Barack Obama's debate strategy of portraying the Bush administration as a complete failure is running into one big problem: Bush's Iraq policy appears to be succeeding. How embarrassing! Well, at least the Democrats can try to make sure that no one finds out about this.

During his foreign trip, Obama tried to take advantage of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's statement that America should work out a withdrawal plan for Iraq. Obama triumphantly declared that now is the time for Iraqis to work out their own destiny. Obama failed to mention, however, that if he had been president, Iraq would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein. The only destiny that Obama would have consigned Iraq to is oppression, torture, and mass graves.

To understand what is going on in Iraq, we must distinguish between two approaches: the Bush doctrine and the Reagan doctrine. Unlike the Bush doctrine--which seemed to require invasion and occupation--the Reagan doctrine was one of assisted non-intervention. Reagan believed that people in foreign countries should fight for their own freedom. We do not fight for them. But if they are willing to fight, we are willing to help. And so in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Angola and to some extent in Ethiopia, Reagan supported rebels who sought liberation from Marxist tyranny. For intance, Reagan supplied Stinger missiles to the Afghani mujaheedin who were fighting to repel the Soviet invasion of that country. Reagan did not, however, send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan.

Now in Bush's defense it should be said that the Reagan doctrine could not have worked in Iraq. Unlike in Afghanistan, which the mujaheedin turned into a Soviet "bleeding wound," there was no Iraqi resistance that could substantially threaten Saddam Hussein. Bush's choice was either for America to get rid of Hussein, or to leave Hussein in power. But from the beginning the administration understood that, even in Iraq, over time the Bush doctrine must metamorphose into the Reagan doctrine.

It has taken longer than expected. But that's because Saddam's Baathist minority--let's call them the Saddamites--ran not only the government but the entire society. So it has been quite a process to train a Shia elected government to learn to govern a nation in which they were victimized for a quarter century. Slowly, however, the Iraqis have been rising to the task, assisted by able U.S. forces under the competent leadership of General Petraeus.

So now, finally, Iraqis are getting to the position where they can defend their own country and fight for their own freedom. This is what "success" means in Iraq: not the end of the insurgency, or the end of terrorism, but a situation in which Iraqis take the helm and America moves into a supporting role. Of course America is going to get out of Iraq. The only question is whether we will leave recklessly, precipituously, with the risk of escalating violence and chaos and perhaps even a return of the Saddamites. This seems to be the approach the Obama Democrats want. The other option is to leave cautiously, deliberately, in a way that leaves Iraq a self-governing society, the only pro-American Muslim democracy in the Middle East.

Postscript: Due to internal re-organization at AOL, it seems that this and other blogs are going to be suspended effective the end of this month. The blogs we have posted will still be online, but no new blogs will be posted. What a pity, especially as the election debate is heating up. I have enjoyed doing this blog and I want to thank my readers--yes, even the Dineshophobic atheists--for checking in and posting comments. (Sometimes I wonder if some of you atheists who post several times a day have regular jobs.)

AOL has informed me that the company is hiring a new blog manager and I will be negotiating the resumption of this blog--perhaps in a new format--with that person. This however could take a month or two. In the meantime look for my columns each Monday on Townhall.com and also consult my website dineshdsouza.com for forthcoming speaking events and updates.

After her questionable interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, Sarah Palin and the McCain camp decided to take a hiatus from the media. But Palin finally decided do an interview with Katie Couric. After watching the interview, people discovered exactly why she took a hiatus in the first place...she has no idea what she's talking about. Cenk Uygur makes the argument in the clip below:

Watch TYT

President Bush hasn't said much about the economic crisis the country is currently facing...until now:


Watch TYT.

While interviewing with Charlie Gibson, Sarah Palin was asked about her thoughts on the Bush Doctrine. Her answer revealed exactly how qualified she is to be the next Vice President of the United States. Take a look:


Watch TYT.

Earlier John McCain had forgotten we invaded Afghanistan. When talking to Katie Couric, he called Iraq the first major conflict since 9/11. Now, he has forgotten both wars. When upbraiding Russia for "invading" Georgia he made this classic mistake:




If Obama made half of the mistakes McCain has made on the foreign policy front, the press would have jumped down his throat as unfit to lead. How many passes is John McCain going to get?

Watch More Young Turks Here

LaVena Johnson, a private in the Army was brutally raped, beaten and killed in 2005. Her teeth were knocked in, her nose broken, she had teeth marks on her body and there was corrosive liquid poured into her vagina, most likely to destroy evidence. Then she was shot and her body set on fire. After all this, the military called it ... a suicide.

