Here’s what Dee Dee Myers had to say about the primary season and expectations for men v. women:

As Bud White had in his excellent piece, “The Sexism Continues,” when a sitting US Senator is dismissed by major cable networks by headlines like, “(Persident) Clinton To Help Wife Get Job” as MSNBC had, there is no longer even an attempt to disguise it. This woman has more accomplishments in a year than many people do their entire lives, and certainly has more than the President (S)Elect, but her husband is going to help her get a job? She already HAS one, you misogynistic MSNBC *&@#$#! You can just bite me. This woman was a star even before she met Bill Clinton, thank you so much, or did you forget she was the first student EVER to give the address at Wellesley for her graduating class?? (Oh - and here’s a little heads up - you actually KNOW something about what SHE did in college. How about your man crush, Obama? What the hell do you know about his time at Occidental or Columbia, huh??? Tools.) Her husband is going to help her get a job? Please.

Just as a little reminder of the esteem with which GROWN UPS are capable of holding Senator Clinton, here she is as the Guest of Honor at the Marine Corps Sunset Parade:

Do you think she was the guest of honor because of her husband, or because as a US Senator, she has worked tirelessly for our men and women in uniform, especially veterans? Yeah. Her work, not who her husband is. Jagoffs.

Well, I was wrong. I guess Obama did unite some people after all. Men against women. Again. Out in the open, with no remorse. From our “news” channels. Great. What a uniter.

We extend to Chicagoan our heartiest congratulations for his investigative reporting and perfectly written story which, as you can see, is being picked up by other blogs. Check the direct link to his story to see if more blogs link to his post.

And now … you may also use this post as an OPEN THREAD, but do let Chicagoan know how very proud we all are, in this big family at No Quarter, of his hard work today.

What else is going on in the world?

NOW on to the BUMPING UP of Larry Johnson’s EXCEPTIONAL essay that sensible people everywhere should read. We realize that the KoolAid dipsomaniacs are unable to see, let alone comprehend, but we’ll persist.

By LARRY JOHNSON, originally published on November 11, 2008:

If you enjoyed the George W. Bush era, you are gonna love the Barack Obama regime, because Obama is relying on some of the same folks who helped create the mayhem and failures in the CIA. That’s right, boys and girls. Take a look at today’s Wall Street Journal:

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party. . . .

The intelligence-transition team is led by former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan and former CIA intelligence-analysis director Jami Miscik, say officials close to the matter. Mr. Brennan is viewed as a potential candidate for a top intelligence post. Ms. Miscik left amid a slew of departures from the CIA under then-Director Porter Goss.

Advisers caution that few decisions will be made until the team gets a better picture of how the Bush administration actually goes about gathering intelligence, including covert programs, and there could be a greater shift after a full review.

The Obama team plans to review secret and public executive orders and recent Justice Department guidelines that eased restrictions on domestic intelligence collection. “They’ll be looking at existing executive orders, then making sure from Jan. 20 on there’s going to be appropriate executive-branch oversight of intelligence functions,” Mr. Brennan said in an interview shortly before Election Day.

Putting John Brennan in charge of this effort is mind numbing. Brennan was one of the George Tenet toadies who defended the former CIA Director when I, along with a group of other retired CIA officers, demanded that Tenet donate part of the proceeds of his book to the families of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq and to return his medal of freedom.

Brennan was part of the group of the insiders who saw no problem with George Tenet helping cook the intelligence and mislead the American people about the threat in Iraq. Here’s what Tim Shorrock wrote about that dust up:

Tenet’s ties with contractors were underscored last week in a dispute between two groups of former CIA officials over Tenet’s legacy. On April 28, six former intelligence officers wrote to Tenet, saying he shared culpability with President Bush and Vice President Cheney for “the debacle in Iraq,” and suggesting he donate half the royalties from his book to Iraq war veterans and their families. All of the signatories had severed their ties to U.S. intelligence, although three of them, Phil Giraldi, Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistraro, work as consultants for news organizations, corporations and government agencies outside of intelligence.

A few days later, six recently retired officers responded. They called the first letter a “bitter, inaccurate and misleading attack” on Tenet and pointed out that it was drafted by officers who “had not served in the Agency for years.” Tenet, his supporters said, “literally led the nation’s counterterrorism fight.” And three of its six signatories were directly involved in that fight — as contractors. They included John Brennan of the Analysis Corp.; Cofer Black, Tenet’s former counterterrorism director and vice chairman of Blackwater, the private military contractor; and Robert Richer, the former deputy director of the CIA’s clandestine services. Richer recently left Blackwater to become the CEO of Total Intelligence, a new company formed with Black and other ex-CIA officials to provide intelligence services to corporations and government agencies.

In the immediate aftermath of 9-11 Brennan was in charge of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (which was replaced subsequently by the National Counter Terrorism Center) and failed to give the U.S. State Department the correct statistics on the number of terrorist attacks in 2003. He forgot to count an entire month’s data. I discovered the error and alerted folks at State Department.

