Chris Bowers at OpenLeft wonders, What Is Your Favorite Contradictory McCain Attack?:

1. Seventeen days after taking a trip abroad to Columbia [sic] and Mexico, five weeks after giving a paid campaign speech in Canada, and two months after criticizing Obama for not going to Iraq, the McCain campaign criticizes Obama for taking a trip abroad that includes a stop in Iraq

2. Eleven days after holding a press conference to claim that Obama  is a serial flip-flopper, McCain argues that Obama is the most extremist member of the Senate.

3. Five days after releasing a documentary criticizing Obama for flip-flopping on Iraq, the McCain campaign argues that Obama is too inflexible on Iraq.

Whether it's Roe v. Wade or off-shore drilling or a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, McCain has taken opposite sides. Is it flip-floppery? Or is it flim-flammery?

He was anti-Grover Norquist before he was pro-Grover Norquist. He opposed torture before he yielded to White House demands. He was for campaign-finance reform before he was against a reform provision he sponsored two years earlier. He opposed presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he favored it. He was anti-ethanol, then for it. He supported flying the Confederate flag on government property before he rejected the practice. He was for talking with Hamas until he was against it. He favored privatizing Social Security before he said he never was in favor of privatizing Social Security. He opposed the Bush tax cuts for the rich until he voted for them, twice.

Just before he steps off the Double-Talk Express, McCain must spin around three times and click his deals to decide which side of his mouth he is going to speak from.

At the risk of exhausting our pixel supply, here's your chance to name your favorite McCain contradiction.

(If you think you remember one, but not quite, you might try out nica24's extensive collection of links: h/t to peraspera.)

The Overnight News Digest is posted.

Bryon York over at NRO's The Corner whines:

It's a small passage from Obama's Berlin speech, but this formulation, common in some circles, grates on some ears, like mine:

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

Yes, the victims were from all over the globe — places like Brooklyn, and the Bronx, and Manhattan, and Queens, and Staten Island, and New Jersey — all over.  And most were Americans, weren't they?  Wasn't that the point of the attack?  This isn't to diminish the loss of anyone on September 11, but people come from all over the world to be Americans, and the great majority of people who died that day were Americans.

York points to Factcheck.org, which states that only 21 of the death certificates handed out as a consequence of September 11 were of foreign nationals from eight countries.

There were 327 foreign nationals killed in the September 11 attacks. They were commemorated on the fifth anniversary, with Condoleeza Rice in attendance, as you can read about in this story, Five-Year 9/11 Remembrance Honors Victims from 90 Countries. Some, it is true, were dual citizens. But Britain alone lost 67 of her citizens that day, as you can read about in this story, British victims of 9/11 remembered by royal couple.

York's take on this not only begrudges other countries their loss, but also renders that loss a provincial, American loss. Obama is attempting, years after the fact, to remind the world of the opposite, of the universal horror of that day and the way that people from every corner of the globe - from France to Iran - stood in solidarity with New York and Washington on September 11. And, of course, by implication, how attitudes like York's within the administration squandered that sense of solidarity.  

York is certainly petty in downplaying the deaths of non-Americans in the attacks. But worse, inherent in his screech is the reverse of his xenophobia, a rejection of the notion that we as Americans could ever feel solidarity and a sense of humanist bonding with people of another country. Screw the Enlightenment, we're not cosmopolitan, we've got no broader sense of common humanity. It's us versus the world, and if you don't live here, you don't f'n matter.

Pathetic.

For the typical politician, speaking in Berlin as an American on the way to the White House would surely be viewed as a most daunting prospect. After all, most Americans can say at least one line from each of two President's speeches in Berlin that were considered watersheds: JFK's quite brief "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in June 1963, and Ronald Reagan's tear down this wall speech in June 1987.

How could you top those speeches by two icons?

You give the speech that Barack Obama gave today.

Of course, turning those words into reality is a bigger job than can be accomplished by a single presidency. But even while many of us may disagree with particular pieces of that speech, it contains the core principles for a decent foreign policy, one that serves as a model for cooperation and peace rather than distrust and war.

I have in the past four decades often found myself at odds with American foreign policy, so much so that I went to prison to oppose it. And knowing history, including the history of my own Indian people, I have reasons enough to be jaded about much that the U.S. has done in the world in the far and near past and recently. I am not very forgiving of those who shaped many of those policies, vicious and hypocritical and resting as they did on a rubric of pernicious American exceptionalism.

Not, of course, that everything the U.S. has done on the world stage has been evil. As a nation we've also had our many good moments, with 1948 in Berlin being one of them, as Obama spoke to so eloquently today.

I think I can reasonably say that I don't see America and especially American foreign policy through rose-colored glasses. And I can guarantee that I will find myself in opposition to aspects of that policy should Obama win the Presidency. Already I have arenas of disagreement with him on foreign policy.

But today, I was given hope for change. It made me proud to be an American.

As with all policy, foreign policy is more than words. Carrying out a new vision, tearing down all those walls and confronting all those problems, whether of genocide or global warming, will be far harder than speaking in the warm sun before an appreciative crowd. But I was inspired today to believe it can happen. Thank you, Senator Obama.

"A World that Stands as One"

Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father – my grandfather – was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning – his dream – required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

That is why I’m here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

And that’s when the airlift began – when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city’s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together united until this battle is won...The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty...People of the world, look at Berlin!"

People of the world – look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.

People of the world – look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall – a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope – walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers – dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth – that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more – not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.

So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.

That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations – and all nations – must summon that spirit anew.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century – in this city of all cities – we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations – including my own – will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust – not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here – what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don’t look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived – at great cost and great sacrifice – to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom – indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us – what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Those are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. Those aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of those aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of those aspirations that all free people – everywhere – became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of those aspirations that a new generation – our generation – must make our mark on history.

People of Berlin – and people of the world – the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.