Who are they kidding? What is the real reason they are covering up this murder? A trail of blood from the private's body led into the tent of a military contractor from Kellogg, Brown & Root (a subsidiary of Halliburton at the time). I don't want to make any conclusions now about who might have done this and why it was covered up, but one thing that is exceedingly clear from the evidence is that she was murdered and there needs to be an investigation into who did it.

There is a website set up to follow this case and demand justice: http://www.lavenajohnson.com/

I got pretty worked up about this on last night's show. That's because I actually care about justice and I care about our troops (instead of just putting a bumper sticker on my car):




In my opinion, this was part of the atmosphere of lawlessness that was fostered in Iraq by the Bush administration. But I don't want my opinion to get in the way here because this should be something that we can all agree on. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already improved a lot of the conditions on the ground in Iraq and this doesn't have to be political at this point. If Republicans care about the troops as they say they do, they have to care about what happened to PFC LaVena Johnson.

This is something we should be able to unite on. If we can't get justice for Private Johnson, who can we get justice for?

Young Turks on You Tube

Drudge just called our attention to this remarkable Political Punch item, which says that a White House employee meant to send a Reuters story about the Iraqi Prime Minister supporting Obama's withdrawal plan to an internal distribution list, but instead sent it to the gazillions of reporters on the White House press list.

The emailed article's subject is not exactly what the White House wants to promote: the Iraqi Prime Minister told Der Spiegel, "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months [as a withdrawal timetable]. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Maliki also reportedly expressed frustration with the Bush administration's failure to create a timetable.

My laughter still hasn't subsided from the last post. I told my research assistant, who happens to be an atheist, that many of his fellow non-believers were too dumb to recognize even the most blatant irony and satire. He refused to believe it, until he saw it with his own eyes. He's a believer now, at least in the fact that there are plenty of atheists who are as clueless as the most ignorant fundamentalist.

Now that I've established that beyond a reasonable doubt, it's time to move on to the latest political news. In his latest speech, Obama confidently declared that America's war in Iraq is a "distraction" from our involvement in Afghanistan.

Leave aside the problem that Obama's Iraq views and policy all seem formulated prior to actually finding out what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is scheduled to go to Iraq later this month on a "fact finding mission." He will also visit Afghanistan for the first time. Couldn't Obama's wisdom on Iraq and Afghanistan have waited for what he might find when he's over there?

Liberal Democrats like Obama keep saying Iraq is the "distraction" when, from the point of view of the Islamic radicals, Iraq is absolutely crucial. Al Qaeda has publicly stressed that Iraq is the global center of the war on terror, the staging ground for the beginning of World War III.

Why is Iraq so important to Bin Laden? Because since 1979 the radical Muslims have controlled only one major Muslim country, and that is Iran. They are desperate to get their hands on a second one. They have already said that if they get Iraq, they will focus next on Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

For America, Iraq is crucial for a reason regularly stressed by real estate agents: Location, location, location. Here are the names of Iraq's neighbors: Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Is there any doubt how important it is to have a pro-American Muslim government (or even better, a pro-American Muslim democracy) in that neighborhood?

By contrast, it is Afghanistan that is quite frankly a "distraction." Afghanistan was chosen as the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks because the Taliban government provided rent-free accommodations there for the Al Qaeda training camps. It was essential for the U.S. to get rid of the Taliban, and I'm glad the international community is keeping an eye on the place to prevent a return of those fanatics. Even so, anyone who thinks Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq needs his head examined.

If Obama's dismissal of Iraq seems like the unserious speculation of a novice, McCain has shown the prudent judgment of a real statesman. When almost everyone was against the surge, McCain pushed it. It wasn't that Bush talked McCain into supporting the surge. The truth is actually the opposite: McCain sold it to Bush.

It is the surge that seems to have changed the facts on the ground, and that is a testament to McCain's political bravery and strategic far-sightedness. Let's hope Obama finds out what is really going on before he issues more pearls of unwisdom.

In this article on Huffington Post, you can see that an Obama campaign insider seems to be laying the groundwork for moving to the right on Iraq. Here's the relevant quote:

Speaking on background, a source in the Obama campaign admitted to a certain frustration with the current narrative of their candidate "moving to the center" on issues where the Illinois Democrat has always staked out moderate ground. When talking about a gradual pullout from Iraq during the primary season, for example, Obama took some abuse from the "immediate withdrawal" crowd for his repeated mantra that "we should be just as careful getting out" of Iraq as we were "careless getting in." (And indeed, as represented by the "Responsible Plan" website, that kind of talk is firmly in the mainstream of activist anti-Iraq war sentiment anyway.) In the aftermath of Obama's FISA repositioning, the Obama campaign's fear, however, is that every subsequent moderate noise will be interpreted as a cynical centrist tack.