Professors Alan Krueger and David Laitin independently discovered the discrepancies and published an op-ed in the Washington Post. Here’s a link for a comprehensive article discussing that intelligence failure.

So you think I am being too hard on Brennan? Sure, anyone can make a mistake. However, he was back in the news in 2005. I learned in March of that year that the State Department was not going publish the CIA stats on terrorism because the number of attacks had dramatically increased and the Bush Administration thought that made it look like they were losing the war on terror. John Brennan was part of that effort to keep the truth from the American public. Here’s the piece I wrote to help draw attention to this issue back in 2005:

The numbers are in and the news is not good for U.S. efforts to contain and reduce the threat of international terrorism. 2004 marked the highest number of significant incidents of terrorism since the intelligence community started keeping statistics in 1968. (An incident is counted as significant if an attack results in the death, injury or kidnapping of one or more persons or property damage in excess of $10,000). Attacks jumped from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004. This surpasses the previous high of 273 significant attacks in 1985.

The bad news kept on coming. One thousand nine hundred and seven (1907) people died in international terrorist attacks last year. This marks the second highest death toll since 1968; falling short of the infamous record of 2001.

Unfortunately, former 9-11 Commission Staff Director, Phil Zelikow, and chief of the National Counter Terrorism Center, John Brennan, tried with some success to confuse the press and suggest that the numbers do not matter. In a deft display of obfuscation and spin Messrs. Zelikow and Brennan made several points. It started with Zelikow’s claim that:

The compilation of data about terrorist attacks is not a required part of the report, but traditionally had been provided by the State Department, going back to the years in which the State Department was basically the public voice of the U.S. Government on international terrorism, generally. . . . But what’s important for our purposes is what the law said the NCTC should do. It said the NCTC was the primary organization for analysis and integration of — and I’m quoting from the law now — “All intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States Government pertaining to terrorism or counterterrorism.” The law further stated that the NCTC would be the United States Government’s “shared knowledge bank on known and suspected terrorists and international terror groups, as well as their goals, strategies, capabilities, and networks of contact and support.” (Phil Zelikow)

State Department’s role as the lead for coordinating international terrorism was established by a National Security Decision Directive signed by President Reagan in early 1986. This was in response to an interagency fight that broke out during an effort to apprehend the terrorists responsible for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship. While flying over Italy in late 1985 in pursuit of Abu Abbas, a State Department official and a CIA officer argued heatedly over who was in charge of the mission. Recognizing the need for a clear chain of command the Department of State was put in charge of coordinating the efforts of CIA, DOD, and FBI efforts to track and deal with terrorism. The first man put in charge of this effort was L. Paul (Jerry) Bremer.

Mr. Zelikow is misleading the media by asserting that the State Department “traditionally compiled the data”. That is simply not true. The State Department never was in charge of collecting or compiling the statistics. It simply coordinated the process of assembling the data in order to provide the Congress and the American people with a comprehensive view of international terrorist activity. Since 1986 the Counter Terrorism Center at the CIA had the task of compiling the data and writing the narrative analysis. Don’t take my word for it, just ask the former Chiefs of the Counter Terrorism Center starting with Dewey Claridge and ending with Cofer Black.

By splitting the statistics on terrorism from the country reports, Zelikow is creating the kind of stovepiping of information which the 9-11 Commission claimed helped undermine US efforts to detect and defeat Al Qaeda’s effort to launch their suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is nothing in the new law requiring this move.

John Brennan, the head of the National Counter Terrorism Center, made the unbelievable admission that when the CIA shifted responsibility for counting terrorist incidents to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) in the fall of 2003 only three part time people were assigned to the task. Brennan said:

To ensure a more comprehensive accounting of terrorist incidents, we in the NCTC significantly increased the level of effort from three part-time individuals to 10 full-time analysts, and we took a number of other steps to improve quality control and database management. This increased level of effort allowed a much deeper review of far more information and, along with Iraq, are the primary reasons for the significant growth in a number of terrorist incidents being reported.

The American people are asked to believe that nobody at TTIC understood in the aftermath of 2001 that we needed to keep a comprehensive count of terrorist events. Implicit in this criticism is a smear on the good work done previously at the Counter Terrorism Center. CTC did not consider counting terrorism events an afterthought. They used a sound methodology of monitoring news media reports, FBIS reports, and cables from US Embassies and Defense Attaches to identify possible acts of international terrorism. An act of violence did not necessarily mean that terrorism was involved. Instead expert analysts from CTC and State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) would meet periodically to review and decide what incidents represented acts of international terrorism.

This process broke down when the responsibility for doing this was shifted from CTC and put under Mr. Brennan’s stewardship at the Terrorist Threat Integration Center in late 2003. Mr. Brennan in fact shares much of the responsibility for the debacle with the statistics that were misreported in the report issued in April 2004. He did not ensure that his part time employees could count.

With the beefed up work force at NCTC we now know that 10 analysts were involved in counting 651 significant international terrorist attacks in 2004. Geez, I guess that means it took each analyst one year to keep track of 65 attacks.