Six years ago today, Matthew Rycroft, private secretary to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, wrote a secret memorandum to the U.K.’s ambassador to the U.S., David Manning. The memo contained the minutes of a meeting held that same morning between Blair and a few senior foreign policy advisers. It was exposed by the Sunday Times nearly three years later. Two paragraphs stood out.

Rycroft spoke about a trip that Sir Richard Dearlove had recently taken to Washington. Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service or MI6, is referred to officially as "C":

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

And there was this:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

Many people who were attentive to the White House’s public statements saw hints that a decision already had been made to invade Iraq well before that secret memo was sent to its select group of addressees. There was the 2002 State of Union in late January and the West Point graduation speech in June.

But concerns raised by these speeches were tempered somewhat by the idea that Congress wouldn’t go along, that public support was soft, that the media would yank on the reins, and that the British weren’t on board. This all spurred most observers to believe that an invasion might encounter too many obstacles to go forward. Unless, that is, some definitive evidence could be delivered showing that Saddam Hussein had massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction and was close to building nuclear bombs.

Providing such evidence was exactly what the neoconservative war hounds had been intent on doing, as we now know, ever since September 11 – using the terrible events of that day to achieve what former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill had told us in Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty and former counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke had written in Against All Enemies. That is, they proposed from their very first National Security Council meeting in February 2001 to invade Iraq, eight months before al Qaeda’s attacks. Even after September 11, however, getting the public and Congress to go along, as the Downing Street memo stated  in the summer of 2002, required that the facts be "fixed around the policy." Fixed, as in exaggerated and concocted.

On May 1, 2005, Michael Smith at the Sunday Times revealed Rycroft’s memorandum. It was still April 30 in the U.S. when the news appeared, and a Diarist named smintheus picked up on it at Daily Kos, where he garnered comments from five Kossacks. The follow-up Diary the next morning drew more than 300 comments. By May 5, John Conyers, then the ranking Democratic Congressman on the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, who had first read of the Downing Street memo at Daily Kos, sent a letter to the White House signed by 89 of his colleagues asking for answers.  

Soon, frustrated by the thin gruel of traditional media coverage, there was a blogswarm to Awaken the Media, formation of various Web sites, including After Downing Street, and the The Downing Street Memos, and a blogger grouping called the Big Brass Alliance.

For me and others who had for various reasons resisted calls for impeachment prior to 2005, the Downing Street Memo was a turning point. Here was the kind of evidence that we had hoped would someday come to light, evidence that - together with what Clarke and O’Neill had already provided, plus the Valerie Plame affair and the lack of WMDs in Iraq - directly called into question the administration’s claims that the decision to go to war was not made until February 2003. Here was strong evidence that the President had lied to Americans, broken his oath of office and violated national and international law. Not incontestable proof, but certainly grounds for inquiry.  

On June 16, 2005, spurred by the revelations in the secret memo, John Conyers held an unofficial hearing with 35 other Democrats, hearing testimony from, among others, former Ambassador Joe Wilson and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern. It was there that the prospect of a Resolution of Inquiry into impeachment was first raised.

That, of course, was 37 months ago. Much vitriolic talk about impeachment has gone down since then. But very little of it has taken place in the halls of Congress despite considerable new information. Additional memos, like the one David Manning wrote on January 31, 2003, have come to light. Plus, it was learned that a classified version of a National Intelligence Estimate stated that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. Just before the congressional vote on the authorization to use force in Iraq in October 2002, the Bush Administration released a declassified version for public consumption which conveniently deleted NIE's no-imminent-threat assessment.

This Friday, thanks to a long-term grassroots effort as well as the unwillingness to yield by a handful of Congressional Democrats, most notably Dennis Kucinich, impeachment will be on the table at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. This could and should have started in 2007. Only time will tell whether "better late than never" applies.

It was just a few years ago the very idea that the Arctic was showing signs of increased summer melts was hooted down as alarmist. The threat to native species and native cultures presented by the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was laughed off as just another crazy, radical, environmentalist scheme to mess with the economy. Except for a few wigged-out pockets of denial amplified by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, most of the laughing has ceased. Not, of course, that the Cheney-Bush administration has retreated from its censorship of science, as noted here by smintheus, to provide one example. In that instance, the censorship came about for the purpose of getting some new Arctic oil leases into the ... uh ... pipeline without pesky scientific concerns being allowed to introduce obstacles into the discussion.

Discussion of the situation is made more difficult because the melting is not a steady downward plunge. This year, for instance, as of a week ago, Arctic sea ice extent clocked in at 3.44 million square miles. This was well below the 1979-2000 average of 3.83 million square miles. But it was 0.41 million square miles above the value for July 16 last year.

So, you can expect to hear any day now from the usual suspects that the wider extent of ice this year proves the Arctic may not be heading for ice-free summers in the next couple of decades. This claim, of course, will ignored data showing that, while first-year ice is thicker than was predicted this summer, multi-year ice is much thinner than seen in 2006 and 2007. In other words, the long-term trend and consequences are not in doubt, whatever spikes may occur year-to-year.

Meanwhile, nationalists and entrepreneurs seem to have no doubts about the melting. There continues to be a laying of claims to the Arctic seabed, which began last year when famed explorer Artur Chilingarov led a Russian North Pole expedition and planted a Russian flag 13,390 feet below the surface, and remarked: "The Arctic is Russian. We must prove the North Pole is an extension of the Russian landmass"

Paul Coring at the Globe and Mail wrote Tuesday:

"We were there first and we can claim the entire Arctic, but if our neighbours like Canada want some part of it, then maybe we can negotiate with them," says Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the flamboyant Russian ultranationalist, who happily hands out pictures of a Russian flag sitting on the seabed at the North Pole. ...

Supposedly cooler heads prevailed in Greenland this spring at a meeting of the five circumpolar countries: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States. They agreed "to the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims" in a joint communiqué called the Ilulissat Declaration.

But the race to claim the top of the world and, more importantly, reap the vast bonanza of oil and gas believed to lie beneath the Arctic seabed is only just getting under way. ...

