If Obama can fight off mini-me's slanderous remarks then the trail for W's crimes are hot. W's aiding of mini-me's campaign is not about burnishing W's legacy-it is about keeping the Democrats from having subpoena power while all of the crimes are still fresh. We know that big bro 43 is running out the clock and that the Democrats won't impeach him as they figure if they W's popularity will surge from all-time lows.

::::::::

Our military youths' lives are being wasted so McCain can act like only the GOP can protect us against W's undefined, "those who are against us".

McCain is emotionally damaged. If somehow his vile attacks attract enough
apathetic red staters that he wins the election it appears as if he'd keep our
troops bogged down in Iraq for the duration of his term.

The July 22, 2008 article "McCain Meltdown" at
click here
shows McCain--mini-me's attack "This is a clear choice that the American people
have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a
political campaign than lose a war.
It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political
campaign."

The author further states, "This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency.

How sad....
Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don't say these sort of things: It isn't presidential. A President exists in the straitjacket of literality. His words mean something. So John McCain has to literally believe that Barack Obama would "rather lose a war in order to win a
political campaign."

The author comprehends the fact that "The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be lost" at this point. The reality is that no matter who is elected President, we are looking at a residual U.S. force of 30-50,000 by 2011 (a year ahead of the previous schedule). The reality is that McCain should be proud that he helped salvage a disastrous situation by pushing the counterinsurgency plan. It's something to run on. But, at this point, McCain must sense that it's not a winning hand. Obama, the poker player, has drawn to an inside straight: the Iraqis favor his plan over McCain's long-term bases.

That must be galling. But it's no excuse to pop off the way McCain did. It was, "shockingly, unpresidential."

The July 23, 2008 article "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25834371/ notes that McCain continues to lie about the surge as the article states McCain's perpetual damage control mode spirals out of control. Yesterday, he said the surge happened first, then the Sunni awakening in Anbar. This morning, he said the awakening wouldn't have survived if it wasn't for the surge.

Breaking news! This afternoon, he said there was a surge before there was a surge:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R-AZ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was briefed by Colonel McFarland in December of 2006 where he outlined what was succeeding there in this counter-insurgency strategy, which we all know of now as the surge. (END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: It was the secret surge, which only John McCain knew about. Just a coincidence he said this in the supermarket cheese aisle. But back to chronology, Sunni awakening on August 2006, surge announcement on
January 2007. The tape of McCain's biggest blunder yet, conveniently edited out by CBS is now, itself, out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: Colonel McFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge, we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others and it began the "Anbar Awakening." I mean, that's just a matter of history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: McCain's latest imaginary history that if we followed Obama's advice, the sheiks who led the awakening in Anbar would have been assassinated. The sheik who led the awakening in Anbar, Abdul al-Rishawi, he was assassinated, during the surge."

Olbermann introduced a CBS interview of mini-me. The night of July 22, 2008
Katie Couric CBS ANCHOR asked McCain "Senator Obama says while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias, and says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?"

Mini-me must have liked that phrase, but for a matter of history Olbermann provided this in his article "If we're saying it's a matter of history, here are a few historical key dates. August 2006, the so-called "Anbar Awakening" kicks off with a meeting between Colonel McFarland and Sheik Abdul al-Rishawi. January 2007, the surge is introduced, announced by President Bush. If you're not familiar with him, he is the commander-in-chief, he ordered the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq and that would be the definition of the surge. June 2007, all surge troops were finally in place, operations could properly begin a full 10 months after the Sunni awakening in Anbar. It is worth noting mhat the vast majority of surge troops went to Baghdad not to Anbar, and that the same sheik that McCain claimed to Katie Couric, the surge was able to protect was himself assassinated in December of 2007 when the surge was at its peak."

McCain's remark, "Senator Obama's indicated by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign" is pure Rove. Obama says that the violence has gone down. He attributes that to the "Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias" and the surge. How does McCain mangle up Obama's remark into "he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign"? There is no logic there-only propaganda-in which the White House is directly involved.

The article "White House Accidentally E-Mails to Reporters Story That Maliki
Supports Obama Iraq Withdrawal Plan" at
click here
stated "The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive
distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit
plan - magazine."

The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German
magazine Der Spiegel that "he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months ... 'U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,'" the prime minister said.
The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal
distribution list, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

The misfire comes at an odd time for Bush foreign policy, at a time when Obama's campaign alledges the president is moving closer toward Obama's recommendations about international relations -- sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, discussing a "general time horizon" for U.S. troop withdrawal and launching talks with Iran."

W is funneling mini-me his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. The trouble for the pathetic GOP is that these plans are so inept that big bro 43 has to adapt his plans and they are beginning to mirror Obamas'.

Why are the thick-witted buffoons in big bro 43's employ playing around with e-mailing things such as this? They are hoping that mini-me can get in and act as a buffer for all of their criminality.

Obama could throw another wrench into the surge debate. Big bro 43's latest GAO report stated that the surge has not resulted in the political reconciliation. The only purpose of the surge was to achieve political reconciliation.

The article "GAO Report Faults Post-'Surge' Planning -- Lack of Comprehensive Strategy Cited, but Pentagon Study Sees Gains in Iraq" at
click here
states "The administration lacks an updated and comprehensive Iraq strategy to move beyond the "surge" of combat troops President Bush launched in January 2007 as an 18-month effort to curtail violence and build Iraqi democracy, government investigators said yesterday. While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that
many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. Military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.

Bush's strategy of January 2007, the GAO said, "defined the original goals and objectives that the Administration believed were achievable by the end of this phase in July 2008." Not meeting many of them changed circumstances on the ground and the pending withdrawal of the last of the additional U.S. forces mean that strategy is now outdated, the report said."