Brennan asks the media and the American people to believe that the rise in attacks is simply the result of better counting by more people. Not true. An independent data source from RAND-MIPT shows a similar dramatic rise in attacks and deaths. This is not an artifice of methodology. Something bad is going on out there.

Two countries account for a major portion of the increased terrorist activity—the Kashmir region of India and Iraq. With respect to Kashmir, it is important to note that since 1998 this area has consistently appeared in the appendix in Patterns of Global Terrorism that described significant incidents. I have used this data in briefing for foreign governments during that period to point out that not only was India being repeatedly attacked by Islamic jihadists (who were funded and trained by Pakistan), but that the people of Kashmir repeatedly suffered one of the highest death tolls of any country in the world from terrorist attacks. The sad fact is that media, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Government, tended to ignore these attacks.

It is worth recalling that the cruise missiles fired by President Clinton in August of 1998 in retaliation for the Al Qaeda bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania struck a camp in Afghanistan and killed members of one of the groups that carried out attacks in the Kashmir as well as two Pakistani intelligence officers. In the war against Islamic extremists Kashmir matters.

Brennan’s response on Iraq is more puzzling:

QUESTION: Do you regard the Iraq numbers that you just gave us — for which, thank you — as comparable? And the reason I ask is that I’ve got to figure that if there’s one piece of real estate that the U.S. intelligence community has devoted enormous resources to in the last two years, it’s got to be — two-and-a-half years — it’s Iraq. Therefore, do you think those figures are comparable, ‘03 to ‘02?
MR. BRENNAN: In terms of what the term you’re using — “comparable” — to sort of denote here, I’m not certain. The rigor that we applied worldwide for the 2004 data also applied to Iraq. So it was Iraq, Kashmir, and others. So that number, I think, is the result of exhaustive search and research on that. Also, as I pointed out, the number of civilians that have come not just from the United States, but also from other countries — the number of individuals who, in fact, are in different places in Iraq that have been involved in some of the attacks that have taken place there, I think that is the reason why, in fact, we’re seeing an increase in that number.

Although Brennan is not certain about the comparability of the numbers we do not have to rely on him. Data maintained by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is reported on at least a weekly basis to the Secretary of Defense, shows clear unambiguous data that the level of terrorist activity in Iraq mushroomed in 2004. In fact, the highest level of attacks ever recorded in Iraq occurred in December 2004.

Iraq is relevant to the threat of international terrorism principally because it is serving as a drawing card for jihadists throughout the Islamic world. I have had recent discussions with senior government officials representing three countries in the Persian Gulf. To a man they were alarmed by the images coming out of Iraq showing US soldiers abusing muslim women and the shooting of unarmed insurgents. The perception of the United States as an invader is inciting terrorism in the region, not quelling it. Several commented on the perceived parallel of the U.S. presence in Iraq as comparable to what the Soviets did in Afghanistan during the 1980s. They worry that we are sowing the seeds of future jihadist terrorism.

The real news from the press conference of Messrs. Zelikow and Brennan is that they have not finished counting the incidents from last year and that the numbers are likely to go up when revised statistics are issued in June. Moreover, both conceded that events in Russia and Philippines, where several hundred were killed, were excluded from the data.

I welcome Mr. Brennan’s commitment to look at the methodology and recommend corrections. The failure to count attacks inside Russia by Chechen separatists, for example, needs to be re-examined. While ten years ago there was no evidence that the Chechen were receiving outside assistance, that is not the case today. In fact Chechen fighters in the battle of Anaconda in Afghanistan in March 2002 killed American soldiers. The Chechen movement has clear economic and military ties to international jihadists. In future reports it would be entirely appropriate to classify as international attacks something carried out by any group with established ties to groups outside of their country.

There is no single statistic that can tell us what is happening in the war on terrorism. Reporting multiple attacks does not necessarily mean that casualties will follow. As Brennan and Zelikow correctly note most of the casualties were caused by a relatively small number of attacks. But, those attacks were carried out by Islamic extremists that have clear ties with Al Qaeda.

In light of this it is breathtaking that someone with Zelikow’s intellect can argue that numbers don’t matter. The following exchange occurred during the Wednesday afternoon press conference:

QUESTION: Um, 651 attacks in 2004, compared to 175 attacks in your report in 2003. That’s a sharp increase in terrorist attacks. What does that tell us about the war on terrorism — the global war on terrorism and the cooperation? . . . .
MR. ZELIKOW: I mean, the short answer is it doesn’t tell us anything about the war on terror. The statistics are simply not valid for any inference about the progress, either good or bad, of American policy. I think that’s the honest answer. If you just look at what the statistics are and what kind of inferences can legitimately be drawn from them, I can’t come up with a defensible inference.

Here’s the bottom line. Numbers do matter. If more people are being killed in Iraq and India then we need to ensure that US policy for combating terrorism is focused on those areas. To pretend that the threat of terrorism is as great in Brazil as in Iraq is delusional. And to pretend that objective facts say nothing about the reality of terrorism perhaps shows us why the US effort to deal with Islamic extremists is going in the wrong direction.