No surprise, then, that Russia is conducting naval exercises in the Arctic. Canada had soldiers stamping about in the North this spring, and some analysts fear power projection, not talks at the UN, will decide who controls the Arctic.

Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, countries can extend their zones beyond 200 nautical miles (about 370 kilometres) from their coasts if they can prove the outer edge of the continental shelf extends beyond that distance. Hence, the contentious Russian claim to the Lomonosov Ridge.

The prize may be huge. One study estimates 400 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the Arctic seabed, beyond the existing 200-nautical-mile economic zones where countries can regulate and control drilling. That's a little less than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia and Iran combined.

The Overnight News Digest has been posted.

• Pollster.com has a brand new look today, but the same polling goodness. As with every makeover, however, there have been a few glitches, which Mark Blumenthal laments. For one thing, the map that shows 214 strong or lean Electoral votes for McCain should actually read 199. Technical issues are delaying immediate changes in the numbers. 214? 199? We'd settle for either of those results in November. - DemFromCT/Meteor Blades
• As the Young Republicans gathered to cry in their beer over the state of their Party, one offered his hope for a McCain turnaround:

  If McCain can convey his straight-shooting independence and show his authentic sense of humor through compelling YouTubevideos and smart interaction via the blogosphere, he can pull in Gen-Next and millennial voters, says [David] All.

  May I suggest this one? - BarbinMD

• Laura Frank at the Rocky Mountain News writes today of Deadly denial: For sick nuclear workers, shifting rules form quagmire of despair

  "Federal law says that the process of compensating sick nuclear weapons workers must be fair and consistent, but the Bush administration's labor department has fallen short of those standards. Indeed, the department has found multiple ways around the law, sometimes just flat-out ignoring it, a Rocky Mountain News review of scores of workers' cases, government documents, program data and internal communications found.

  - Plutonium Page

• Gregg Zoroya at USAToday reports:

  Soldiers who are physically or mentally ailing can wait two months to a year before the Army acts to medically discharge them or return them to their units, according to a House investigation. That's two or three times longer than the Army goal set last year. ...

  The committee investigation found that wait times had improved but that increased numbers of wounded soldiers caused delays to worsen in the last six months. "They're just under-resourced at a time when they are overwhelmed by the number of people that need assistance," says Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., the subcommittee chairwoman.

  And who would be the source of this under-resourcing? - Meteor Blades

• Sustainable agriculture advocate Margaret Krome, Policy Program Director for the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute in East Troy, Wisc., has a nice column up about Netroots Nation in The Capital Times. She was a panelist in Austin at The Recipe for Change in America's Food System. She writes that "I was awed by the people I met." We imagine many people you met were awed by you, too, Margaret. - DemFromCT/Meteor Blades



• Radovan Karadžić, the Bosnian Serb chieftain wanted for massacres of Muslims during the 1992-95 Bosnian war, hid in plain sight in the Serbian capital of Belgrade, practicing alternative medicine under an alias, until he was arrested Monday. The photos show his transformation from 1995 to 2008. Experts say that the complicated nature of the  case means it will take years to wind its way through the court at The Hague. While Bosnian Muslims celebrated in the streets of Sarajevo Monday night, there was a different reaction elsewhere, according to the Associated Press: "This is a hard day for Serbia," said Tomislav Nikolic, leader of the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party. "Karadžić was a myth and a legend of the Serbian people."

  - Meteor Blades

• The House Judiciary Committee has just a week and a half left to consider contempt of Congress charges against Karl Rove before the House recesses for all of August, not to return until September 8th.

  
  The petition circulated by Brave New Films calling on the committee to act sits at just under 100,000 signatures. Why not help put them over the top? - Kagro X

Following the lead of the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters announced Monday in Colorado, Ohio, Montana, Michigan, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C., that it is endorsing Senator Barack Obama for President.

^{Included in the photograph to the right, in my old stomping grounds around Confluence Park in Denver, are Tony Massaro, the LCV's Senior Vice President for Political Affairs and Public Education,  former Secretary of Energy Federico Peña, and freshman Congressman Ed Perlmutter from Colorado's 7th District.}

"Senator Obama’s proven record and his commitment to a clean, renewable energy future make him the best choice for President," LCV President Gene Karpinski said.

"At a time when this country must reinvent itself for a new energy future, we can imagine no better steward than Barack Obama. Under his leadership, America will finally achieve the economic growth, environmental protection, and national security that are possible with a new, clean energy economy."

"We have a real choice here," said Carol Browner, LCV board member and the longest-serving EPA Administrator in the agency’s history.

"Barack Obama has been a committed leader and has offered bold and comprehensive proposals when it comes to global warming, energy and the environment. John McCain, whose plan will be a continuation of Bush-era political gimmicks, will carry on Bush’s legacy of failure when it comes to energy policy,"

For thirty-eight years, LCV’s annual Environmental Scorecard has been the nationally accepted, non-partisan, environmental report card for our leaders. Barack Obama has earned an impressive lifetime 86% score.  His opponent, Senator McCain, has earned only a 24% score.  

Juliet Eilperin at Washington Post campaign log "The Trail" wrote:

A new ad from the McCain campaign blaming Obama for rising gas prices prompted the following response from Friends of the Earth Action President Brent Blackwelder: "It's only July, but we're already seeing dishonest and hypocritical gutter politics from John McCain. Flip-flopping John McCain said just two weeks ago that our dangerous dependence on oil 'has been 30 years in the making,' but now he tries to blame Obama -- even though it's McCain who has been in Washington for 26 years. Here's the truth. The Bush/McCain drilling plan won't lower gas prices but will increase our over-reliance on oil. We can provide relief from high gas prices while growing the economy, protecting our security and fighting global warming by focusing on conservation, clean energy and transportation choices instead."

Twenty-six years in Washington. Which is just one year shy of the 27 years the U.S. has had a lousy energy policy, courtesy, originally, of Ronald Reagan and the folks who told us that low-carbon alternatives were a scam and energy conservationists just wanted us all to "freeze to death in the dark."

