved Iraq, much as Harry Truman's airlift saved Berlin and underlined America's intention to defend Europe throughout the Cold War. The surge has also saved American lives in Iraq, with combat-related deaths (so far, there have been seven this month) at an all time low.

Mr. Obama offered his own unwitting testimony to this fact by not donning body armor upon his arrival in Baghdad and during a helicopter tour with Gen. David Petraeus. "There have been few if any attacks of late on our aircraft, and the situation did not require them to be wearing body armor," explained Gen. Petraeus's spokesman.

Mr. Obama also knows that Gen. Petraeus opposes setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This military judgment ought to count for something, particularly since Congressional Democrats have long scolded President Bush for failing to pay sufficient heed to the advice of generals such as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. Yet Mr. Obama, who has always been careful to cite the views of military commanders to justify his 16 month withdrawal schedule, now says that heeding less congenial military advice would mean an abdication of his responsibilities as a prospective commander in chief.

The Obama campaign now makes much of the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seems to have endorsed the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, with 2010 as the approximate date. This is being played as a great political coup for Mr. Obama -- which, we suppose, it is, if only because the media plays it that way.

But the significant debate is not over whether and when the U.S. will withdraw. It's over whether the U.S. will win. In his Berlin speech, Mr. Obama was at his most forceful when he insisted that "this is the moment when we must defeat terror," adding that "the threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it." This is well-said and true.

But it squares oddly with a political campaign whose central premise is that losing in Iraq -- and whatever calamities may follow -- is a matter of little consequence to U.S. or European interests. It squares oddly, too, with Mr. Obama's broader promise to "stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, the voter in Zimbabwe" and virtually every other global cause.

* * *

It is hard not to be moved by the sight during the speech of hundreds of American flags being waved, rather than burned. Then again, the last time a major American political figure delivered an open-air speech in Berlin, 10,000 riot police had to use tear gas and water cannons to repel violent demonstrators. It was June 1987, the speaker was Ronald Reagan, his message was: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Press accounts characterized the line as "provocative"; the Soviets called it "war-mongering"; 100,000 protesters marched against Reagan in the old German capital of Bonn. Two years later, the Berlin Wall fell.

Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship. Watching Mr. Obama yesterday in Berlin, and throughout his foreign tour, was a reminder of how far the presumptive Democratic nominee has to go to reassure people he is capable of the latter -- "people," that is, who will actually get to cast a ballot in November.

Read The Editorial

Remarks by John McCain to the Americans with Disabilities Conference

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following remarks by John McCain as prepared for delivery via satellite to the Americans with Disabilities conference:
In a few months' time, Americans will choose their next president, and the course that our country will follow in the years to come. Many thousands of those votes would never be cast at all, were it not for this organization and its Disability Vote Project.

Like so many other rights and privileges in our country, the right to vote always belonged to Americans with disabilities. But exercising that right could be a very different matter. The franchise isn't worth much to someone who has been overlooked in registration, or can't operate the voting machinery, or has no means of even getting to the polling place. For men and women with disabilities, a great many obstacles once stood in the way of the right to vote. And it was your good work that overcame them.

Overcoming barriers is what your organization does. And as your victories add up, in legislatures and courtrooms, you don't just serve one constituency -- you serve our country. When men and women with disabilities are excluded from joining fully in the life of our nation, that is an injustice to them and it is a loss to America. It falls to you at the AADP to hold America to its own ideals. You extend the promise of America to more citizens. You afford people with disabilities the chance to put their talents and great gifts to use, and America is richer for it.

Along the way, I have been proud to count myself a friend to the cause of equal opportunity for all Americans -- with or without a disability. And so often what these reforms in law established were standards of simple fairness and consideration. We helped to assure equal access to the use of phones and television for the hearing or speech impaired. We reformed job training and placement services to expand opportunities, and we made colleges and universities more welcoming to students with disabilities. We improved Medicaid to permit greater opportunities for work and self-sufficiency. And when a monument was commissioned in honor of our only president with a disability, I shared your own strongly held opinion that the greatness of the man was best captured sitting in his chair.

In recent memory, the greatest step forward for the cause was the Americans with Disabilities Act, of which I was a principal co-sponsor. And for all the good that law has brought into millions of lives, more work remains to be done. In reauthorizing the ADA, we must remove all doubt that the law is intended to protect Americans from any kind of discrimination on the basis of a physical or mental disability. And we must clarify the definition of a disability, to assure full protection for those the law is intended to serve. Last month, the House passed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 by a substantial margin. I support that House bill, and intend to support a Senate version that adheres to the same principles.

One of the most fundamental principles of all is that the presence of a disability should not mean the absence of choice. When the government does its duty by extending aid to Americans with disabilities, it should not do so in a heavy-handed way that restricts personal freedom. I will work to enact legislation that would build on the principles of the Money Follows the Person Initiative, while also keeping my commitment to a responsible budget. The offer of assistance in living with a disability should not come with the condition of perpetual confinement to an institutional setting. The great goal here should be to increase choices, to expand freedom, to open doors, and to allow citizens with disabilities to live where they want and to go where they wish.

Everyone who seeks the presidency brings to the office his or her own experiences. And one of the finest experiences in my life has been to witness the power of human courage to overcome adversity. I have seen it in war, in prison camps, and in military hospitals. I have seen the capacity of men and women to overcome the hardships, challenges, and bad breaks that life can bring our way. How we face such obstacles can define our lives. And how we support one another at those times can define the character of our country. You at the AADP have seen these same qualities of courage, determination, and grace -- you have seen them in each other. And when you enlist your fellow citizens in the cause of equality and fairness for Americans with disabilities, you call upon the best that is in our country.

I thank you all the good work that you do. I thank you for your kind attention this afternoon. And now let me turn you back over to Judy to kick off our discussion.