Friends in the intelligence community tell me that Zelikow, when confronted with the higher numbers, tried to have those numbers suppressed. Once word of this leaked out Zelikow shifted gears to damage control and constructed the artificial and misleading explanation that NCTC is now doing something new that was never done before. Oh yeah, and it is mandated by law.

Sadly this simply shows how uninformed Zelikow is about the history of counter terrorism policies and procedures during the last 25 years, notwithstanding his post as staff director of the 9-11 Commission. Maybe this explains why the Commission had such difficulty identifying who failed in their duty to prevent those terrible attacks in September 2001. Phil Zelikow by his own admission has trouble making sense of numbers.

So you thought Barack Obama would bring change to the abuses at CIA? Think again. He’s relying on folks who helped debase and embarrass the CIA. That’s not change I want to believe in.

It took nearly two years with an army of indomitable hunters determined to trap a POTUS* at any cost using any means, but Obama did it.

Now that the biggest, most hazardous, acutely stressful, and toughest job on the planet has been captured, what is Obama going to do with it? I get the feeling that the next steps haven’t been quite thought through.

On the one hand, as recently as in the last few days Obama declared, “We can’t afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign, including clean energy, healthcare, education and tax relief for middle-class families.”

Wow—these changes would be just great. Not quite sure how we will pay for any of them though because the first three seem to contradict the fourth.

On the other hand, this POTUS has been very hard to pin down. It jumps around a lot. For example, I thought we were all going to be allowed to feed it. Obama said he needs us all, that he can’t care for the POTUS without us. But Jardin at Boing Boing notes that a promise that technology would be used to involve us all in government has now been removed from Obama’s Change.gov website. That’s disappointing, especially because all the working Joes I know raised their eyebrows years ago regarding selling folks houses they could not afford. We knew this would eventually cause them (and us) considerable agony. We “little people” have also long understood the dangers of Middle East dependence on oil while our car makers merrily continued to roll out gas guzzlers. We knew these dumb decisions would come back and bite us in our collective asses. We deserve to be heard because we are apparently much smarter than our leaders and CEOs.

So, welcome to the New Zoo. Visit it often. I do hope this POTUS stays much healthier for us than the last one. I also hope it doesn’t get hidden away somewhere so we can’t see what it is up to.

*POTUS= President Of The United States

That being said, our military has performed as well as could be expected under very dangerous circumstances. We have lost brave people, courageous people, to this war. Many of our service people have physical disabilities as a result of being there, and many more have psychological trauma that affects them, their families, and their friends. Our military has given a great deal. They deserve our appreciation, our support, and our respect for what they have done in service to our country.

And, since we are there, how we leave is important. We can’t just pull out all of our troops willy nilly. That would be tremendously irresponsible of us, in terms of the Iraqis who will be left behind without sufficient infrastructure in place, and it will diminish the efforts of our military, and the memory of those who paid the ultimate price.

Below are two videos of two different Iraqi war veterans, both of whom endorse McCain. The first is a sergeant who gave his Purple Heart to McCain:

To say the least, these are two very powerful pieces from those who know first-hand what our being in Iraq means. While I know there are others in the military who do not support McCain, their reasons for doing so speak for themselves.

Finally, there was the following endorsement in my local paper. Now, I have to say, I was stunned. SC is a red state, to be sure, but the city from which this paper comes is not. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw their endorsement of John McCain in this editorial: John McCain For President because they, like many in the MSM, have printed primarily pro-Obama, negative or not-so-pro-McCain pieces. But they nailed it with McCain:

John McCain has served our nation with extraordinary distinction for more than 40 years. But his best service should be yet to come. He understands where America has been, where it is today, and where it must go to fulfill its potential. His proven courage, experience, knowledge, judgment and capacity for working across party lines make him the best choice for the presidency on Tuesday.

Mr. McCain’s habit of delivering blunt “straight talk” represents a refreshing departure from modern political spin. For a quarter century in the U.S. House (1983-87) and Senate (1987-now), the Arizona Republican has applied sound principles of fiscal responsibility and strong national defense on a case-by-case basis.

The self-proclaimed “maverick” has dared to be his own man by taking unpopular positions on tough topics that sent most politicians retreating toward pandering generalizations. He repeatedly, and accurately, points out that he will win no “Miss Congeniality” awards from fellow federal lawmakers — due in large part to his relentless opposition to wasteful “pork” spending.

He has drawn the ire of presidents from his own party and ideological purists on the right by deviating from Republican orthodoxy. Yet his voting record affirms his credentials as a common-sense conservative. And any fair assessment of his record will affirm his prescience over a wide array of difficult issues.

Campaign propaganda to the contrary, Sen. McCain has often opposed President Bush on both the domestic and foreign fronts. He has consistently urged the president to veto spending bills filled with “earmarks” that lacked sufficient legislative scrutiny. He has rightly opposed the folly of wasteful agricultural and ethanol subsidies. He correctly warned, two years ago, that insufficient regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac risked a colossal mortgage-industry meltdown.