Kossack MBNYC gave us some idea of what to expect Thursday in Obama, one million Germans, and history. Blowout crowds. But at The Guardian, Jonathan Freedland writes:

^{Obama must curb our enthusiasm: While the world wants to show its support for the Democrats' nominee, foreign popularity is no votewinner in the US}

Obviously a warm reception can only be good for the Illinois senator. But maybe not that warm. After all, one of the hoariest Republican attack lines deployed against Democratic opponents is that they are vaguely foreign, somehow more comfortable abroad, and therefore likely to put America's interests second – after those of their elitist friends in Europe. Remember the Republican nickname for the Democratic nominee of 2004? They called him "Jean Cherie".

If Europeans really want to help Barack Obama next week they should repress their enthusiasm for him – and stay home. Ensure those crowds are thin and lethargic; maybe even offer the odd heckle, perhaps while brandishing a hostile placard. Let the travelling US press report that Obama is not so popular with foreigners after all: nothing will endear him more to the American public.

For those non-Americans finding it hard to feign coolness towards the Democratic candidate, let me offer two thoughts. First, as I discussed here, Obama is already tacking towards the centre, away from positions comfortable to Europeans and others. ...

If it helps, bear all that in mind when Obama hits your neighbourhood. Remember, if you want him to win in November, do your duty – and do nothing.

The Overnight News Digest has been posted.

Normally, I write long Diaries - too long! some readers say - and I was prepared to crank one out today as well.

But, having read the news that Nuri al-Maliki thinks Senator Obama's withdrawal plan for Iraq has it about right, I've decided to keep it short. My contribution, in fact, is just three paragraphs, just to keep it FAQ-legal. I leave the heavy-lifting to someone else.

For years, the late, great, prescient Steve Gilliard blogged that the end of the American occupation would come in Iraq when the Iraqis kicked us out. That never stopped him from urging a withdrawal.

Here's what he wrote on September 30, 2003:

The US wants to hang about Iraq for years, writing a constitution and patronizing the Iraqis. Let's understand this: they will not tolerate it. The French know that one day, the Iraqis will kick the US out. They know the clock is running. And they are also revolted at the crony capitalism placed on the back of the Iraqis. ...

The Congress has to realize that we aren't going to get any help, or much money as long as Iraq serves as headquarters for a CPA which is totally isolated, crony capitalists who can't make anything work, and a US Army which kills indiscriminately. We can't "win" this war, as the pundits say. We don't even know what victory looks like. Bush assmued that Iraq was the first stop on his new crusade against the Mussulmen and well, it is turning out to be the last stop as well. It is time that Congress demand we start to leave Iraq and place the UN in charge.

And here is what he wrote on June 3, 2005:

It is time to end this war. End it, withdraw and let the Iraqis solve their own problems. We can only do ill in Iraq, not good. No matter how many schools we build, hospitals we restore, we will be hated as all invaders are hated until we leave. We have brought death and misery to Iraq and there is no hope of it ending until we leave. As long as we stay in Iraq, Iraqis will seek to kill and maim us.

We can kick around various plans, but at the end, the only solution is to leave, the question is how, orderly or in a fighting retreat to Kuwait.

And, one more, what he wrote on May 9, 2006:

American foreign policy has been addicted to power and fear for a long time, as our Central American neighbors can tell you. But we backed the torturers, we didn't take their place, unleash angry young men on them, ship them to places where torture was the rule of the day, then dump them in Albania as a mistake or because they have no place else to go.

Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush made a fatal error, not because we have to worry about Iraqis blowing up buildings years from now, but because we gave away the advantage of clean hands. It may not be much, but it gave us the moral high ground to save dissisents and press for human rights. Vietnam may have ben wrong, but it was based on real fears and was logical. There was an army and a government and we chose sides. Iraq had no sides, just exiles with a siren song only fools heard.

But now, they disdained what they should have held deeply. They thought they could act in any way, because 9/11 would brook no questions. Torture, aggressive war, it didn't matter because we were America, we ruled the world, and other people would follow along. ..

The excuse for violating what we once rejected was more than hubris. Every society has sadists. Most keep them under check, few allow them real power. Rumsfeld unleashed them, their worst instincts justified and it went from CENTCOM down to their field. Sadism is a controllable act, like any other act. Sadists can be controlled. But not when the allure of torture seems near, the ability to solve problems through force. Rumsfeld unleashed these people because he thought they had an easy solution to a difficult problem.

But instead, they allows children to be raped and the innocent murdered for no gain. None.

We had embraced what we had fought so hard to end, not because we were inherently evil, but because it was one more easy thing to do for a man who always chosen the easy, wrong path.

I would like to think we will redeem ourselves one day, that the sadists and their bosses will face justice, real justice, in a large court for the world to see, to redeem the promise of what was begun at Nuremberg.

Rest in peace, Steve. We miss your voice so very much.

Happy 90th birthday, Nelson Mandela! In case you haven't heard, Mister Bush has signed a law that says you can visit the United States without having to get the Secretary of State to write you a pass saying you're not a terrorist.

 

Former FBI special agent Coleen Rowley and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern write about 'Justifying' Torture: Two Big Lies at Consortium News.

Writing consequent to former Attorney General John Ashcroft's  Thursday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, those two big lies, they explain in detail, are, first, that after failing to prevent the September 11 attacks the Cheney-Bush administration pulled out the stops to avoid another attack. And, second, that torture saves lives.

What accounts for the blithe departure from international and national law — not to mention time-honored civilized procedures for dealing with prisoners and detainees?

What accounts for the marginalization of those military, FBI and other professionals who warned that torture is not only a war crime but also that it doesn’t yield reliable information — that, rather, it is the very best recruiting tool for terrorists?

We suggest four reasons why George "I don’t care what the international lawyers say" Bush and dark-side Dick Cheney opted for torture:

1 - Deceit: Granted, torture does not yield truthful information. It can, though, be an excellent way to obtain the untruthful information you may wish to acquire. All you really need to know is what you want the victims to "confess" to and torture them, or render them abroad to "friendly" intelligence services toward the same end.