McCain: Statement Welcoming Barack Obama's "Entirely Conditions-Based"Iraq Withdrawal

Today, Randy Scheunemann, McCain 2008 senior foreign policy adviser, issued the following statement welcoming Barack Obama's latest shift to an "entirely conditions-based" withdrawal from Iraq:

"Today Barack Obama finally abandoned his dangerous insistence on an unconditional withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by making clear that for the foreseeable future, troop levels in Iraq will be 'entirely conditions based.' We welcome this latest shift in Senator Obama's position, but it is obvious that it was only a lack of experience and judgment that kept him from arriving at this position sooner.

"John McCain has always held the position that any withdrawal from Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground. With the incredible success of the surge, which John McCain advocated, it is increasingly likely that U.S. troops will be able to withdraw with victory in hand. John McCain had long urged Barack Obama, who opposed the surge, to return to Iraq in order to see the immense changes in the security situation there since his last visit. Now that Obama has finally met with General Petraeus, it appears that he has also come to the conclusion that troop levels in Iraq must be based on the conditions on the ground."

NEW TODAY: In An Interview With Newsweek, Barack Obama Says Future Troop Levels In Iraq Should Be "Entirely Conditions-Based." NEWSWEEK'S RICHARD WOLFFE: "You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?" BARACK OBAMA: "I do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now." (Richard Wolffe, "Obama's Sober Mood," Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/148986/output/print, 7/26/08)

· Barack Obama Previously Pledged That "All" Combat Troops Would Be Removed From Iraq In 16 Months. "In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove on to two combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08)

Barack Obama And His Advisers On Future Troop Levels In Iraq

Colin Kahl, The Head Of Obama's Working Group On Iraq, Has Called For An "Overwatch Force" Of 60,000 To 80,000 Troops In Iraq. "Now Mr. Obama tells us that the 16-month timeline is contingent on (1) "[making] sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable" (my emphasis), and (2) the opinion of "the commanders on the ground." Also in question is the size of the "residual force" that the Illinois senator envisions for Iraq after the bulk of U.S. forces is withdrawn. Will it be an embassy guard, plus some military advisers and special-ops forces? Or, as suggested in a March paper by Colin H. Kahl, who runs Mr. Obama's working group on Iraq, an "overwatch force" of between 60,000 and 80,000 soldiers?" (Bret Stephens, "Obama's Nixon Reprise," The Wall Street Journal, 7/8/08)
Some Of Barack Obama's Advisers Said That A "Residual" Force Could Be As Much As 50,000 Troops. "How big would this more or less permanent 'residual' force be? Obama did not say, but advisers leaked that it could reach 50,000. That would be far too much for the candidate's net-roots to swallow, but a token force of around 2,000 would be ludicrous. Obama will face a test of how he handles this after he meets in Iraq with the esteemed Gen. David Petraeus." (Robert Novak, Op-Ed, "In Iraq, And Under The Spotlight," The Washington Post, 7/21/08)

Obama Advisers Are Signaling That His Troop Withdrawal Plan Will Be More Flexible Than His Previous Policies. "A top defense adviser to Barack Obama is recommending that significant 'residual' U.S. military forces remain in Iraq to ensure its stability, an emerging policy shift that is angering the Democratic Party's anti-war left and has Republicans charging 'flip-flop.' As the level of violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq and receded as a top issue in the 2008 presidential election, the Obama campaign and its advisers are sending what Democratic defense analysts describe as 'tantalizing hints' that his troop withdrawal plan will be far more flexible and gradual than his earlier calls for a complete pullout regardless of the situation on the ground." (Donald Lambro, Op-Ed, "Obama Aide Signals Shift On Troop Withdrawal," The Washington Times, 7/8/08)

McCain Campaign on Barack Obama Speech

McCain 2008 spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement on Barack Obama's speech in Germany today:

"While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it."

John McCain's Weekly Radio Address

DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO FILE HERE: http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/weeklyaddress_072608.mp3

John McCain's Weekly Radio Address:

Good morning. I'm John McCain, and this week the presidential contest was a long-distance affair, with my opponent touring various continents and arriving yesterday in Paris. With all the breathless coverage from abroad, and with Senator Obama now addressing his speeches to "the people of the world," I'm starting to feel a little left out. Maybe you are too.

Back here in the country that we are competing to lead, a lot folks were having trouble trying to square Senator Obama's multiple positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge and confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge. But now that it's clear that the surge has succeeded, and brought victory in Iraq within sight, Senator Obama can't quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Instead, he commits the even greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would still oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. That's not exactly my idea of the judgment we seek in a commander-in-chief.

Oddly enough, my opponent advocates the deployment of two new combat brigades to Afghanistan -- in other words, a surge. We're left to wonder how he can deny that the surge in Iraq has succeeded, while at the same time announcing that a surge is just what we need in Afghanistan. I'll leave all these questions for my opponent and his team of 300 foreign policy advisors to work out for themselves. With luck, they'll get their story straight by the time the Obama campaign returns to North America.

I spent the past week in Maine, Upstate New York, New Hampshire, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado. And I spoke with voters about how to get the American economy running at full strength again. We need to stay focused on creating jobs for our people, and protecting paychecks from the rising costs of food, gasoline, and most everything else. Above all, we need to get a handle on the cost of oil and gasoline, and to regain energy independence for America.

In Maine, eight out of ten homes use heating oil. And with the cost of that fuel approaching $5 per gallon, many families will have to spend a thousand dollars or more every time they fill their tank, just to keep warm this winter. This is just one example of the troubles Americans face. And for our truckers, farmers, and taxi drivers, the need for relief is just as great.

Yet even now, with the price of gasoline at four dollars or more per gallon, the Congress has done exactly nothing to suspend the federal gas tax. Incredibly, some in Congress are actually in favor of raising the gas tax by another ten cents per gallon. And Senator Obama has proposed a windfall profits tax on oil that could simply be passed on to consumers, raising prices at the pump even more. My energy plan will save Americans money at the pump in the best possible way -- by not taking it away in the first place.