And why is it, pray tell, everyone thinks OBAMA is going to do anything positive with the mortgage crisis when he is a part of the problem? I just do not get that one - such a shocking lack of logic involved there…

As to the war:

He was an early critic of the failure to send enough troops to Iraq to consolidate our initial victory in the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein from power. Along with trusted Senate colleague and close friend Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sen. McCain was an early and ardent advocate for a “surge” of U.S. troop levels in Iraq, an overdue move President Bush finally ordered in the spring of 2007.

At that time, prominent Democrats in Congress — including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, now his party’s presidential nominee — predicted that such an increase in American forces would fail. A few months later, with the surge’s outcome still in doubt, most pundits decreed that Sen. McCain’s bid for the GOP presidential nomination already had failed. The Democrats were wrong about the surge. The pundits were wrong about the nomination.

I admit - I was one Democrat who was wrong about the surge. I honestly thought it was going to be a disaster. I acknowledge - I was wrong.

Unlike Obama, one cannot deny, McCain has character:

Even Sen. McCain’s detractors must acknowledge that he has shown remarkable backbone by bucking his party’s base on many controversial issues, including:

Illegal immigration: He recognizes it as a problem that demands comprehensive reform, not just a border fence.

Judicial appointments: Along with Sen. Graham, he helped forge a compromise that broke a senatorial stalemate blocking President Bush’s court nominees.

Man-made climate change: He recognizes it as a real threat that must be addressed.

Torture of terror suspects: He vigorously criticized the administration for condoning interrogation abuses that undermine our nation’s moral standing.

Such bold stands have given Sen. McCain considerable credibility as a powerful force for cross-party cooperation.

Now, this is where the Post and Courier pushes the meme about Obama. Honestly, how people can still push this BS is beyond me, but here it is:

We are impressed by Sen. Obama’s positive ability to inspire a broad range of Americans, and by his historic role as our nation’s first black major-party presidential nominee. But he falls far short of Sen. McCain on the decisive question of experience — an especially critical consideration in regard to foreign policy.

And though Sen. Obama promises to foster bipartisan accords, unlike Sen. McCain he has not taken on his party’s base. Sen. Obama chides Sen. McCain for frequently supporting President Bush. However, Sen. Obama has voted with his party’s leadership at an even higher rate. His 2007 voting record was deemed the most liberal in the Senate by the National Journal, which is not a right-wing publication.

Most of Sen. Obama’s positions fall well to the left of the national mainstream, including his push to provide “tax cuts” for many Americans who pay no income tax now. Sen. McCain’s prescription for the ailing economy includes tax relief, but it’s based on practical, free-market fundamentals rather than counterproductive attempts to “spread the wealth.”

Sen. McCain proposes reforming health care via private-sector incentives. Sen. Obama proposes public-sector mandates.

Sen. McCain favors free trade. Sen. Obama increasingly backs protectionism.

Sen. McCain strongly supports school choice. Sen. Obama, despite some lip service, does not.

Sen. McCain has long pushed for entitlement reform. Sen. Obama has not.

Sen. McCain would appoint constitutional constructionists to the federal bench. Sen. Obama would appoint liberal activists.

With strengthened Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate certain, a victory for Sen. Obama would assure a lopsided edge for liberal government.

Back in the day, say before 5/31/08, if someone said we were going to have a liberal government, I would have been ecstatic. But I have seen the light - at least in terms of how the Democrats really act. The way the Democratic leadership and the Democratic Party have treated women this way is simply abhorrent. There is nothing liberal about the way they have acted at all. And frankly, who the hell knows for what Obama really stands considering he has flip flopped on just about everything during this campaign? So, yeah - now, I don’t trust them to have that much power. No way in hell. The editors continue:

A victory for Sen. McCain would assure needed balance between a conservative president and a liberal Congress. More importantly, it would assure a steady, capable and brave hand to guide us through the looming crises sure to come.

As for concerns about Sen. McCain’s age (he turned 72 in August), he has kept a demanding campaign schedule and has routinely kept his lively 96-year-old mother nearby to remind voters that he comes from a family known for healthy longevity. Similar worries were expressed about Winston Churchill, nearly 77 when he began his final stint as British prime minister in 1951, and Ronald Reagan, 17 days shy of his 70th birthday when he became U.S. president in 1981. That’s awfully good septuagenarian company.

And despite misinformed assertions that Sen. McCain would too quickly choose military options, the former Navy fighter pilot knows far better than most that the horror of war should always be a last resort.

No kidding. I have tried to say this to people. Military people always choose war last because they KNOW what it is really like. Never mind that both he and his running mate have children in the theatre currently - he knows, far, far better than Obama possibly could.

Finally:

His reputation for courage long preceded his first run for office. He gallantly endured more than five years as a prisoner of war, including torture, after being shot down over Hanoi. He refused to accept early release after his communist captors discovered his father was the U.S. Pacific commander.