One case that speaks volumes is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was captured and rendered to Egypt, where, under torture, he told his interrogators precisely what they wanted to hear. ...

2 - Sadism: Cheney’s open advocacy of waterboarding speaks volumes, but what about the President? Sad to say, as psychiatrist Justin Frank, author of Bush on the Couch, has noted:

"Bush’s certitude that he is right gives him carte blanche for destructive behavior. He has always had a sadistic streak: from blowing up frogs, to shooting his siblings with a BB gun, to branding fraternity pledges with white-hot coat hangers (explaining that the resulting wound was ‘only a cigarette burn’)..."

3 - Intimidation: Are you perhaps in some "shock and awe" at the prospect of the President designating you an "enemy combatant" and sending you off to the Navy brig in South Carolina for an indefinite stay? He now has court approval to do precisely that, and we are proceeding on faith that this joint article will not bring us "enhanced interrogation techniques." ...

4 -- Because We Can: Lord Acton was, of course, right. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And closeness to it does the same. ...

The very transparency of the excuses for torture serves to demonstrate that this kind of power is in place, and is not to be questioned.

As is often the case, you can't get the full flavor from excerpts. Click on through to the whole essay.

The Overnight News Digest is posted.

Most Republicans and a couple handfuls of Democrats voted against the House Democratic leadership Thursday. Blocking a piece of legislation the majority approved. So what else is new? Just this: The Dems lost the legislative skirmish but they won the narrative fight. If they make use of it and exercise some patience, a solid overall victory can be theirs - and ours - in the long run. All they have to do is hold off until January. Simply wait for the new Congress.

Given that the issue at hand is oil and gas leasing, such a victory would be no small matter.

But it would be sooooo easy to screw it up. All the leadership would have to do is follow Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey’s lead and continue to pursue this.  No, no, no. Just stop for six months. And, on the campaign trail, use the hypocritical Republican stance on the issue to pound every GOP candidate who claims Democrats are the obstacle to more domestic energy production.

The back story here includes a lot of numbers. Thanks to oil spills, particularly the devastating one in the Santa Barbara Channel in 1969, most of the Outer Continental Shelf has been off-limits to drilling since 1981. Not all, however. Private corporations have leases on about 2.4% of this taxpayer-owned land. That’s 44 million acres mostly in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and part of the offshore area in Alaska.

These leases produce around 15 percent of domestic natural gas production and 27 percent of domestic oil. After being granted by the Bureau of Land Management, the leases, as well as 47.2 million acres of on-shore leases of federal and Indian trust lands, are managed  by the Minerals Management Service. Both BLM and MMS are bureaus of the Department of the Interior, which collects about $8 billion in revenue from oil and gas leases every year.

MMS estimates that beneath the 1.3 billion OCS acres currently barred from leasing are tucked 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That’s almost exactly how much oil the whole world consumes in one year, and four years’ supply of natural gas at current rates of consumption.

Nothing to sneeze at. Particularly not when oil is priced at plus or minus $130 a barrel and the U.S. imports 65%-70% of the barrels it consumes each year from ... uh ... unstable and otherwise problematic places. And maybe there’s more. Survey techniques are better than when the areas in question were last evaluated.

From the standpoint of the oil companies, their puppets and allies, what all those numbers have combined to do is create the perfect storm. They’re making record profits. The occupation of Iraq and relentless talk about war with Iran have made people edgy. Environmentalists are under pressure because polls indicate the majority of price-shocked American consumers favor more off-shore drilling in the belief their paychecks will stretch further and the U.S. will gain the separation from foreign oil producers that’s been talked about ever since Richard Nixon launched Project Independence 35 years ago.

What better time than now, it being an election year and all, to press for an end to the OCS ban?

So, here we are, less than four months away from what could be a watershed at the polls, and the cry is drill for independence, drill for cheaper pump prices, drill for American pride. Could they have more propaganda value on their side? National security, economic populism and a dab of patriotism all wrapped up in one appealing package. Just let us drill, we’ll be careful, our newest technology is practically foolproof, and don’t you all hate leaning on the Saudis and Hugo Chávez anyway?

All but a few Republicans back lifting the ban. The shifty McCain backs it. Mister Bush has already lifted the presidential ban on further OCS leasing that was established in 1990. What yet stands in the way is the 27-year-old legislative ban passed just before a global recession caused a plunge in oil prices that were, until two years ago, the highest that modern American consumers had ever faced.

The problem is that a lot of people, including most congressional Democrats, see this sweet come-on for exactly what it is, a land grab which will further fatten oil company wallets, harm the environment, reduce prices marginally if at all and do next to nothing for that vaunted energy independence. Because the oil companies already lease 91.5 million acres of federal land, but they’re not drilling or producing on three-fourths of them.

Here’s a map showing in gray the 229 million acres of federal land that were leased or offered for lease from 1982-2004. In the past four years, the Cheney-Bush administration has issued new leases at a faster pace than ever in the history of the program. From 1999-2007, the issuing of drilling permits rose 361%. Permits have doubled what they were in 2002.

Are the oil companies actually drilling on this land? Yes. But only about 13 million of the on-shore and 10.5 million  of the off-shore acres are in production, according to a report by the House Committee on Natural Resources, The Truth About America’s Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits. If they actually developed their other leases, on-shore and off, the report stated in an extrapolation from MMS data, it would nearly double current domestic oil production, which could cut imports by one-third and increase domestic natural gas production by 75%. On existing leases.  

Seeing this, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall introduced H.R. 6251 on June 12. Formally it was called the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008. Nicknamed the "use it or lose it" act, it would have required oil and gas companies to actually develop their leases within a reasonable period or give them up.

Industry folks said the bill didn’t take into account the complexities of the leasing-drilling-production ratio. Plus, they said, the current system already allows the Department of Interior to end a lease if certain rules aren’t met. The Rahall bill included benchmarks requiring that leaseholders produce oil or gas from each lease within the five-year original term of the lease, and that they submit a "diligent development plan" showing how they would meet the benchmarks.