We also need to act right now to increase America's own energy production. Last week, the President finally lifted the executive ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, and called on Congress to lift its ban as well. The Congress now has the sole power to lift the ban, but so far they just can't be bothered to get around to it. Lifting that ban would seriously lower the price of oil -- and Congress should get it done immediately. As a matter of fairness to the American people, we need to drill more, drill now, and pay less at the pump.

Under my plan, we will also make use of America's vast coal reserves. As president, I will commit this nation to a concerted effort to make clean coal a reality and create jobs in hard-pressed regions. And America will pursue the goal of building 45 nuclear power plants before 2030. Senator Obama is not a proponent of nuclear power. But I wonder if he noticed while he was in France that they draw 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear energy. And nations from Europe to Asia are expanding their use of this clean, proven, and stable source of energy.

Regaining control over the cost and supply of energy in America will not be easy, and it will not happen quickly. But no challenge to our economy and security is more urgent. And you have my pledge that if I am president, we're going to get it done.

Thanks for listening.

McCain - Barack Obama vs. NBC on the Surge

Today, Barack Obama will sit down with NBC News for an interview to be aired on NBC's "Nightly News." Please find below a reminder that while Barack Obama was trying to score political points in the Democratic primaries by calling the surge a failure, NBC News was reporting the progress being made in Iraq because of the surge:

BARACK OBAMA ON THE SURGE

In January 2007, Barack Obama Opposed The Surge:

Barack Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violence In Iraq. Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal." (MSNBC's "Response To The President's Speech On Iraq," 1/10/07)

· Click Here To View

In July 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked:

Barack Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." (NBC's "The Today Show," 7/18/07)

· Click Here To View

In November 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Strategy Was Not Working And That America Was "Actually Worsening" The Situation In Iraq:

Barack Obama Said The Surge Has Not Worked, And Had Potentially Worsened The Situation In Iraq. Obama: "Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated the surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07)

· Click Here To View

NBC ON THE SURGE

In September 2007, NBC Reported On The Success Of The Surge:

NBC's Jim Maceda: "They have had a lot of successes, and it is true that levels of violence are way down in Anbar. There are two main reasons for that, Brian. First of all, those additional 4,000-plus US Marines and soldiers that were part of the surge beginning in February there. Secondly, the local Sunnis, particularly those tribal sheikhs who broke away, as David was suggesting there, from al-Qaeda, about six months ago and started fighting on our side, with US forces." (NBC's "Nightly News," 9/3/07)

In November 2007, NBC Reported On The "Signs Of Change" As A Result Of The Surge:

NBC's Brian Williams: "We are all hearing more and more these days about a significant drop in violence and deaths in Iraq, even though 2007 some time ago became the bloodiest year of the war yet for US forces. These new stats show a different trend. When our own Tom Aspell went out in Iraq to report this story, he found there are, indeed, signs of change." (NBC's "Nightly News," 11/14/07)

McCain Campaign Conference Call On The Anniversary Of Barack Obama's "Without Precondition" Policy

"What Senator Obama talked about was not having negotiations with these countries, but having presidential negotiations unilaterally with the leaders of each one of these countries, and also saying he would do it with Cuba and Venezuela. He has set himself up for a policy direction that undercuts our allies, undercuts those that are working with this to try and restrain the activities of these countries, and basically has set himself up for a performance measurement that he cannot meet." -- Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Randy Scheunemann, McCain senior foreign policy adviser, and Kori Schake, McCain senior foreign policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's Iran policy:

Rep. Pete Hoekstra: "I think it's important to put Senator Obama's comments in context and give a little bit of an understanding as to what was going on in Iran, Syria and North Korea when he made these statements a year ago, and reiterated them in September of 2007. In Iran, we knew that Iran was continuing its enrichment program. We knew that Iran was still involved in developing and evolving its missile technology, probably getting some of the capabilities and some of the information on how to do this and enhance their program from the North Koreans. We knew at that point in time, only on a limited basis or limited need-to-know basis here in Congress on the Intelligence Committee, but by September, the world knew that Syria at the time was building a nuclear plant, clearly part of a nuclear weapons program, that it was a North Korea design, and it was uncertain exactly as to where the funding was coming from. But we do know that neit her Syria nor North Korea probably had the resources to fund the kind of nuclear building program that was going on in Syria at that time.

"So, what we see is when Senator Obama made those comments, there was a lot of activity that was going on, and a lot of the activity that the strategy to negate or to limit the activities of North Korea, Syria and Iran was a multilateral approach -- working on Iran with our European allies, with Russia, with China trying to develop a strategy to make sure that Iran did not become a nuclear power. Obviously in North Korea, you've got the six-party talks, and with Syria we were clearly working closely with the Israelis in terms of trying to identify the best strategy and the best course of action in how to deal with the emerging threat that was coming out of Syria at that time.

"What Senator Obama talked about was not having negotiations with these countries, but having presidential negotiations unilaterally with the leaders of each one of these countries, and also saying he would do it with Cuba and Venezuela. He has set himself up for a policy direction that undercuts our allies, undercuts those that are working with this to try and restrain the activities of these countries, and basically has set himself up for a performance measurement that he cannot meet.

"He has said that he would meet with all five of these countries within the first year of assuming office and that credibility will be tested immediately if he were to be elected president. You can bet that on January 21st in the afternoon, if it were a President Obama, that Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela would all invite then-President Obama to visit. That would be an untenable position for the President of the United States to be put in, especially after he's made the commitment in his campaign that he would meet with these leaders unconditionally, and it would be -- like I said -- it would undercut our allies. It would undercut American foreign-policy, and would from day one put a Senator Obama or a President Obama in a very weakened position as to how we were going to deal with these current and continuing emerging threats to American national security."

...