I'm worried this sounds like a campaign floating the idea that they might move their position on Iraq. They seem to be trying to prepare the ground that Obama has always been for gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Here's the thing, almost no one is for immediate withdrawal. That's a straw man argument. So, why are they now bringing up this gradual withdrawal point? I think bending on his 16 month timeline for withdrawal during the general election campaign is a terrible idea. I explain why below:





There is a difference between moving to the center and moving to the right. There is a difference between making tough choices about Iraq once you get into office and flip-flopping in the middle of the campaign. There is a difference between being moderate and being weak. Changing your position on such a central issue would be taken as a tremendous sign of weakness. They better not even be thinking about it.

Obama didn't come this far by running a traditional campaign. Why would you switch now and go back to running the same old conventional losing campaign that Democrats have run for so long? Appeasing the right brings you no political friends. It just brings you justified scorn from both sides. Go with what brought you here, not some cheap old political tricks.

Watch the Best Political Commentary (And More) on The Young Turks You Tube Channel

Frankenstein's back, with a resounding endorsement of Barack Obama. I refer, of course, to the reemergence in public of former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Albright chastized Bush and defended Obama's statement that he would be happy to talk to Iran and other enemies of the United States. Albright blasted the current approach to the Middle East and made the anodyne point that it is just as important to converse with one's adversaries as it is to converse with one's friends.

The problem, of course, is not with talking with folks like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The problem is: who is going to do the talking? Certainly a President McCain has the experience and resolve to sit across the table with the bad guys and not fall for their deceptions or give in to their pressures. With an unseasoned guy like Obama, whose global experience may be confined to an occasional visit to the International House of Pancakes, who knows?

With Albright too it is credibility that becomes an issue. On May 11, 1996 this woman was asked by a television interviewer for "60 Minutes" whether she was troubled by the fact that Clinton-supported sanctions had resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. "It's a hard choice," she replied, "but we think it's worth it."

Leftists should keep Albright's response in mind when they wail about civilian casualties as a consequence of Bush's war in Iraq. Iraq Body Count keeps track of these casualties, and they are less than one-fifth the number of innocent civilians (mostly children) killed in the aftermath of sanctions. Sanctions had no effect on Saddam or his henchmen, who didn't miss a meal. Rather, they hurt the most vulnerable members of Iraqi society.

These facts remind us not only of the shortcomings of sanctions, which are not likely to work better with Iran than they did with Iraq. They also remind us that bad things in the world must be measured not against utopia but against what came before. Bush's Iraq war has resulted in a steep reduction of Iraqi deaths compared to the 300,000 people Saddam deposited in the mass graves and compared to the even greater number of deaths that Clinton's policies seem to have produced.

Still, I come back to Albright's original dismissal of half a million deaths with the calm affirmation: it's worth it. Can you recall another secretary of state making a remark more shockingly callous than Albright's? How this Frankenstein became the first female secretary of state remains a mystery.

And it is this same person who would presume to lecture us on what we should now be doing with Iran. I don't think we need more advice from Albright. Rather, what we need from her is an apology, followed by an overdue withdrawal from public life.

While the Senate was ready to vote on the FISA Amendments Act today, Senators Russell Feingold and Christopher Dodd fought to keep them from casting a final vote and jamming the bill through Congress.

In a statement released by Feingold, he says:

"I am pleased we were able to delay the vote on FISA until after the July 4th holiday instead of having it jammed through. I hope that over the July 4th Holiday, Senators will take a closer look at the deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American People. It is possibly to protect this country against the terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation."

For those who haven't read up on the new FISA bill, it would basically give the government the right to peek into the private overseas phone conversations, emails, and even text messages of all Americans. Part of the bill would give retroactive immunity to telephone companies that gave the government private information of Americans.

Feingold says the FISA bill would also allow the government to take all international communications and put it in a giant database. The most outrageous part of the bill states that there does not have to be any court review or evidence that anyone is doing anything wrong before the government intrudes on the person's privacy. The government will simply have complete access to the personal overseas communications of every single American.

Feingold continues to say, "It's a vast power that has no limits. There's no regulation of it."

Obviously, the new FISA bill was created to help the government "track down terrorists"....just like the Iraq War was orchestrated to find weapons of mass destruction. It all makes perfect sense.