None other than House Minority Leader John Boehner called it

...nothing more than a hoax designed to provide political cover to rank-and-file Democrats caught between their constituents who strongly support more American energy production and their liberal Democratic leaders beholden to radical environmentalists who want oil and gas prices to rise even higher.

Hilarious hyperbole considering that many environmental advocates don’t want already-leased lands drilled as the bill would require.

Under normal House rules, Republicans or renegade Democrats could have amended the bill to allow additional acreage now unavailable to be leased. The Democratic leadership, having had plenty of recent examples to remind them, feared that they might be unable to maintain party discipline in this matter. So they brought it to the floor June 26 under a suspension of the rules, which require a two-thirds vote. The effort failed 223-195.

On Thursday, with a new version of the bill in hand that included a requirement for the BLM to offer annual lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve and speed up completion of pipelines that would carry oil and gas from the NPR and other regions of Alaska to the other states. This also failed, although the vote was far closer, with 15 Republicans and eight Democrats who rejected the original bill coming aboard for a 244-173 tally.

You know what those hold-outs are waiting for. For the Democrats to cave. With  Hawai'i’s Neil Abercrombie and Texans like Charles Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar already on their side, they’re hoping to get at least a piece of the real prize: an OK for more OCS leases before November 4.

As Rahall told CongressDaily:

While Democratic leaders initially appeared poised to further modify their use-it-or-lose-it plan in the last hours before Thursday's vote to mollify oil-patch Democrats that the bill put up too much of a barrier to new leases, Pelosi did not end up making those changes.

"We were going to but didn't," Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall told reporters. Rahall said it would not have made a difference in the final tally. "They weren't going to vote for us if we did it," he said, referring to Democratic opponents. He said the conditions for their support were fluid. "It was always something new," Rahall said.

There it is in a nutshell. Two tries are enough. Why do it again?

Senate consideration of Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd’s similar "use-it-or-lose-it" bill is tied up with the anti-speculation bill, which could be considered next week.
If the Feingold/Dodd proposal is discussed as an amendment to that bill, then Republicans would be allowed to present amendments of their own, which would likely be focused on opening more of the Outer Continental Shelf to leasing. Given some Senate Democrats' soft-headedness on the matter, such an amendment could pass.

What is the friggin’ rush? Yes, there’s a crisis. But after more than a quarter-century of lousy energy policy, what's six measly months that remain until a new President takes office? How we go forward – and let us hope that it finally is forward – should be up to him and the 111th Congress, not Mister Bush and the 110th.

With global warming breathing its hot breath down our necks, the worst energy-efficiency ratio in the developed world, and other environmental and geopolitical concerns at issue, we stand on the brink of making decisions that will affect us for a very long time. Action should not be taken on the basis of what will happen in the next four months, but rather in the spirit of the Haudenosee (Iroquois) League, which keeps the interests of the next seven generations in mind every time it makes a major choice to do or not do something.

Congress should just wait.

The trustees of Southern Methodist University have been given the the go-ahead to lease campus land for the George W. Bush Presidential Library, where thousands of copies of The Pet Goat and transcripts from warrantless wiretaps will be housed.

If a majority of San Francisco voters give an "aye" in November to a ballot measure certified Thursday, however, a rather different kind of public building will be named after the current occupant of the White House. It's now called the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant. If voters approve, it will become the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

Backers of the measure, who for several months circulated a petition to place [it] on the ballot, turned in more than 12,000 signatures on July 7, said organizer Brian McConnell. The Department of Elections today informed those supporters, the self-proclaimed Presidential Memorial Commission, that they had enough valid signatures - a minimum of 7,168 registered San Francisco voters - to qualify for the November ballot, he said.

McConnell, who came up with the idea over beers with friends, often donned an Uncle Sam outfit to drum up support for the petition. Other signature gatherers - all volunteers - often carried around an American flag and blasted patriotic music from a boom box to attract attention. He said today that the campaign to pass the measure will be an equally grassroots effort.

San Francisco Republicans say the plan stinks and they plan to oppose it, according to the Associated Press.

McConnell says the name-change makes perfect sense to memorialize an administration that has dragged our nation (and a few others) through the muck on a daily basis, leaving behind a mess that will take a decade or two to clean up.  

How disrespectful. How juvenile. How delightful.

But surely Richard Bruce Cheney should also be honored with his own appropriately labeled memorial. Whenever the brown has flowed during the past seven-and-a-half years, the gray eminence of this administration has been in it up to his eyebrows.

• Al Gore delivered a "moonshot" speech on energy today, a speech many people had hoped would come from Barack Obama's lips on January 20, 2009. Every kilowatt of U.S. electricity, Gore said, should come from solar, wind and other eco-friendly sources in a decade. Not 25 or 50 years, but 10.

  A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here’s what’s changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power – coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal – have radically changed the economics of energy.

  Andy Revkin at The New York Times's Dot Earth has an annotated version of the speech.

Video moved below the fold for our friends running Macs. -ct

• In a new paper for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Marina Ottaway and Mohammed Herzallah write that even Arab countries usually aligned with Washington are undertaking diplomatic initiatives that contradict U.S. policy, "because they no longer trust the U.S. capacity to contend with escalating regional crises" whether that relates to Iran, Lebanon or Hamas.
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi voiced objections  to the Cheney-Bush administration's efforts to redefine as abortion contraception that 40% of Americans use. A new Department of Health and Human Services proposal would prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer use of these contraceptives under the Weldon and Church amendments. Said Pelosi:

  “The majority of Americans oppose this out of touch position that redefines contraception as abortion and represents a sustained pattern of the Bush Administration to reject medical and sound science in favor of a misguided ideology that has no place in our government.