Kori Schake: "The assumption in Senator Obama's approach is that all it will take is his presence to get Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il to recant their dedication to acquire nuclear weapons, long range missiles, and threatening their neighbors. What a pretty high estimation. What precisely does Senator Obama want to offer? He should explain what concessions he wants to give to these dictators. The international community is united in the belief that Iran must halt the production of reprocessing nuclear material. Senator Obama plans to unilaterally relax that condition thereby undercutting the very multilateral approach he claims his policies are designed to produce. It is one more example, as was the surge in Iraq, of Senator Obama not understanding the consequences of his policy choices.

"Even worse Senator Obama actually described efforts by America's closest allies as outsourcing American foreign policy, it is not outsourcing to conduct multilateral diplomacy and it is revealing that Senator Obama just doesn't understand this."

...

Randy Scheunemann: "I think it's important to highlight what Senator Obama said a year ago and what he said just about an hour ago at a press conference in Israel. He was asked July 23, 2007 at the presidential debate in South Carolina, 'Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our country?' Senator Obama's answer was 'I would.'

"Today, Senator Obama was asked, 'A year ago ... you said you would meet in your first year as president ... is there anything you have heard today in discussions with Israeli leaders that has made you rethink that pledge, or are you still standing by that?' Today, Senator Obama said, 'I think you have to [take a] look [at] what the question was' -- I just read the question for everybody -- 'and how I responded' -- I just read his response. Senator Obama said, 'But I think what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States ... and that continues to be my position.' There you have it what he said a year ago and what he said today. This is revealing about Senator Obama in several respects.

"First, it shows his inexperience in making such an uncategorical statement a year ago in a presidential debate. Second, it shows his stubbornness in adhering to such a position for so long. Third, what we see more recently it shows his malleability in trying to rewrite history and refusal to admit a mistake in what he originally said. He takes a position calculated to appeal to the extreme left in the primaries. He refused to admit it was a mistake. Then he changes his position and hopes the media won't call him on it. Hopes that they won't notice what he said. I guess for Senator Obama words matter except when they pose an inconvenient truth. With that, let me open it up to questions."

Listen To The Full Conference Call.

McCain - The One year Anniversary of "Without Precondition"

One year ago today, Barack Obama said he would personally meet with the leaders of Iran and other rogue nations "without precondition." Such unconditional presidential summits would undermine the multilateral diplomacy now underway. This one-year anniversary is even more significant given that Barack Obama is in Israel which is threatened and attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups backed by Iran. Please find below background on Barack Obama's support for unconditionally holding presidential summits with foreign dictators and state sponsors of terrorism.

At A July 2007 Democratic Debate, Barack Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations "Without Precondition." QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

· Watch Barack Obama Say "I Would" Meet Unconditionally With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria, And Other Nations

· At A September 2007 Press Conference, Barack Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)

Barack Obama's Campaign Website: "Obama Is The Only Major Candidate Who Supports Tough, Direct Presidential Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions." "Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress." (Obama Campaign Website, http://www.barac kobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/, Accessed 5/15/08)

· LINK: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

America's European Allies Have Voiced Concern About Barack Obama's Pledge To Meet With President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Without Precondition:

The Washington Post: European Officials "Increasingly Concerned That Sen. Barack Obama's Campaign Pledge To Begin Direct Talks ... Could Potentially Rupture U.S. Relations With Key European Allies." "European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration." (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)

Barack Obama's Pledge Is Contrary To Four UN Security Council Resolutions Demanding Iran Stop Enriching Uranium As A Precondition. "The U.N. Security Council has passed four resolutions demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium, each time highlighting the offer of financial and diplomatic incentives from a European-led coalition if Tehran suspends enrichment, a route to producing fuel for nuclear weapons. But Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has said he would make such suspension a topic for discussion with Iran, rather than a precondition for any negotiations to take place." (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)

· European Officials "Wary Of Giving Up A Demand That Has Been So Enshrined In UN Resolutions." "European officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are wary of giving up a demand that has been so enshrined in U.N. resolutions, particularly without any corresponding concessions by Iran." (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)

· Obama Adviser Philip Gordon: European Officials "Uncomfortable With Giving Up Precondition Of Uranium Enrichment Right Now. "Still, Philip H. Gordon, a Europe expert at the Brookings Institution who has advised the Obama campaign, acknowledged that European officials 'are uncomfortable with giving up the precondition of uranium enrichment right now.'" (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)

· International Institute For Strategic Studies' Francois Heisbourg: "Dropping a unanimous Security Council condition would simply be interpreted by Iran and America's allies as unconditional surrender, and America's friends would view this as confirmation of America's basic unreliability. ... A hell of a way to start a presidential term." (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)

The Washington Post: European Officials Say Precondition "Is A European Concept." "European officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be seen as interfering with U.S. politics, said the demand that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment is a European concept, not something forced on them by the Bush administration." (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Has Called For The Destruction Of The U.S. And Israel:

Ahmadinejad Said A World Without America "Surely Can Be Achieved." "The Iranian Students News Agency published a speech by Mr. Ahmadinejad at the World Without Zionism conference last October in which he cited the disappearance of three regimes - the shah's in Iran, Saddam Hussein's in Iraq, and the Soviet Union - as precursors for the destruction of America and Israel. 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? ... This slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved,' he said." (Steven Stalinsky, Op-Ed, "Ahmadinejad's Bully Pulpit," The New York Sun, 9/20/06)

Ahmadinejad Recently Referred To Israel As A "Stinking Corpse" And Said It Was "On Its Way To Annihilation." "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a 'stinking corpse' that was doomed to fail, and warned countries that they would 'burn in the fire of their people's hatred' if they helped Israel, the news agency IRNA reported. 'Today the reason for Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation,' he said in a speech on the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state." (Nazila Fathi, "Iran: A Hate Note On Israel's Birthday," The New York Times, 5/9/08)

