I saw this author being interviewed on C SPAN, and was very impressed by the story. I have ordered the book, and here is the link to the piece she wrote in The Washington Post that gave her the idea to write this book.
From what she tells about the book, it is a compelling story about how the reputation of our wonderful country was tarnished by a bunch of out of control neocons.
I am proud that she has been patriotic enough to sound an alarm. May we never again lose our moral bearings that has distinguished us forever.
She also spoke at the Commonwealth Club of California. To see that video, click here.
Mahvish Khan has her own website as well, dedicated to this book. To go there, click here.
To buy the book from Amazon.com, just click on its picture on the above.
. The latest Gallup national daily tracking poll shows that Obama has a 9 point lead over McCain, 49% to 40%. This is being attributed to his overseas trip bounce.
However, other polls show McCain closing the gap in battleground states like Colorado and Minnesota, and coming within a couple points, the margin of error.
The RealClearPolitics (RCP) Average gives Obama a 5 point lead (46% to 41%) even though its generic party average gives the Democrats an 11 point lead (50% to 39%).
The President's approval rating has been as low as 16%, the economy is in shatters, the Iraq war is draining our resources, and there are now more deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan where Taliban is resurgent.
Almost everyone agrees that the Republican brand is damaged this election cycle. No matter who the president is, McCain or Obama, he will have a Democratic legislature. The GOP is trying to prevent the Democrats from having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Obama is a young, charismatic, and knowledgeable guy. He has run a tight, disciplined campaign and has stayed on message. There were no major gaffes in his trip to West Asia, Middle East and Europe; he looked every bit Presidential and Commander-in-Chiefy.
On the main emerging issue of this election year, the pocketbook, polls show that voters trust him by a wide margin over McCain, as they would any Democrat on economy.
McCain, by contrast, is old and wooden guy who often rewrites history. His campaign is disorganized and lacks a coherent message. He has committed major gaffes, errors and mistakes; he has gone so far as to define his opponent as being a traitor.
Once a maverick and proud of his independent streak, he has, since he started his run for presidency and even in the past several weeks, changed his position to be palatable to his far-right base - the bloc he despised throughout his career in politics.
Not that Obama has not changed his positions, but his revisions have been more nuanced and a sprint to the center. McCain is trending even further right that the center-right positions he has traditionally held, a move that may cost him important vote of the independents.
McCain's only claim to fame seems to be his lofty, selfless and admirable service to the country where he was imprisoned by the enemy and his decision to support the escalation of our engagement in Iraq: the 'Surge'. Recently, he has expanded the definition of 'Surge', but that remains the central part of his campaign. Like for Rudy Giuliani it was "9/11, 9/11, 9/11", "Surge, Surge, Surge" seems to be the battle cry for McCain.
He has been candid about his unfamiliarity with the economy and relies on advisors like Phil 'nation of whiners' Gramm. His only solution to the present oil crisis is more drilling which even T. Boone Pickens, his supporter and the financier of the 'Swift-Boat' ads, doesn't buy.
To make matters worse for McCain, it appears that Obama has been shaping the foreign policy issues lately, and even President Bush is making moves that are in line with positions Obama has held on Iraq, Iran and Syria. Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert Gates, Defense Secretary, have called for an increase in troop levels in Afghanistan by at least 2 brigades.
Obama, in the Year of the Democrat, should be leading Mccain by double digits. There seems to be a glass-ceiling of 50% which Obama cannot break.
Why is it so?
This is the question that 'all the king's horses and all the king's men' have been wondering aloud, but there seems to be no easy answer.
In his column in the Chicago Sun-Times today, Robert Novak feels that "Obama's difficulty in reaching the 50 percent mark reflects an overwhelmingly white undecided vote at 10 to 15 percent". He thinks that "Clearly, Obama has not yet closed the deal with the people to accept a young, inexperienced African-American as their president".
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post commented on the Chris Matthews Show (Fox) yesterday that this has to do with Obama's race; it is quite a change to see a person of mixed lineage being the contender for the highest office in the land.
Race has become a non-PC topic. People are uncomfortable to talk about it; it would rather go away. In the spectrum of political incorrectness, it is safer to be seen as a sexist than a racist.
So have we come up with new code words? Are young, inexperienced and unfamiliar among them? How about 'voters discomfort with a person with an 'exotic' name'?
Is Obama going to suffer the fate of Willie Brown, who lost his election twice after polls were in favor of him both times?
It is still 99 days to Election Day. No matter what happens, I don't think I will see a more riveting election season in my lifetime.
He spoke to the Germans "as a fellow citizen of the world", but this was not sufficiently 'American'. It seems that he is trying to run for the President of Planet Earth.
He should have given a dumb speech so that he did not 'look presidential', because he is not the President. Our president is the Republican, George W. Bush.
The speech should have been peppered with policy formulations and details so the Europeans would have hated him. This would have increased his popularity at home with the 'bitter' demographic that eludes him.But alas, he preferred to use "just words".