• Ben Smith over at Politico wonders if John McCain's often raw humor, which in the past has included a rape joke, will be seen as a "McCain being McCain" authenticity or backfire.
• The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Investigations Subcommittee is holding hearings today on how foreign banks facilitate "tax evasion by U.S. clients, hide client and bank misconduct behind the cloak of bank secrecy laws, and add to the offshore abuses that cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $100 billion each year."
• President Bush gets credit for pushing the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, but on Wednesday 16 Senate Republicans voted against the bill that will triple spending to treat and protect millions in Africa and elsewhere from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Previously, as DemFromCT explained here, several conservative Republicans put a hold on the bill because it eliminates the requirement that recipients provide "abstinence" education. The current program expires in September. Known as PEPFAR, it has helped bring lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs to some 1.7 million people and has supported care for nearly 7 million. Up to $48 billion will be spent over the next five years "for the most ambitious foreign public-health program ever launched by the United States."

It wasn't exactly a full hall when John McCain spoke to the NAACP at its 99th annual convention in Cincinnati Wednesday, but he did manage to coax a respectful, if not thunderous, standing ovation from the crowd by the time he was finished speaking and answering a few questions. Besides lauding Barack Obama, the Arizona Senator again favorably mentioned Teddy Roosevelt - something some right-wingers are unhappy about - noting TR's controversial 1901 decision to invite black educator Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House.

Somebody might have let McCain know ahead of time that NAACP leaders, especially W.E.B. Du Bois, were quite critical of Washington for being too accommodating to racist white society and for the endorsement of segregation he gave in his 1895 Atlanta Compromise speech. But mentioning Washington was a perfect introduction to the centerpiece of McCain's speech, a standard, if tepid, right-wing rap on the failure of American public education, depicted as the fault of federal bureaucrats, teachers' unions, state credential approvers, and inflexible school administrators.

He didn't mention, of course, that the NAACP itself gave McCain an F rating for his legislative work in the 109th Congress. In the organization's estimation, he cast a wrong vote on eight of nine education-related issues. (Overall, McCain cast a wrong vote on 26 of 28 issues of interest to the NAACP. Obama got an A.)

Among those votes, said Think Progress, he:

- Voted Against Head Start Programs: In 2005, for instance, McCain voted against increasing "federal spending on Head Start programs by $153 million."

   - Voted Against Expanding Pell Grants: While 45 percent of African Americans rely on Pell Grants to pay for college, McCain has consistently voted to cut the value of Pell Grants.

   - Voted Against Title I Education Grants: McCain voted against increasing spending on Title I education grants, which are designed to help public schools that serve predominantly low-income students, by $3 billion."

Indeed, McCain has consistently voted against funding Head Start and against appropriating enough money to cover the mandated costs to schools for implementing the No Child Left Behind program. He also voted against reducing the five-year tax cut by $5.4 billion so the money could be spent on education, voted for $40 billion in cuts to entitlement programs, including student loan programs, and voted against an amendment to increase by $7 billion spending on education, training and low-income support programs.

Talk is cheap. Praising Barack Obama costs nothing. Reforming education, something everyone agrees needs doing - costs money. Experience has taught us that Senator McCain has far more heart for cutting rich people's taxes than for appropriating enough dollars so America's kids will get the education they deserve.  

If you have a longer memory than the traditional media, you'll recall that, about this time two months ago, Mister Bush got caught in a lie when he told Politico in an interview that he had given up golf so as to be "in solidarity" with the families of troops in Iraq because, he said, for the Commander-in-Chief to play "golf during a war just sends the wrong signal." If you do have a short memory or missed that news cycle, you can catch the gist here:

But next Monday, as Examiner.com points out, Bush Will Attend A McCain Golf Fundraiser Hosted By His Parents

According to a solicitation sent by the McCain camp, for the low, low price of $5,000, you can play a round of golf at Cape Arundel Golf Course, Bush’s home course.

"Both President Bush and Governor Jeb Bush will be stopping by to greet the foursomes," the missive promises. "The course is reserved for this private group, and VIPs will be visiting during your round of golf. This event is a great way to end a weekend getaway, and we would be honored if you can attend."

Think Progress speculates:

It’s unclear what Bush will do while everyone else is ignoring the war and golfing. Perhaps he’ll ride around in golf carts or simply make swinging motions with his arms. ...

McCain also seems to have few qualms about golfing during wartime. In fact, on his campaign website, he sells golfing gear.

Apparently, Senator McCain won't be at the fund-raiser. Which is too bad. If he were, he could help out by giving Mister Bush another great big hug down by the water trap on the sixth hole. The hug photo we have now is getting a tad frayed.

In a new survey, Health Care and the Economy in Two Swing States: A Look at Ohio and Florida, National Public Radio, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Harvard School of Public Health found that the economy, health care and the occupation of Iraq are the top items on people's minds, with seven out of ten saying the economy will have a significant influence on how they will vote for President in November.

Asked to name the most and second most important issues "when you decide how to vote for president," respondents replied:

In Florida, half of those polled say they're struggling not just with one, but with multiple economic problems.

There's the collapse of the housing market and the decline in home values. Also, a credit crunch is making it hard for consumers to borrow their way out of trouble. Then there's triple or quadruple whammy: spiraling fuel and food prices.

In the new poll, more than three-quarters of people in Florida said they were facing at least one serious economic problem; half said they were struggling with three or more. The big ones? It's jobs, gas prices, housing and health care.

Floridians List Serious Problems with the Economy
Percent who say or their family experienced serious problems on account of recent changes in the economy

People in lower- and middle-income groups are suffering most, of course, but the economic problems are affecting higher-income groups as well, according to a spokeswoman for the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The poll found broad similarity in how Ohioans and Floridians rate their economic problems. Both say their inability to get a good job or a raise in pay is a top concern. But in Florida, the collapse in home values ranks higher as an economic problem than in Ohio. And for people in the real estate, banking and construction industries, it's also a jobs issue. ...

More than four in 10 Floridians polled believe that expanding health coverage to all Americans would do a great deal to help fix the country's economic problems. A similar number say the same thing about reducing health care costs.

But according to the poll, the top two things people in Florida say would help the most are stopping American jobs from going overseas and pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.