· "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Said ... That Israel Is Dying And That Its 60th Anniversary Celebrations Are An Attempt To Prevent Its 'Annihilation.'" (Ali Akbar Dareini, "Ahmadinejad Says Israel Doomed," The Associated Press, 5/14/08)

· Ahmadinejad Previously Said Israel Should Be Wiped Off The Map And Denied That The Holocaust Occurred. "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in the past he wants to wipe Israel off the map and dismissed the Holocaust as a myth." (Nick Wadhams, "Israel: No Greater Threat To World's Values Than The Leaders Of Iran," The Associated Press, 9/21/06)

McCain - Barack Obama vs. ABC on the Surge

Today, Barack Obama will sit down with ABC News for an interview to be aired on ABC's "World News Tonight." Please find below a reminder that while Barack Obama was trying to score political points in the Democratic primaries by calling the surge a failure, ABC News was reporting the progress being made in Iraq because of the surge:

Just This Week, Barack Obama Told ABC That Even With The Success Of The Surge, He Would Not Have Supported It:

Obama Told ABC's Terry Moran That, Despite The Progress That Has Occurred In Iraq, He Would Not Have Supported The Surge. Moran: "'[T]he surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis' rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.' If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you -- would you support the surge?" Obama: "No, because -- keep in mind that --" Moran: "You wouldn't?" Obama: "Well, no, keep -- these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with." Moran: "And so, when pressed, Barack Obama say s he still would have opposed the surge." (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 7/21/08)

BARACK OBAMA ON THE SURGE

In January 2007, Barack Obama Opposed The Surge:

Barack Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violence In Iraq. Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal." (MSNBC's "Response To The President's Speech On Iraq," 1/10/07)

· Click Here To View

In July 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked:

Obama Said The Surge Had Not Worked In Iraq. Obama: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." (NBC's "The Today Show," 7/18/07)

· Click Here To View

In November 2007, Barack Obama Said The Surge Strategy Was Not Working And That America Was "Actually Worsening" The Situation In Iraq:

Barack Obama Said The Surge Has Not Worked, And Had Potentially Worsened The Situation In Iraq. Obama: "Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated the surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07)

· Click Here To View

ABC ON THE SURGE

In July 2007, ABC's Charles Gibson Reported On Progress In Iraq:

ABC's Charles Gibson: "A bit of a surprise today on Iraq. Two long and persistent critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war today wrote a column in the 'New York Times' saying that after a recent eight-day visit to Iraq, they find significant changes taking place. Military analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote, 'We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.' They added, 'We were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce, not necessarily victory, but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.'" (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 7/30/07)

In October 2007, ABC Reported That Casualties Had Decreased Dramatically:

ABC's Jonathan Karl: "This is Jonathan Karl at the Pentagon, where military officials say the lower US death toll has caught them by a surprise. They had been expecting an increase in attacks tied to General Petraeus's report to Congress and the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Instead, US casualties were at their lowest level in over a year. One reason, officials say, a dramatic drop in attacks linked to al Qaeda in Iraq. The military announced last week that this air strike killed top al Qaeda leader Abu Usama al-Tunisi. At the location, officials say they uncovered a note from Tunisi saying, 'I have been surrounded. We are so desperate for your help.'" (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 10/1/07)

ABC's Charles Gibson: "We began this broadcast a few days ago talking about the sharp drop in US and Iraqi casualties last month. And this month looks even better. General David Petraeus says attacks in October so far are at an 18-month low. Even better, he can now travel safely to some areas that might have been problematic just as early as this summer." (ABC's "World News With Gibson," 10/11/07)

In November 2007, ABC News Reported That Violence In Iraq Was "Down Considerably":

ABC's Jonathan Karl: "Charlie, nobody over here is anywhere near ready to declare victory, but the military statistics tell an unmistakable story. Violence in Iraq is down and down considerably. Baghdad's marketplaces are slowly coming back to life as violent attacks in Iraq have fallen to less than half of what they were a year ago." (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 11/1/07)

In December 2007, ABC News Reported On The Success Of The Surge:

ABC's John Hendren: "As 2008 dawns, General Petraeus is taking stock, eager to showcase what he describes as the fruits of the American troop surge. Topping the list is a 60% drop in violence over the past six months with roadside bomb attacks falling 68%. The drone of daily killings in Iraq would be shocking anywhere else. But here, the sense of growing normalcy is striking and it is reflected in the voices of Iraqis who, in city after city, told us they felt safer." (ABC's "World News With Charles Gibson," 12/31/07)

McCain - "Mr. Obama In Iraq"

"The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy." -- The Washington Post

Mr. Obama In Iraq
Editorial
The Washington Post
July 23, 2008

The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about ... a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.

Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Read The Editorial.

McCain - Barack Obama's Jerusalem Backtrack

Today, as Barack Obama prepared to travel to Israel, he told CBS' Katie Couric that he had never backtracked on the status of Jerusalem. Please find below a statement from Randy Scheunemann, McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Adviser:

"Barack Obama claimed his position that Jerusalem should remain the 'undivided capital' of Israel and his subsequent backtracking 'was no shift in policy' but that he just 'phrased it poorly.' Yet he had stated this policy position before, and presumably at least some of his 300 foreign policy advisers worked on drafting and vetting his speech to AIPAC. Barack Obama's various positions and unconvincing explanations cannot give Israelis or Americans much comfort about his ability to understand and explain, much less lead, on complicated diplomatic issues."

Today, As He Prepared To Travel To Israel, Barack Obama Claimed He Had Never Backtracked On The Status Of Jerusalem.

Barack Obama: "There Was No Shift In Policy Or Backtracking In Policy" Concerning The Status Of Jerusalem.

CBS's Katie Couric: "You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that someone more experienced would not have made that kind of mistake?"

