Remember all those silly foreign affairs positions held by Barack Obama?  You know, like meeting directly with our enemies, which showed that Obama was naive and inexperienced?  Like setting a timetable for Iraq which was not important but on the other hand could lead to chaos and genocide?  

Over the last couple of weeks, conservative Andrew Sullivan notes that the lines between Obama's positions and those of McCain and Bush are starting "to blur."  Only, that blur seems to be moving in a particular direction.  

Iran

Obama has famously argued that the US should deal directly with the mullahs, negotiate the nuclear question and have talks without the precondition that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment. This was a clear and vital difference, we were told only a short time ago, between a reckless, appeasing Obama and the resolute, Churchillian Bushies.

And yet last week Bush authorised William Burns, a high-level State Department official, to attend talks with Tehran’s representatives on the Iranian nuclear question.

Iraq

Obama’s position has long been that troops should be withdrawn expeditiously but with care, and that the US military should shift its emphasis towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, lo and behold, last week we were also told that Bush was considering accelerating the exit of Iraq troops to beef up the Afghan mission.

For good measure, McCain also gave a speech backing what he calls a "surge" in Afghanistan, with more troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in the style of General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces.

And that's before McCain has made any response to Iraqi President Maliki's agreement with Obama's timeline.  Sullivan notes that the candidates are now sounding an awful lot alike, and that they're having trouble "putting blue sky" between their positions.

One thing he doesn't make clear: the lack of sky is because McCain and Bush have adopted more and more of Obama's "naive" positions rather than his bowing to their towering experience.

Blurry.  It's all so blurry.  Sure, Obama has a timeline, but now Bush has a "horizon," and by tomorrow McCain will probably have a purview, or a vision, or a vista.  It's all the same.  Right?

I think Senator Barack Obama is smart by talking about Iraq, Afghanistan and Foreign policy now.  By the time October rolls around, Americans will be so UPSET over the economy and lack of jobs they'll tell Senator John McCain politely to "shut up" about war and his heroism.

They'll say -- WE'RE HURTING HERE SENATOR McCAIN! What are YOU going to do about it?

Its Friday and I'm sure we could all use a little bit of Daily Show humor at the end of this hard work week.

Last night on the show Jon's opening headlines covered the little-known reversal of Bush administration policy on negotiation or as they would inaccurately refer to it - appeasement. Despite the fact that Bush has criticized his political enemies for attempting to negotiate with evil "terrorist" countries like N. Korea and Iran... that is exactly what his administration has been doing (with success, actually) with North Korea and now with Iran.

He also takes a look at McCain & Obama's speech at the NAACP and the art of pandering to minorities. He tries to evaluate how each candidate is doing at pandering to Hispanics by using a Lou Dobbs meter.

Enjoy the videos and weigh in with comments -

I was sixteen years old on September 11th, 2001.  I found out about the attacks when I walked into school, on the Air Force Academy base in Colorado Springs.  I'm sure you all remember the moment you heard.

At that moment, our nation was thrust into an age of maybes.

Maybe this wasn't the only attack.  Maybe the State Department was bombed.  Maybe there were as many as a dozen planes hijacked.  Maybe this isn't over - maybe it's just the beginning.

The maybes only got worse after that.

After attending Tony Snow's funeral in DC and flying over California's wildfires, maybe with Arnold, maybe not, my best information says, the president's entourage ("package" according to the CHP) will be landing in St. Helena via Marine 1 and 2.  They'll be escorted by the CHP, probably up the Silverado Trail, to the GOP fundraiser at 6:10.  This is likely at Frank Family Vineyard on Larkmead Lane in Calistoga.  I can't be sure GWB will be attending, but they've confirmed they'll be hosting a political event on Thursday and they were having landscaping installed.  The president will be sleeping in Tucson, maybe with McCain, maybe not.

If you're in the neighborhood, drop by instructions follow.  Otherwise, please vote on the best, most concise message to accompany the 40 or so white crosses we'll display.

Now, let me pass it along to you!

It is my habit to turn on the radio (NPR) during morning kitchen time - making/eating/cleaning up after breakfast.   We got up so late yesterday, that by the time I flipped on the radio, the Decider-in-Chief's Press Conference, (which many suspect to have been timed to divert attention from Obama's speech, later yesterday) was just getting under way.

Normally, my urge is to change the channel.  I hate that whiney, patronizing tone and those slurred s's with all my heart!   But I toughed it out, and now, I'd like to share my pain (and my responses).  

(By the way - it's much easier to read than it is to watch or listen to! No smirks or attitude!)

I am outraged. Outraged!

About what, you say? At the fact that our great American values of democracy, christian realism, and freedom are being sold out by George W. Bush. Talk about a Manchurian Candidate.

Appearing earlier today on C-Span, Representative Jerrold Nadler stated that in a "just system" that was not politically charged we would have already impeached President George W Bush for war crimes.

Nadler has overseen many hearings on the administration's torture policies and has concluded that the administration acted unlawfully and committed "impeachable offenses". While this may not come as a hugely controversial finding to the KOS community, it is no doubt interesting to hear a U.S. Representative not named Dennis Kucinich making this argument on a platform like C-Span.