For [Dee Moskona, a 47-year-old attorney and mother in Miami], Iraq is an economic issue.

"Absolutely," she says. "Iraq is draining everything. It's a demoralizing, horrible thing that we're stuck with, that we have to live with."

Retail prices last month took their biggest annual leap since May 1991, when gasoline prices skewed the figure upward because of the Gulf War.

Meanwhile, some 2 million Americans face home foreclosures, millions of industrial workers have lost well-paying jobs to cheap labor in the Pacific Rim, consumer confidence is near its all-time low, and pessimism about the economy is at a 27-year low.

Thirty-seven million Americans are living in poverty, 100,000 of them military veterans. By October, 28 million Americans will be receiving Food Stamps, a new record. The stamps, however, don't buy as much as they used to because of soaring food prices. In 2007, 54 million Americans had no health insurance at least part of the year. One in four adults aged 18-34 had no health insurance, and 9% of children under 18 had none.

But, according to PhD economist and supply-side shill Phil Gramm, all we've got going is a "mental recession" on the part of "whiners."

Somebody's mental all right.

Media Matters took note of the fact that on Monday GOP strategist Andrea Tantaros again referred to Barack Obama as a "fancy lad" on the July 14 edition of America's Newsroom on Fox News. The first time she did this was July 7 on MSNBC:

Tantaros was discussing the possibility of Obama's speaking in front of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate and called the proposition "risky," adding that "Obama needs some gravitas, and so that's why they're sending him there. He's a fancy lad. He likes fancy language with fancy backdrops. And that's exactly why they're putting him there." On neither MSNBC nor Fox News was her remark challenged by the anchors of the shows. On MSNBC, Democratic strategist David Goodfriend responded to Tantaros by saying: "Well, first of all, just in response to what Andrea said, there isn't a single Ivy League fancy guy on that ticket."

Here's the tubular version.

At Pandagon, Pam Spaulding links to a definition and writes that a "fancy lad" is a "guy who is very 'girly'":

What is it with the GOP and the insistence on gay-baiting? This is the party of closeted, tortured men trolling for sex in airport bathrooms, park restrooms and assaulting fellow Republicans in their sleep with oral sex attacks, yet they persist in trying to tar Dems with the gay label. The taunts are so high school at this point.

Just goes to show how twisted these slugs are with their view that "Muslim" is a smear and "gay" is a smear. Something had to replace "Red," I suppose. It and "your mama wears combat boots" just don't have the punch they used to.

What else will they conjure with the conventions still weeks away?

+ + +

The Overnight News Digest has been posted and includes a story on how Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party may be banned by the Constitutional Court on charges of undermining secularism.

Check out pico's Diary, Literature for Kossacks: Satire.

• Jane Mayer's new book, The Dark Side, The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, includes this tidbit:

  In the days after 9/11, when fears of another terrorist strike were at their peak, Vice President Dick Cheney was convinced that he had been subjected to a lethal dose of anthrax ...

  White House insiders from that white-knuckle time [said] the scare contributed to Cheney's insistence on hard-line tactics for fighting terror.

- brownsox
• Oil prices plunge on demand concerns. Reasons for the sell-off? Mostly "whines" about the economy. There was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying that "numerous difficulties" are affecting the U.S. economy of the world's largest oil consumer, and rising prices for energy and food. The Labor Department reported that wholesale inflation jumped by 1.8 percent last month, with a year-to-year rise of 9.2 percent, the most since 1981. Meanwhile, GM announced more cuts, including health benefits for salaried retirees and several thousand more jobs. Truck production will be cut by 300,000 units, 150,000 more than approved last month. - brownsox/Meteor Blades
• From our Don't Know Whether to Laugh or Cry Department: Senator Joe Lieberman said today he won't accept a vice presidential offer if John McCain makes offers it this year. Nor would he take a Cabinet post in a McCain administration.

  "I'm where I was meant to be," said Lieberman, who won re-election to his Senate seat two years ago as an independent after losing the Democratic primary.

  -  brownsox

• Meanwhile, Charlie Cook at The National Journal warns that the political community has a lousy track record of predicting who will get vice presidential nods. But it doesn't stop anybody from trying.

  All of this is pretty pointless, and the more certain that folks around Washington and the political community are that they have figured out the pick, the more laughable it is.

  - Meteor Blades

• Bush Drops to 28% Approval. Just 28 percent of Americans approve of President Bush's job performance, a match for Jimmy Carter's career low. Only two presidents produced lower ratings: Richard Nixon, 24 percent in July and August 1974 just before he resigned in the face of impeachment; and Harry Truman, 22 percent in February 1952. - brownsox
• Several folks at the Center for American Progress via Alternet have taken on The Three Biggest Myths the Bush Administration Wants You to Believe About Offshore Drilling.

  No. 1 - Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. A Newt Gingrich group is promoting that theme. The truth: No significant impact on production or prices before 2030.

  No. 2 - China on Our Coasts. Rudy Guiliani, Dick Cheney and others claim the Chinese are drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba. They aren't.

  No. 3 - Not a Drop Was Spilled. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, Mike Huckabee, George Will, and Bill O'Reilly have all claimed "not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita." BS piled deep. According to the Minerals Management Service, those hurricanes caused 124 offshore spills for a total of 743,700 gallons. - Meteor Blades

• New Mexico blogger Heath Haussamen interviewed John McCain yesterday on the "Straight Talk Express" in Albuquerque.  He talked about how he "philosophically" supports protecting the environment (whatever that means); in that context, he had a few words about the Udalls:

  I love and revere the Udall family. Mo was very good to me, and Mark (Tom's cousin) and Tom are good friends, McCain said. He added that he has a "great appreciation" for former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, Tom Udall's father and Mo Udall's brother.

  That doesn't mean McCain supports Tom Udall in his race against Republican Steve Pearce.

  "I want him elected," McCain said of Pearce. "It's just a matter of philosophy. We're both conservative Republicans."

  Sorry to disappoint you, Senator, but it's going to take a miracle to get Pearce elected. - Plutonium Page