Obama: "Well, if you look at what happened, there was no shift in policy or backtracking in policy. We just had phrased it poorly in the speech. That has happened and will happen to every politician. You're not always gonna hit your mark in terms of how you phrase your policies. But my policy hasn't changed, and it's been very consistent. It's the same policy that Bill Clinton has put forward, and that says that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, that we shouldn't divide it by barbed wire, but that, ultimately that is a final status issue that has to be resolved between the Palestinians and the Israelis." (CBS, Barack Obama Interview With Katie Couric, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283623.shtml, 7/22/08)

Yet, After Saying At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference In June 2008 That Jerusalem Should Be "Undivided," Barack Obama Has Since Backtracked.

At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama Says Clearly That Jerusalem Should Be The "Undivided" Capital Of Israel. Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

· One Day After The AIPAC Conference, Barack Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians. CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)

· "Facing Criticism From Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama Acknowledged Today That The Status Of Jerusalem Will Need To Be Negotiated In Future Peace Talks, Amending A Statement Earlier In The Week That Jerusalem 'Must Remain Undivided.'" (Glenn Kessler, "Obama Clarifies Remarks On Jerusalem," The Washington Post's "The Trail" Blog, www.washingtonpost.com, 6/5/08)

Barack Obama Actually Has A Record Of Saying Jerusalem Should Be "Undivided".

In An American Jewish Committee Election Questionnaire, Barack Obama Said "Jerusalem Will Remain Israel's Capital, And No One Should Want Or Expect It To Be Re-Divided." "The United States cannot dictate the terms of a final status agreement. We should support the parties as they negotiate these difficult issues, but they will have to reach agreements that they can live with. In general terms, clearly Israel must emerge in a final status agreement with secure borders. Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided." ("Barack Obama Responses," American Jewish Committee, http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.3878133/, Accessed 7/22/08)

In A 2000 Position Paper, Barack Obama Stated That "Jerusalem Should Remain United And Should Be Recognized As Israel's Capital." "Third, he addressed the issue in 2000 in a position paper on Israel as part of his unsuccessful congressional campaign that year. In that paper, he stated, 'Jerusalem should remain united and should be recognized as Israel's capital.'" (Rick Richman, "Obama's Redivided Jerusalem," New York Sun, 7/16/08)

Israeli Papers Have Noticed:

Jerusalem Post: "Obama Backtracks On An Undivided J'Lem"
("Obama Backtracks On An Undivided J'Lem," The Jerusalem Post, 7/15/08)

Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "Obama Backtracks On Undivided Jerusalem."
("Obama Backtracks On Undivided Jerusalem," Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 7/13/08)

McCain Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Iraq Trip

"I was skeptical about the surge at that point and time. And he said this is what we've got to do and we did it and thank goodness for John McCain because we won. I was wrong on the surge. Thankfully, John prevailed in this and because John McCain prevailed on this we are looking at a situation where we can substantially draw down troops in Iraq today instead of defeat." Senator Sam Brownback

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Randy Scheunemann, McCain 2008 senior foreign policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's Iraq trip:

Senator Sam Brownback: "Number one, as I said earlier, thank goodness for John McCain and his tenacity and his knowledge and wisdom on calling for this surge on pushing the Bush Administration for this surge. I mean this is, you may recall from earlier, the McCain surge. It was called that derisively early on when people were really questioning the wisdom and the judgment of it.

"I think what you are seeing here are the results of somebody that's knowledgeable about the military that's ready to be commander-in-chief. He knew that we didn't have enough troops in the theater. He knew if we would show confidence and stay in power that we could and would win. And he had been through the Vietnam experience. He wasn't about to get involved in something that wasn't moving toward success. So he stood there in the face of all on comers, including myself. I was skeptical about the surge at that point and time. And he said this is what we've got to do and we did it and thank goodness for John McCain because we won. I was wrong on the surge. Thankfully, John prevailed in this and because John McCain prevailed on this we are looking at a situation where we can substantially draw down troops in Iraq today instead of defeat.

"If we had stayed on the Obama strategy, you would be staring at a wholly different situation in Iraq today. You'd be looking probably at heightened violence, a segmented country being run by different groups, and an expanded terrorist base in all likelihood. We don't know any of that for certain, but we do know for certain that the surge has worked and it's because of the surge that we are in the situation that we are today. I believe it would be right for Senator Obama to simply say look I was wrong the surge has worked, the surge had produced these results. That's how you then learn from past experiences on it rather than to deny the surge's success.

"So I think you've got a clear dichotomy here, and you've got probably the best example you could possibly see on two different commanders-in-chief, and John McCain and Barrack Obama, and how they would have handled a really difficult situation. And the one produced success and the surge and the other would have in all likelihood produced massive failure and expansion of terrorism globally. You've got the best real life example possible here.

"Final point, there's two things that the president does alone. The president is commander-in-chief and the president does foreign policy. Most other things the president does with Congress or with other groups, but those two specifically given to the president. John McCain has shown and demonstrated in the most difficult of circumstances, both personally in his own life and as a policy maker and a statesman, his ability to lead troops as commander and chief and his ability to conduct foreign policy. I don't think you are seeing near that and I think you're seeing support for failed policies the way Barack Obama has shown he would lead."

...

Representative Heather Wilson: "I think there are a couple of things that are important to remember today. One is that Senator Obama has shown a complete inability to acknowledge that the surge worked. Last night on television, he said that he would not have -- even in hindsight -- he wouldn't have changed the way he voted, which was against the surge and even against funding of the troops in harm's way, which led to the success that we've had today. So he would have chosen failure over success, even looking in hindsight. And I find that completely perplexing.

"The second thing I think is important to remember is that he is being driven by the calendar and not by the conditions on the ground. It's interesting that, as we've been successful in Iraq in eradicating Al Qaeda in Iraq and calming the violence, it's become possible to look at reduced force levels. And John McCain has always said, against the opinion of public opinion and also, in some cases, against the opinion of his own president of his own party, that we need to be successful, irrespective of the calendar, and he'd like troops to come home earlier than 16 months, if the conditions allow it.