Back on September 4, 2007 Joe Conason's article "Bush's Magic Benchmarks" at
http://www.observer.com/2007/bush-s-magic-benchmarks

noted that "As the deadline approaches for official assessments of
American policy in Iraq, the Bush Administration is maintaining a steady barrage of diversions, obfuscations and manipulations. These great clouds of smoke, emanating from Washington's think tanks and the mainstream media as well as the press offices of the White House and the Pentagon, have a single purpose: to blind us to objective realities so that the war can continue indefinitely. The arguments change but the underlying style remains the same. Since they're losing the debate, they want to change the subject."


Now, less than two years later, we have given up. We know that big bro 43 is running out the clock and that the Democrats won't impeach him as they figure if they W's popularity will surge from all-time lows to slightly better. Clinton's poll number reached the mid-70s during his impeachment.

That accounts for Dana Milbank article "Kinda Sorta Impeaching the President" at
click here
states "House Democrats had called the session, given the anodyne title "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations," to allow the left wing to vent its collective spleen. The left, led by diminutive Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), wants impeachment proceedings against the lame-duck president. Democratic leaders have said there will be no such thing, because the proceedings would be practically useless (there isn't enough time) and politically reckless (it would disrupt an election environment that heavily favors Democrats). They therefore settled on a compromise: a non-impeachment impeachment hearing.

Kucinich and his ilk could talk about impeachable offenses at the hearing, but it would not be called an impeachment hearing. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the chairman, delicately skirted around the word impeachment" in his opening statement, referring obliquely to "the power to remove" officeholders. He closed with a plea that "it's in all our interests to
work together." ..

"This committee should immediately begin impeachment hearings!" thundered Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), a key ally of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. The audience members cheered. 'Let's restrain ourselves, please," Chairman Conyers counseled. ?Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) also played to the gallery with his eye-for-an-eye logic: "If lying about consensual sexual activity fits the bill for impeachment,
then certainly lying to the American people about the reason for invading Iraq . . . qualifies as an official -- excuse me -- as an impeachable offense."


If Obama can fight off mini-me's slanderous remarks then the trail for W's crimes are hot. W's aiding of mini-me's campaign is not about burnishing big bro 43's legacy-it is about keeping the Democrats from having subpoena power while all of the crimes are still fresh.

The article "With so many Bush scandals, Slate makes detailed diagram --
Reporters find Gonzales' fingerprints in five cases" at
click here
states "Keeping track of all the scandals and malfeasance that have marked
President George W. Bush's two terms in office can prove rather taxing to even the most vigilant White House watchdog. Now the online magazine Slate has created a handy visual aide pointing out which
administration officials -- including Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and scores of others -- are implicated in
various scandals.

The interactive Venn diagram gives Gonzales top honors as perhaps the most corrupt administration figure. Slate says Gonzales, who was White House counsel before becoming Attorney General, is implicated in all five scandals it studied:
coercive interrogation, warrantless wiretapping, Justice Department hiring,
Justice Department firing and CIA tapes."

It is a psychopathic, symbiotic relationship between big bro 43 and mini-me. W needs mini-me to win. That's why when mini-me backs off-shore drilling w rescinds its ban almost immediately. Mini-me needs W's support if he is to win enough red staters to win the election. If mini-me wins he'll follow-up on W's plans to make Status of Forces agreements with Iraq for not just the near future, but for the hundred years of US soldiers dying that McCain dreams of.

Authors Bio:
Winston Smith is an ex-Social Worker. I worked in child welfare, and in medical settings and in homeless settings. In the later our facility was geared as a permanent address for people to apply for welfare. Once they received that we could send them to facilities in which their welfare paid the bill and provided enough for a meager existence. We also referred people to vocational rehabilitation services. Many of the people who came to us were people who were clearly emotionally ill, but Reagan's slashing of the services for these people caused them to become homeless. One woman I dealt with-St. Jane, believed she was in direct communication with God, urinated freely without using the facilities and she had 47 bags of trash which were prized possessions. She got welfare and was sent to a facility were she could survive. The rule was that our facility could be used 1 time only as we had too many people who thought that the services that we provided we would lift them from the dire straights that they were in. Well, we provided our services for St. Jane around Thanksgiving. On Christmas Eve she was back with her 47 bags of trash and wanted to stay at our facility. I informed my superior of this situation, but we declined to provide services for St. Jane. She slept in front of our facility in a snowstorm. The local rag took the picture and excoriated us for what we did. The local welfare department asked her where she would like to live. St. Jane said Chicago because she liked the wind. She knew on one there. She and her 47 bags of trash of were carted onto a train for the windy city and never of again. The local welfare department was glad to get shed of her. Social welfare in the mid-1980's was geared to blame the victim. Ill people were sent home from hospitals were no one was going to help them because social welfare budgets were slashed by Reagan. Bush 41's â"thousand points of lightâ" was just another way to shaft the weakest in our society. Bush 43's faith based initiative was just another attempt to reduce social welfare services. Reagan's â"Just say Noâ" was the pinnacle of hypocrisy. No services for those who desperately needed them under the guise of tough love.

Obviously I became burnt out by too much indifference regarding our weak and weary. I couldn't look at desperate people and could not get myself to say that what I could offer them wouldn't really help themâ"”it would only get them out of my office to be another person's problem, until the local welfare department carted them away.

I had little interest in politics until the illegal Iraq War started. Growing up in the 1960's caused me to understand that the GOP used war to attract right-wing extremists to vote for them. When â"Tricky Dick'sâ" secret plan to end the Vietnam War unfolded into elongating our presence there for 8 years I knew that I would never believe a GOP war-monger again. I dislike Obama's plan to escalate our presence in Afghanistan and see it as a craven attempt to placate the GOP. Maybe he'll reduce the GOP's attacks against him, but it will at the expense of alienating his base.