It's angering that the government has instilled so much fear in the minds of Americans, that many are ready to hand over precious civil liberties in the name of "protection." In fact, it's sickening. All the Republicans who are avid gun owners and want to protect their constitutional right to bear arms have NO RIGHT to say an American's right to privacy is not as important. This proposed FISA bill simply violates the right to privacy. Fear tactics should not trick Americans into giving up their freedoms. The Senate needs to wake up.

The more the Bush Administration remains in power, the more the United States mirrors the image George Orwell illustrated in his book 1984. Big brother really is watching, and members of our own Senate are allowing it to happen.

Feingold admits that many of the Senators have not completely read the bill and do not know the logistics of it. By holding off on the bill until after July 4th, hopefully the Senate will have the opportunity to think things over and not just hand the Bush Administration exactly what they want.

If you want to watch TYT's interview with Senator Feingold, please check out the video below:




More Young Turks on You Tube

We just found out that the person in charge of investigating detainee treatment in the past for the Pentagon said the Bush administration is committing "war crimes." And that the four major Western oil companies have conveniently received no-bid contracts to take the oil out of Iraq.

And what has the press done with these stories? Not a damn thing. War crimes -- don't sweat it. A war that cost thousands of lives so that the oil companies can get no-bid contracts -- don't even look into it. The news editors in this country are a national embarrassment. They wouldn't know news if it slapped them across the face. They're too busy typing out the latest government press release as if it's real news.

Here is the war crimes story and what the press did about it:




Here is the Iraqi oil story and what the press did about it (can you see a pattern here):




The press is supposed to challenge power, not suck up to it. It seems they have completely forgotten this part of the job description. Television is the worst, I don't know why we call those paid actors and models reporters anymore. Other than a handful of quality journalists, the rest of them have no idea what the news is and they are matched in their incompetence and cowardice by their own news editors. God forbid someone actually wants to report on the news, that's when the editors come in to spike the story. This system is fundamentally broken and it will take a long time to repair, if ever.

Young Turks on You Tube

Plenty of former officers have criticized the Iraq War, but there's only been one active duty career soldier who's not only come out against the War but also refused to go and fight in it. (He said he would go to Afghanistan instead, but that the Iraq war is "illegal").

That soldier is Lt. Ehren Watada, 30, a junior Army officer from Hawaii who's become a poster child for the anti-war movement. He's also become persona non grata within the military and is facing a possible sentence of six years in prison.

Our friend Tara McKelvey is the first journalist who has gotten close to him in more than a year. She's written an amazing story for The American Prospect about Watada, who's now in legal limbo and being subtly punished at a desk job.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain suspects the war in Iraq will be over by 2013.

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," said McCain.

Despite the fact that he predicts the war will "be won" in five years, McCain denies any claims that he has drawn up a timetable for full-scale troop withdrawal.

"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win," said McCain during his speech in Columbus, Ohio.

There you have it: John McCain JUST KNOWS the U.S is going to win the war in Iraq. He might not know how, but he just knows. One of the journalists who attended McCain's speech suggested he took listeners on a "magic carpet ride" to the future.

With the number of U.S casualties increasing, and the faltering economy in mind, occupying Iraq for an additional five years is a scary thought. But there are other underlying issues in McCain's statements.

First off, John McCain's response to reporters makes no sense at all. If he has not at least created a game plan for the Iraq War, what is the premise for him saying the war will end by 2013? Does he just assume things in the Middle East will smooth over by the end of his presidential term (if he gets elected)? Surely, he must have some sort of "timetable" set if he has the ability to announce a year as to when Americans can expect their sons and daughters to return from the war.

Denying that he has a game plan probably hurts him more than helps him. It's understandable that McCain likes to stick to his guns. In fact, he would be accused of hypocrisy if he didn't stand by his word. In his campaign during the primaries, McCain criticized former Republican rival Mitt Romney for hinting at a timetable for troop withdrawal. But since when is it a bad thing to have a timetable? Is the electorate keen on staying in Iraq for years to come?

The Republicans claim they are tough on national security, and that is precisely why they have kept U.S troops in Iraq. However, keeping troops in the Middle East has not secured the U.S at all. McCain's Democratic rival Barack Obama said the war has failed to secure America since it has made the U.S military weak and vulnerable to any potential attack made by other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran.

Cenk makes a good point about McCain's current comments in the following clip:



Nonetheless, it's comforting to know one of the candidates for presidency makes predictions with no real premise or plan.