As Ronald Brownstein said in the National Journal Magazine, "blue-collar voters, especially blue-collar men, ... [are] most supportive of GOP arguments that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength, not diplomacy. European cheers may strengthen Obama at Starbucks, but it remains to be seen whether they will sweeten his prospects at Dunkin' Donuts".
Nuri al-Maliki supported his position on troop withdrawal only because he knows that the dovish Obama will be easier to manipulate than the hawkish McCain, and not because Obama makes more sense, as the liberals claim.
It was left to our great hero, General Petraeus, to disagree with the Obama-Mailiki time horizon; he supported that of McCain-Bush.The General knows better because he has one eye on Iraq and the other on Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that this makes him cross-eyed.
By visiting the Palestinian president Abbas, Obama has clearly demonstrated that he supports the Palestinians over Israelis. When McCain visited the region, he deliberately avoided going to Ramallah, so as not to give Abbas the legitmacy of being seen as having a tête-à-tête with a presumptive presidential nominee.
In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, he supported a plan - between the lines - that Israel should withdraw from occupied territories and stop building settlements there.
The King of Jordan chauffeured him to the airport only because he has sympathies a man who shares the middle name with his father, King Hussein.
Being a secret Muslim has won him accolades all over the Middle East and the support of Hamas. It is the same reason Karzai was so enamored by him and they talked exclusively in Arabic.
Sarkozy also had no choice but to support him as the Muslim population in France is on the rise. The President of the Republic didn't want to see a repeat of the violence that had gripped Paris only a few years ago, had he not sucked up to Obama.
The German leaders are facing a similar problem and so they give him high marks for his 'incisive intellect'. The plot of the 9/11 attacks was hatched in Hamburg, remember?
And Gordon Brown didn't want to be left as the odd man out.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama has shown us where his sympathies lie. He has also proven, like Kerry, to be Euro-Centric; he will therefore sacrifice American interests at the altar of European and Middle Eastern opinion.
As McCain has reminded us, twice, Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."
As further proof that he is 'not one of us', he refused to serve himself grits for breakfast at the mess hall in Afghanistan. His lame excuse was that he is trying to "stay healthy".
Gladly, McCain used that week to prove that he is one of us. He went to Kennebunkport, ME to discuss the Iraq war strategy with the senior President Bush and had a lunch of sauerkraut, an American staple.
May the older, wiser, and a more hawkish AMERICAN win.
. A border between Iraq and Pakistan is only possible if there is no Iran separating the two countries.
Maybe, just maybe, McCain wishes that if he can "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran", or kill all the Iranians from American cigarettes, he may be able to, to paraphrase Ahmadinejad, wipe Iran off the map.
. When Obama said that we need to augment the troop levels in Afghanistan by at least two brigades, McCain countered that we should send three.
Now that al-Maliki has agreed with Obama - in an interview with Der Spiegel - that the plan of troop withdrawn over 16 months is very workable, McCain has thrown his hat in the ring too.
Last Friday in an interview on CNN's 'Situation Room', McCain endorsed this plan, saying that he thinks "it’s a pretty good timetable”, in response to a question from Wolf Blizter.
McCain has strongly opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal and has criticized Obama for suggesting one.However, he has been inching closer to Obama's position since he stated that our troops will be in Iraq for a 100 years.
In a speech in Ohio in May, he declared that most American troops would be home by 2013, the end of his first term. On Monday, in remarks at the side of the first President George Bush in Kennebunkport, ME., he embraced the possibility of withdrawing most American troops by the end of 2010. This is the timetable demanded by the Iraqi government and declared by Obama.
One of McCain's unassailable strengths is his 'judgment' on matters of war. It is shocking to see Obama encroaching on that turf and forcing McCain to play defense.
. The presumptuous nominee of the Democratic party, traveling on O Force One, should take some hints from a president how to act presidential in a foreign country:
. Could it be that Bush is trying to make himself different from McCain or has he come to the conclusion that he has been wrong all along?
IRAN: The #3 official in the State Department is going to take part in the negotiations with Iran. Bush is eating his own words he uttered in Tel Aviv. McCain doesn't believe in talking to "bad guys".
IRAN:a U.S. Interests Section could soon be established in Tehran, the first U.S. diplomatic presence on Iranian soil since the 1979 hostage crisis. Is this a carrot the Administration is dangling in front of the Iranians? For McCain, this is a no-no; he would rather "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran".
IRAQ: Bush agrees that there should be a 'Time Horizon" (no Time Table?) about withdrawal of forces. This is a reversal of the policy thus far of having no time-lines. McCain is against setting any finite time-line, lest "the terrorists will win".
IRAQ: Bush has dropped plans to have permanent bases in that country. McCain wants to stay there "a 100 years".
PAKISTAN: Bush ordered bombings in Pakistan when it got "intelligible intelligence" about Al-Qaeda. The Pakistani government has protested every time. McCain felt, when Obama mentioned it in a debate among the democratic hopefuls, that this would be very irresponsible to disrespect the sovereignty of an ally.