John McCain has demonstrated a strong commitment to principle in the political arena, too. His exemplary qualifications for the White House are clear.

I agree - he is far, far more qualified than Obama could dream of being, he has good character, a backbone, and truly loves this country, all things I cannot say about Obama. I agree with the Edistors of the Post and Courier. They are right - McCain is the clear choice on Tuesday.

Did you notice, in the last half of the debate, how the real self-aggrandizing Joe Biden took over the debate-prepped Joe Biden? That he launched into his “I did,” “I made,” “I talked,” “I accomplished,” and on and on? He still thinks that HE is the one running for president. When Biden said that, if they win, Barack Obama wants him in on every decision, I thought to myself, “Like hell he does. He’ll have him parked in the V.P.’s house on a very short leash.” Who’d want to listen to Biden go on and on every day?

ALSO: Joe Biden misstated (aka lied) in tonight’s debate:

“Sarah Palin Is The October Surprise!” — that’s the headline in an e-mail I just received. So true.

Below, the official statement from McCain/Palin on the debate:

McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker issued the following statement on tonight’s Vice Presidential Debate:

“Tonight, Governor Palin proved beyond any doubt that she is ready to lead as Vice President of the United States. She won this debate, putting Joe Biden on defense on energy, foreign policy, taxes and the definition of change. Governor Palin laid bare Barack Obama’s record of voting to raise taxes, opposing the surge in Iraq, and proposing to meet unconditionally with the leaders of state sponsors of terror. The differences between the Obama-Biden ticket and the McCain-Palin ticket could not have been clearer. The American people saw stark contrasts in style and worldview. They saw Joe Biden, a Washington insider and a 36-year Senator, and Governor Palin, a Washington outsider and a maverick reformer. Governor Palin was direct, forceful and a breath of fresh air.”

:::::::

Thanks to billdemo2 for the fast YouTube work!

WHILE Barack Obama has publicly campaigned for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq — in secret private discussions, Obama has tried to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

– “OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL,” NY Post, September 15, 2008

By asking Iraqi leaders to delay a withdrawal plan, Barack Obama hopes to make the GOP look bad so that he can get elected.

Never mind the consequences. Kill the kids, but get me my throne.

::::::::::::::::::

Here’s how Obama, the national security neophyte with no military or foreign policy experience, tried to play the big boys’ game:

First you tell them on the phone: Don’t worry. I’m just as good as McCain.

On June 18, 2008 the Washington post published an editorial titled:

Mr. Zebari’s Message
Iraq’s foreign minister has a chat with Barack Obama.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA told Iraq’s foreign minister this week that he plans to visit the country between now and the presidential election. We think that’s a good thing.. because it will give Mr. Obama an opportunity to refresh his badly outdated plan for Iraq. To do that, the Democrat needs to listen more to dedicated Iraqi leaders like Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister..

Mr. Obama laid out his current strategy for Iraq in November 2006, shortly before announcing his candidacy for president. .. Nineteen months later, the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically, with violence down 75 percent from its peak and the Iraqi government and army in control of most of the country. But Mr. Obama has not altered his position: He still proposes withdrawing most U.S. troops according to a fixed timetable..

Earlier, in June, Obama called Zebari:

Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that “Iraq is not an island.” In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. “We have a deadly enemy,” Mr. Zebari said. “When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity.” Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.

The foreign minister said “my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.” Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.

Then, face to face and behind closed doors, you propose a totally different track.

Today, September 15, 2008, Amir Taheri writes in the New York Post

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

..

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

I am going to repeat one line above. “delay an agreement until after the US elections..”

Though it may be coached with the argument that a weak Bush administration should not be negotiating anything, it is not realistic to just shut down the country down until Obama becomes king. Yes, congress should have a say, but where have Peolsi and Reid been on that front? Perhaps they believe it is better to loose life and limb and destroy more lives in the U.S. and Iraq than to lose an election.

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show “a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues.”

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America.

Enough said. I remember the Democrats, working just with rumors that G.H.W. Bush met with Iranian leaders in Paris during the 1980 elections in order to work an agreement to keep the hostages until after the new administration takes office, screaming from the rooftops: TREASON!

But this is not a rumor. This is a quote from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. This happened.

Obama asked him to not proceed with a withdrawal plan, so that the GOP will look bad and that he can get elected.

Kill the kids and give me my throne.

TREASON!

Washington Post

New York Post

Now, apparently going to Pakistan on a school break during college counts, or living in Indonesia for 4 years while a child counts, but not living next door to a major world power.

Alert No Quarter reader, BMC, presented information yesterday about the Alaska National Guard, and the responsibilities of the Governor of Alaska. I’ll bottom line it for you - since Alaska IS next to Russia (Obama does know that much - he said he saw it on a map - I kid you not, that’s what he said), the Alaska National Guard’s 49th Missile Defense Battalion is on duty ALL THE TIME:

Eleven ground-based interceptor missiles buried in underground silos here represent a key part of a multi-layered defense system designed to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack. These interceptors, and two more at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., would destroy incoming missiles at the “midcourse phase,” outside the earth’s atmosphere.