"Senator Obama has said it's a 16-month timeline no matter what. And he's apparently today muddied his position somewhat on this. But we never -- I think the important thing here is -- we never would have gotten to this situation if Senator Obama had his way, because he would have withdrawn from Iraq and left it in a mess."

...

Randy Scheunemann: "I want to comment on some of the statements Senator Obama has made, both in televised interviews, as well as in his press conference. Senator Obama said he and General Petraeus occupy different roles. That is certainly true. Senator Obama is a candidate for president, and General Petraeus led one of the most amazing military campaigns in American history.

"General Petraeus knows what led to the successes to date. And the policy, strategy, and force levels that led to those successes were opposed by Senator Obama. He voted against them; he predicted they would fail, even as they were succeeding."

...

"Senator Obama said that completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground say would mean, 'I am not doing my job as commander-in-chief. I am rubber-stamping decisions made on the ground.' This is really an amazing statement. He believes that deferring to the commanders on the ground is not the job of the commander-in-chief. He believes that deferring to the best military judgment of commanders is rubber-stamping. He refuses to credit General Petraeus and General Odierno for their leadership. He disparages their strategic judgment and trumpets his own.

"What is Senator Obama's judgment based on? He predicted the surge would increase violence. He was wrong. He voted to cut off funds for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was wrong. Now he wants to supplant his judgment for successful military commanders."

...

"The reality is that Senator Obama's judgment on the most important national security question facing our country in 2007 was wrong. And it demonstrates both his inexperience and his ideological rigidity."

...

"Senator Obama used to say U.S. forces were babysitting a civil war. Now he argues Sunni and Shia leaders would have made the same decisions over the last 18 months if the security situation was as bad as it was at the end of 2006. Earlier this year in January, he said, 'I would point out that much of the violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know, that the Americans were leaving soon. That's how you change behavior.' This is 100 percent wrong. First, he re-wrote his Web site to purge his criticism of the surge. Now, he's trying to re-write history. It is nothing short of fantasy to dream that the election of a Democratic Congress led to progress in Anbar.

"In late 2006, the situation in Anbar was bleak. In fact, there was a front-page Washington Post story based on a leaked Marine Corps intelligence memo that gathered wide attention at the time. That memo reportedly said, 'Most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability. Between Al Qaida's violence, Iran's influence, and the expected U.S. drawdown, the social and political situation has deteriorated to such a point that U.S. and Iraqi forces are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in Anbar.'

"That was in November 2006. Then the surge came. The surge first focused in Anbar, and the success there enabled Iraqi and U.S. forces to move on to other parts of the country. Senator Obama said today that Shia militias stood down. They didn't stand down. They were beaten down. They were beaten down by American and Iraqi forces.

"Senator Obama will not credit generals; he will not credit the strategy that works. And he consistently demonstrates his core judgment and his inflexibility in the face of clear facts on the ground."

Listen To The Full Conference Call.

McCain - Barack Obama Said It!: "There's No Doubt That General Petraeus Does Not Want A Timetable"

Barack Obama
Media Availability
Amman, Jordan
July 22, 2008

Barack Obama: "In terms of my conversations with General Petraeus, there's no doubt that General Petraeus does not want a timetable. I mean I think that he's said that publicly. And he is, and as I said, in his role, I think he wants maximum flexibility to be able to do what he believes needs to be done inside of Iraq."

Watch Barack Obama.

John McCain 2008 Launches New Web Video: "Obama Love"

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released its latest web video entitled "Obama Love." The video highlights the media's love affair with Barack Obama -- or as MSNBC's Chris Matthews says, that "thrill going up my leg."

Watch "Obama Love": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo

Vote For Your Favorite Love Song For "Obama Love": http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm

John McCain 2008 Launches New TV Ad: "Pump"

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released a new television ad entitled "Pump." The ad highlights Barack Obama's opposition to initiatives that will help to lower gas prices and achieve energy independence. Barack Obama opposes more drilling in America, expanding nuclear energy use and incentives to spark electric-car research. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has proposed a comprehensive, balanced plan to achieve energy independence -- the Lexington Project -- that supports more drilling, expands the use of nuclear energy, encouraging more research while investing in alternative energy sources. The ad will air on national cable and in key states.

View the ad here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTpS4MK3D8

Script For "Pump" (TV :30)

ANNCR: Gas prices - $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.

No to independence from foreign oil.

Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?

CHANT: Obama, Obama

ANNCR: One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets.

Don't hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

AD FACTS: Script For "Pump" (TV :30)

ANNCR: Gas prices - $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.

· On July 20, 2008, Average Gasoline Prices Were $4.07. (AAA Website, http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/, Accessed 7/20/08)

· In Parts Of The Country, Gas Prices Are Over $5 A Gallon. "The president's announcement comes as public pressure intensifies to do something about gas prices that have gone over $5 a gallon in some parts of the state." (Dena Bunis, "Petroleum Power Play," The Orange County Register, 7/15/08)

· Barack Obama Opposes Lifting The Ban On Offshore Drilling. Obama: "The politics may have changed, but the facts haven't. The accuracy of Sen. McCain's original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville, FL, 6/20/08)

ANNCR: No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump? CHANT: Obama, Obama

· Barack Obama Said He's Fine With A Gradual Increase In Gas Prices. Obama: "Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So..." CNBC's John Hardwood: "So could these high prices help us?" Obama: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing." (CNBC's "Your Money, Your Vote," 6/10/08)

· Barack Obama Called John McCain's $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A "Gimmick." Obama: "In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)

· Barack Obama Has Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: "That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn't make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)