Watch the clip below and weigh in with your own feelings:

The push is on, big time. The solution to all of America's problems, evidently, is to drill, drill, drill.   This is now the Republican mantra as they seem to believe that they have found a winning political issue, no matter what the implications of this "win" might be for America's future.

But that push is reliant on truthiness to such an extent that it moves past Stephen Colbert to simply lying.  

Join me after the fold for a brief look at George the W, Mitch McConnell and John McCain's disingenous and deceitful words to drill the hole deeper rather than working to solve America's quite serious energy challenges.

In this new American century of tag team wars it appears that we're going to go back and conquer Afghanistan again. Who could have ever saw this coming? It's not like there is a free zone in the neighboring country where mercenaries can train. It's not like that leaders in this neighboring country were assassinated that wanted to expose this sorry game. It's not like that billions of dollars have just disappeared in this region that probably financed these mercenaries into a ready to go insurgency. No, it's not like that at all. What we must be really doing is going after Osama Bin Laden once and for all. Americans are finally emerging from that great slumber of mistake in Iraq and waking up to glory in Afghanistan. Yea, that must be it.

I don't know, too many people believe in the War On Terror for Americans to ever see clearly what's really going on in these tag team wars. Current President GW Bush is going to start the redeployment of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and the next President I'm sure will in perfect lock step continue it. It seems our NATO friends need more USA help in dominating Afghanistan.

Iraq has been in the news a lot lately.  Talk of troop reductions and timetables fill the air.  Obama has famously called for a withdrawal of all U.S. combad troops in 16 months.  The Naval Posgraduate school has completed a report that the U.S. could cut troop numbers to 50,000 by 2009. Even the Bush administration is hinting at troop cuts.  

The subject of timetables which was once verboten, is now being brought up by Iraqi officials.

The long term US/Iraqi force strength agreement negotiated between the Bussh administration and Iraq and never seen by the Senate, is also in deep trouble.

So where does that leave the candidates on Iraq?  Where does that leave us?  And what will the final shape of US troop strength in Iraq be?

Should the U.S. withdraw all combat troops in 16 months as Obama has promised?  Will Kossacks give him more flexibility on that front?  

I think Obama should work hard to round up U.N., NATO and Arab League troops to fill whatever vaacuum that is brought about by the U.S. drawdown, but I think US troops will be in Iraq for at least Obama's first term, but I think we should tell the Iraqis that we should be out of Iraq lock stock and barell in five years.

So yesterday, the Senate voted to expand the president's wiretapping powers to basically an unconstitutional level, and gave immunity to the companies that spied on the American people, and many people online are up in arms.  I just can't work up the outrage for several reasons:

Four years ago, the Democrats had a pretty good presidential candidate. Not a great one, but a pretty good one. John Kerry had a long record of mostly exemplary service in the Senate; he was a war hero. As the campaign unfolded, though, his major qualification for the White House seemed to boil down to one thing: he wasn't George W. Bush.

It wasn't enough. Bush kept his job.

More below.

American Christians in the 1990’s elevated the simple abbreviation WWJD to a sort of daily reminder of where their moral compass should be. "What Would Jesus Do?" said so much to them in those four words because the background of Jesus, the quotations by him of how to live a righteous life and help the less fortunate, etc. (Side note, the original phrase started in the 1890’s by Charles Sheldon and actually espoused a Socialist Christian advocacy.)

I think a more apt line of thinking these days is WWMD – What W Might Do? (and then do the opposite)

The British Newspaper the Times Online is reporting that the Bush administration gave $20 million dollars to an ultra leftist terrorist group in Columbian known as FARC (Note to media - these people are actually far left and are hundreds of miles to the left of 99% of Daily Kos and the Democratic Party).

In exchange, several hostages were freed, including 3 Americans.

Cross-posted at Blue Jersey.

First, I want to wish you all a Happy 4th of July. I’ve been thinking about the meaning of Independence Day, a day on which we as a people publicly declared our desire to be masters of our own destiny, to chart our own course as a free and independent society no longer under the control of others. For 232 years we Americans have done just that. We have governed ourselves, and I’d say that our record is one in which we can justly take a great deal of pride.

On this 4th of July, I’ve also been thinking about another kind of independence, namely energy independence. We are a strong country with our best days yet ahead of us. Right now, however, we face tremendous problems because we are deeply dependent on foreign oil. And we’re not just importing oil from friendly democracies like Canada, but from places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, countries who have very different values and interests from our own.

More after the jump.

cross-posted from The Dream Antilles and docuDharma

Lost in the July 3 rush to start July 4th partying is the Commander Athlete in Chief's announcement that he will support the athletes by attending the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.  This direct, single digit salute to people who care about human rights in China and who are concerned about the continuing genocide in Darfur, was delivered to avoid outcry.  Put another way, it reeks of cowardice.

Join me across the gap.

You'd think I'd have boggle fatigue by now. But this report is still mind boggling.

There's an explosive article appearing in Der Spiegel online.

It starts off by criticizing Bernanke and Company for applying their 20th Century mindset to the current economic crisis. The Fed is still operating under a set of principles developed when the US was the sole, undisputed economic Superpower

The textbook conclusion is that [developments in the US economy] will stabilize the value of money, because no one will dare demand higher wages or higher prices. But the macroeconomics textbooks are no longer worth much in the age of globalization.

That's a mild rebuke, compared to the rest of the article. The rest of the article is jaw dropping.