In the event of an attack, members of the Alaska Army National Guard’s 49th Missile Defense Battalion based here would use sophisticated surveillance and radar systems to track the missile through its initial boost phase, explained Maj. Joe Miley, the unit’s operations officer. If the missile reached the mid course phase, the Alaska Guardsmen would await the order to engage it.

On order, they would fire an interceptor at the incoming missile. The force of the collision –the equivalent of two refrigerators slamming into each other at 15,000 mph — would destroy the target before it reentered the atmosphere, Miley said.

Miley noted that the National Guard is perfectly suited to perform such an important mission.

Wowie zowie. So, there is a battalion on full alert all the time, keeping its eye on Russia. But Governor Palin has no foreign policy experience. Yeah, okay, Obama. Just because YOU don’t doesn’t mean others don’t, either. Just sayin’.

Well, how about Homeland Security, then? Major Joe Miley says this:

“The National Guard has traditionally done homeland defense,” he said, citing National Guard history dating back 370 years to the Minutemen in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. “And this is the epitome of homeland defense.”

Here at what Miley called the “strategic sweet spot” for missile defense, almost 200 Alaska Guardsmen who came from around the country to serve in the 49th Missile Defense Battalion take that calling pretty seriously.

The unit is a cross-section of America, at one time representing 46 states and territories, and all its members applied for three-year, Active Guard and Reserve assignments with the program, Miley explained.

Getting accepted into the program is tough, but passing the extensive training required is even tougher, Miley said. Applicants go through nine to 14 weeks of air defense training at Fort Bliss, Texas; a nine-week Ground Missile Defense operator course in Colorado Springs, Colo., then four more weeks of unit training in Colorado Springs before taking a certification test.

“We hire the best and put them through a rigorous training program,” Miley said. To pass the GMD operator course, for example, students have to score 90 percent or better.

“You have to be an A student or you can’t do GMD,” Miley said. “The way we conduct our training, you basically have to get everything right to progress to the next level, so there’s no room for error. We have very high standards.”

That’s a good thing, he said, in light of the responsibility they shoulder every day. Whether they’re providing security at the 800-acre missile defense complex here or manning fire direction center in what Miley called “the tank turret of missile defense,” they’re on the front lines of homeland defense.

There is more to this interesting article, and if you can, take a look at it. For anyone to claim that Governor Palin, as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard is merely serving as a figurehead is just plain inaccurate. I can sure see why Obama, who has not been an executive of ANYTHING would try to frame it that way, but - SURPRISE - he’s incorrect. (By the way, there is an email going around that speaks even more to Palin’s day-to-day oversight regarding the Alaska National Guard, but I have not been able to obtain independent verification of it beyond blogs, so I am not including it here.)

And can I just add, for Obama to claim PALIN is just “making stuff up” (funny - he said the exact same thing about Dobson) is laughable. Here is a man who hasn’t met a fact he couldn’t twist, or deny, or exacerbate. His books are proof enough of that, but if you need more, there are plenty out there. Here’s a fun game. How many half-truths, truth manipulations, and flat out lies have come from Obama? I’ll start you off with just two - there are so many, I don’t want to monopolize them. The first is one of my favorites mainly because of the letter Senator McCain wrote to him regarding it. I’ve written about this before several times, and so has Larry Johnson. It’s the one about Obama and Campaign Finance Reform. He brought it up again at Saddleback, all his work on it, and “quotes” from conversations he had. If only he had actually DONE any work on that committee, but he did not. McCain slammed him in his letter to him (which you can read HERE). Then there was his claim while in Israel that he was on the Banking Committee. He is not, never has been. You can watch the video HERE. And he has the “AUDACITY” to talk about anyone else’s claims? What a joke. (I might add, from all reports, Palin is pretty much “what you see is what you get.” Her open government and life, about which we know FAR more than Obama’s in just a week, is far more transparent than Obama has ever been. He still refuses to release ANY pertinent information about himself or his records.) So, go to it - what are YOUR favorite Obama-manufactured statements?

Not so the Republicans. I take NO credit for these next two pieces at all - they came from alert readers at No Quarter. The first one is from “Hope Floats,” who posted the following article:

September 3, 2008
GOP Women Call Palin Critics Sexist
Posted by BLAKE DVORAK

There wasn’t a link to the post, but here is a VIDEO you can watch.