· FactCheck.org's Brooks Jackson: "No Guarantee" That Barack Obama's Sole Energy Proposal "Would Actually Reverse The Growth Of Oil Imports." "We also point out that even over the long term there can be no guarantee that just spending more for research will produce the sort of new fuels, vehicles or other breakthroughs that would actually reverse the growth of oil imports. Keep in mind that the U.S. imported the equivalent of 13.4 million barrels of oil per day last year, up nearly 17 percent from just five years earlier and 32 percent higher than in 1997. This is a huge problem that has been getting worse for a long time. Reversing it will not be 'fast' or painless." (Brooks Jackson, "Straining A Point," FactCheck.org, 7/17/08)

· Barack Obama's Energy Plan Relies On A Tax Increase Proven To Fail. "Obama often criticizes big oil and a big part of his energy plan revolves around higher taxes on oil companies, to help fund R & D for new energy technologies, to pay for tax credits for some consumers, even to spur exploration. Oil companies have faced a windfall profit tax before in the 1970s. The tax was repealed in the '80s. Why? Because a lot of people felt it wasn't raising enough revenue, Wolf, that it was an administrative headache and at the end of the day, oil exploration was going down when it need to be going up." (CNN's "Situation Room," 6/26/08)

ANNCR: One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don't hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain. JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

· John McCain Proposed Lifting The Ban On Offshore Drilling And Letting States Decide If They Wanted To Explore And Drill For Energy. McCain: "But I also believe that lifting the moratoria from offshore drilling or oil and natural gas exploration is something that we should place as a very high priority. And again, I don't want to dictate to the states what they should do, but I think that the states can be provided with additional incentives such as a greater share of the revenues than is presently the case." (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Press Availability, Arlington, VA, 6/16/08)

· USA Today: "McCain Trumps Obama By Calling For More Offshore Drilling To Increase U.S. Supplies." "McCain trumps Obama by calling for more offshore drilling to increase U.S. supplies. Obama complains that it wouldn't cut pump prices now and might eventually add only a small amount to world supplies, which is true but misses the point. Increasing U.S. supply and cutting imports while the nation shifts away from oil is a worthwhile goal." (Editorial, "Mccain + Obama = A Valid Energy Plan," USA Today, 7/3/08)

· The New Hampshire Union-Leader: "On the issue of whether to pursue domestic offshore oil drilling to further U.S. national interests, U.S. Sen. John McCain's position wins hands down over that of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. McCain wants to lift a decades-long ban that has prevented much of such drilling. Obama wants to keep it in place." (Editorial, "Energy Election: McCain Wins Over Obama," The New Hampshire Union-Leader, 6/20/08)

· CNN's Frank Sesno: "Expectations Of More Production Can Send Prices Down." FRANK SESNO: "Obama's criticized McCain for saying more drilling would have a positive psychological impact. But there is psychology in energy markets, worries about soaring demand in China or supply disruptions in Nigeria send prices up. Expectations of more production can send prices down." (CNN's "Situation Room," 6/26/08)

· Harvard Professor And Former Council Of Economic Advisors Chairman Martin Feldstein: "Increasing The Expected Future Supply Of Oil Would Also Reduce Today's Price." "Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today's price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future. For example, increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today. Similarly, increasing the expected future supply of oil would also reduce today's price. That fall in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and others with some current excess capacity or available inventories. Any steps that can be taken now to increase the future supply of oil, or reduce the future demand for oil in the U.S. or elsewhere, can therefore lead both to lower prices and increased consumption today." (Martin Feldstein, Op-Ed, "We Can Lower Oil Prices Now," The Wall Street Journal, 7/1/08)

· TheStreet.com's Eric Bolling: "Certain People In Congress Would Have Us Believe That Those Barrels Are 10-Plus Years Away From Our Refiners' Cracking Towers. That's Just Not True. ... [W]e Could Realize Oil In As Little As A Year And As Far Into The Future As Six Years For Those Really Remote Reservoirs." "We have billions upon billions of barrels and gas equivalents of oil available to the world. In fact, we have billions upon billions available to us in the U.S. We have an estimated 18 billion barrels off the Outer Continental Shelf. Certain people in Congress would have us believe that those barrels are 10-plus years away from our refiners' cracking towers. That's just not true. I told you about the conversations I had with TransoceanRIG officers and their time frames for that oil in the last column. I have since confirmed that opinion with other big-time ocean drillers, and the picture remains as clear as it was last we ek. It would take anywhere from one to six years to produce a barrel from the Outer Continental Shelf. That's right, we could realize oil in as little as a year and as far into the future as six years for those really remote reservoirs. These are barrels we need now and will certainly need in the future. These are barrels that currently rest under a drilling moratorium. These are barrels that the next president should release as soon as possible." (Eric Bolling, "How To Solve The Oil Crisis," TheStreet.com, 6/25/08)

· John McCain Called For A $300 Million Prize For A Next Generation Battery. McCain: "I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Campaign Event, Fresno, CA, 6/23/08)

· USA Today: McCain's Prize For A Better Battery Is "Smarter Than More Bureaucratic Approaches." "$300 million battery prize. Obama derides this as a gimmick, but McCain's idea for developing a radically better battery for powering a new generation of cars strikes us as smarter than more bureaucratic approaches. Like the X-Prize that helped propel the first civilian aircraft into space, a reward can leverage huge private investment. The idea would be better, though, if it focused on building radically more fuel-efficient cars regardless of the technology." (Editorial, "Mccain + Obama = A Valid Energy Plan," USA Today, 7/3/08)

· John McCain Has Proposed Building 45 New Nuclear Plants. McCain: "So, if I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America." (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield, MO, 6/18/08)

· FactCheck.org: "Obama's Energy Plan Contains No Such [Nuclear Energy] Initiative" Comparable To John McCain's Plan. "But it's true McCain is more aggressive in his support of nuclear power, giving it a prominent place in his energy plan, with the goal of creating 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and as many as 100 total. Obama's energy plan contains no such initiative." (Emi Kolawole, "A False Accusation About Energy," FactCheck.org, 7/9/08)