SYRIA: Bush will be sending the top Middle Eastern negotiator to Damascus to talk to the Syrians. Syria is listed by the State Department as a state that sponsors terrorism. Again, McCain doesn't believe in talking to "bad guys".
. I do not doubt the sincerity of Senator McCain when he addresses issues about Iraq. However, his recent confusion about time lines of events, his attempt to rewrite recent history and his obsession with the 'Surge' cannot be explained by his age alone. A latest example is his statement which suggested that Iraq was the first major foreign military intervention by the US since 9/11, ignoring that we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan soon after that tragic event.
I have started to believe that Senator McCain, having lived through and participated in the Vietnam war, is perhaps seeing the events in Iraq as being similar to the ones in the South East Asian theater. Although he has served the country with honor and integrity, I think he is anxious that we do not 'cut-and-run', like we did in Vietnam, and be forever embarrased about it.
This, to me, explains why he is continuing to dwell on this issue even though he doesn't have to prove his credentials on foreign policy and security management for this election. What he should be trying to do is to define himself as someone who can tackle the economic pains of the public, but his obseesion with the 'Surge', because of its parallels with Vietnam in his opinion, is making him see the world with a jaundiced eye.
. Senator Obama has said that the success attributed to the escalation of troops (the Surge) in Iraq has many other components as well, like the 'Sunni Awakening' in Anbar province, the Iraqi government going after the militas and the standing down by the Sadr army, which have collectively helped to decrease violence in Iraq. Senator McCain derided him for not recognizing the success of the 'Surge', without which the 'Awakening' could not have come to pass. According to McCain, the 'Awakening' started after "Colonel Macfarlane was contacted by one of the major Sunni Shieks".
When it was pointed out to him that the 'Awakening' actually started in August 2006, while the 'Surge' was not even ordered until January 2007 and was in full force only by July 2007 (10 months after the 'Awakening'), he redefined the 'Surge. He now says that the 'Surge' is not merely an escalation of forces (which he had the foresight to recommend), but a "conterinsurgency strategy and is made up of a number of components" set in motion "by General MacFarlane on his own". "When I visited Iraq in December 2006", the General "had already initiated this strategy". He added that the General "told me that that strategy, which is quote the 'Surge', part of the 'Surge', would be successful".
Come again? Are you 'refining' your understanding of the 'Surge', Senator?In English, a 'Surge' merely means an increase, period. This word was chosen because the White House did not want to imply the obvious that this escalation of forces is an indication of an escalation of invomvement by the US in Iraq.
In addition, McCain claimed that "because of the 'Surge', we were able to go out and protect that Sheik and others...". Sadly, this particular Sheik was assasinated in September 2007, when the 'Surge' was at its peak.
The candidate who touts his foreign policy credentials believes that:
Al-Qaeda is a Shia organization (it is Sunni).
Iranians were training Iraqi Al Qaeda operatives in Iran and then sending them back into Iraq (Iranis are Shias and sworn enemies of the Sunni Al Qaeda).
Iraq shares a border with Pakistan (it is Afghanistan; Iraq is 700 miles away).
Czechoslovakia still exists (the country split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993).
Vladimir Putin is the President of Germany (Germany doesn't have a President, but a Chancellor; at present it is Angela Merkel)
Darfur is a region in Somalia (it is in Sudan).
By the spring of 2008, our troops were “down to pre-surge levels” (there were 20,000 more troops than when the surge policy began).
Steelers and Packers are two names of the same team (Pittsburgh Steelers/Green Bay Packers).
"The government should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies."
This is the change we'll have to believe in, possibly.
. So said McCain to Phil 'we are a country of whiners' Gramm, and is continuing his service to the campaign. However, Senator Gramm is not supposed to speak, for his words would be misunderstood by the Obama elite.
UPDATE Gramm to McCain: "I can feel yours", and resigned! Paraphrasing Obama, Senator Phil said that this was causing unnecessary 'distraction' from important discussions in the campaign. If only the Democrats were not making a mountain of a molehill, he implied.
FURTHER UPDATE Malcolm Forbes, who works for the McCain campaign, has told the CNBC that while Phil Gramm may have uttered something that one "is not supposed to say these days", he continues to be a force in McCain's economic agenda. Forbes added that McCain continues to listen to Gramm, McCain's economic policies are influenced by him, and that he will have a position in a McCain administration. (To which I say: Quit whining, nation)
John McCain, presumptive Republican nominee: We should send 3, not just 2, additional brigades to Afghanistan. He also feels that the 16-month timetable is feasible.
Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan: Afghanistan should be the central focus of the war on terrorism.
Nuri Al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq: Most of the U.S. troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2010.
Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Britain: announced a major drawdown of his nation’s troops by early 2009.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California: feels that we cannot drill our way out of our energy crisis.
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany: had the German parliament approve an increase (by over thrice) of its troop contribution to NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Posts
I saw this author being interviewed on C SPAN, and was very impressed by the story. I have ordered the book, and here is the link to the piece she wrote in The Washington Post that gave her the idea to write this book.