And then, frequent commenter Paul Villareal has several YouTube videos up, particularly this one in which Newt Gingrich (I know - I am as surprised by this as anybody) lays into a MSNBC reporter on the differences between Governor Palin and Barack Obama (again, she’s second on the ticket, Obama is first - and HE STILL COMES UP SHORT IN THE COMPARISON!!!). Anyway, take a look The end is a hoot:

And this one, also from Paul:

And get this - John McCain, in the middle of a campaign season, pulled out of an HOUR of free air time on Larry King Live because of the way Campbell Brown treated Tucker Bounds on the issue of whether Governor Palin had ever called in the National Guard or not (thanks, LindaA1!). He would not dignify the network after the way demeaning and belittling way one of their main anchors treated his running mate. Even more, check out this story by Stephen Hayes on McCain’s response to this sexist treatment:
Feisty McCain Tells Staff He’s Indignant Over Palin Treatment

John McCain spoke to staff and advisers working in the campaign War Room at the Minneapolis Hilton this afternoon, and forcefully vowed to fight hard to defend his running mate Sarah Palin against attacks from the media and Democrats. “They’re not doing right by our vice president, they’re not doing right by the American people,” McCain said, according to a source in the room. “We’re gonna fight back, we’re gonna get ‘em.” McCain pounded his fist into his hand as he spoke, the source said, and made clear that he would be aggressively challenging those who are attacking Palin.

McCain advisers expect that he will address the issue in his speech to the convention tomorrow evening. McCain’s campaign has increasingly turned its sights on the media in recent days as journalists continue to probe Palin’s personal life and discuss her performance as a mother. McCain is personally offended by the controversy.

Earlier Wednesday, campaign chief Steve Schmidt blasted the media for its treatment of Palin. “Governor Sarah Palin is an exceptional governor with a record of accomplishment that exceeds, by far, the governing accomplishments of Senator Obama,” Schmidt said it a statement. He added: “This vetting controversy is a faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States who has never been a part of the old boys’ network that has come to dominate the news establishment in this country.”

And late Wednesday afternoon, Schmidt made a second statement threatening legal action against the National Enquirer for its report that Palin had an extramarital affair.

“The smearing of the Palin family must end. The allegations contained on the cover of the National Enquirer insinuating that Governor Palin had an extramarital affair are categorically false. It is a vicious lie. Governor Palin is the most popular governor in the country. She is a proven leader, an accomplished executive, a champion for ethics reform, and a fighter against corruption. The efforts of the media and tabloids to destroy this fine and accomplished public servant are a disgrace. The American people will reject it.

Senator McCain and Governor Palin look forward to discussing the issues that Americans care about, fixing broken government, creating jobs, making our country energy independent and securing the peace for the next generation by bringing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a victorious end. Legal action will be considered with regard to this disgraceful smear.”

Congressman Ed Royce, a conservative from California, says that the attacks on Palin will backfire. “Senator McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin not only energized and excited the Republican base, it sent the liberal media into making-panic-induced personal attacks on her family that are beyond the pale. The more they attack, the more they reinforce her image as an outsider and a reformer and the more attractive she is to independent voters who rightfully mistrust the mainstream media.”

Posted by Stephen F. Hayes on September 3, 2008 04:20 PM Permalink

Wow. Can you imagine how different this past year would have been had the DEMOCRATS taken this kind of approach to Senator Clinton? Standing up for her against the likes of Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Mike Barnacle, KEITH OLBERMANN (special mention there for ya, Keith), Tim Russert, and all of those other “journalists”? Stood up and said this was unacceptable - that it was unacceptable to treat ANY woman like that, much less the Former First Lady of Arkansas, the Former First Lady of the United States, and a two-term siting US Senator? It would have been a whole new ballgame, I think. Hell, a whole new ballgame and ballpark (ok, ok, so I’m watching the Yankees already!).

I know some people are very cynical about WHY the Republicans are doing this, but the act remains: they are standing up against sexist attacks, and that counts for something. Not just John McCain, but influential Republicans are speaking out against this sexist treatment. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it sure would be nice if the Democrats had acted more like the Republicans on this issue with Senator Clinton, and STOPPED acting in such a sexist manner toward Governor Palin. It is not too late, either - and frankly, it is way, way past enough being enough. Stop the hate against women, Democrats. Seriously.

Now Obama has unleashed his fury at Chicago’s biggest AM radio station owned by the Chicago Tribune for allowing a conservative writer and researcher Stanley Kurtz of the National Review to appear on a talk show to discuss his findings on the Ayers-Obama collaboration. [UPDATE: LISTEN to the MP3 of the WGN interview.]

Kurtz may be a conservative. His political views may be obnoxious. But his research is conclusive, factual and inarguable. Ayers and Obama have had a long relationship with Ayers playing the mentor and Obama as protege. And Obama has lied and lied and lied.

Kurtz’s work, unlike Jerome Corsi’s, is not a smear. It is factual.

Why is Obama reacting with such nervousness and such disproportionate anger? Because the truth is so damaging. You can’t hang with an unrepentant terrorist and then want to get elected as commander-in-chief to lead a global war on terror. The average voter won’t swallow that nonsense.

Will the mainstream media report the facts as Kurtz has done? Will it finally do the objective reporting it failed to do throughout the primary campaign? Will the media be upset at Obama’s effort at news suppression and censorship? Will the media discuss Obama’s assault on the First Amendment?