Mr Redford is now working on A movie And I am sure it will be as investigative, as the one I just mentioned!

!!! mit deutschen Untertiteln !!!
[googlevideo=http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7557214168916914640]
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7557214168916914640

Info: http://www.addictedtowar.com/dorrel.html
Text: http://www.addictedtowar.com/docs/The.War.Against.the.Third.World.pdf

SEGMENT 1

1. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
(segment 2:55) read segment

He was not only a civil rights advocate, he also spoke out against the U.S. war in Vietnam. Some people feel he was assassinated after he criticized our involvement there and other regions of the world. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

SEGMENT 2

2. John Stockwell, former C.I.A. Station Chief
(segment 6:14) read segment

Former CIA Station Chief in Angola 1975, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush. A 13 year veteran of the agency, Stockwell provides a short history of the CIA, estimating 6 million people have died as a direct consequence of the agency's covert operations since its inception in 1947. This talk was given in the late 1980's.

Recommended reading: John Stockwell's
The Praetorian Guard : The US Role In The New World Order

SEGMENT 3

3. Coverup: Behind the Iran-Contra Affair
(segment 19:34) read segment

This investigative documentary has been seen in theaters worldwide. Directed by Barbara Trent of the Empowerment Project. The Iran-Contra scandal is not an aberration of U.S. foreign policy. It has been estimated that between 20 to 30,000 Nicaraguan men, women and children were killed in U.S. sponsored terror conducted by the CIA backed right-wing Contra forces.

Elizabeth Montgomery narrates. Includes a short history of CIA covert operations by Peter Dale Scott

This segment comes from the full-length documentary 'CoverUp: Behind the Iran-Contra Affair' available from The Empowerment Project

SEGMENT 4

4. School of Assassins
(segment 13:25) read segment

The School of the Americas, located at Fort Benning, Georgia - our own terrorist training school right here in the United States. This documentary is narrated by Susan Sarandon and features Father Roy Bourgeois talking about this U.S. Army school where soldiers from Central and South America are trained in the art of torture, terrorism, and assassination. This school has since officially been renamed "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation."

This film was directed and produced by Robert Richter of Maryknoll World Productions.

This segment comes from the documentary "School of Assassins" available from the School of the Americas Watch web site.

5. Genocide by Sanctions
(segment 12:58) read segment

Produced and directed by Gloria La Riva in 1998 (long before the current war in Iraq), this film features former Attorney General of the United States, Ramsey Clark, as he shows the terrible conditions the Iraqi's were suffering from due to the first U.S. war on Iraq. UNICEF, the International Red Cross and other world organizations estimate around 5,000 children were dying every month in Iraq after that war and the imposition of sanctions placed on that country.

Over 1.5 million Iraqi's died as a result of the sanctions alone. Ramsey Clark goes into the hospitals and talks with Iraqi doctors, who say many of these deaths could have been prevented if they had medicine to give to the children. The United States bombed out their way of life; their water treatment facilities, food delivery systems, sewage treatment facilities, electrical systems, their mass communication facilities and more. And American's were lead to believe that this was a good thing.

This segment comes from the documentary 'Genocide By Sanctions.' Check out the Left Books web site for more info.

SEGMENT 6

6. Philip Agee, former C.I.A. Case Officer
(segment 22:08) read segment

Philip Agee spent 13 years in the C.I.A. before resigning in 1969. His book "Inside the Company: C.I.A. Diary" was first published in 1975 and has been translated in to 27 languages. It was a best seller world-wide. His autobiography, "On The Run" was published in 1987.

7. Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!
(segment 5:12) read segment

Journalist and host of Democracy Now!, a daily radio and TV news program on over 400 stations. Amy is the best at what she does! On this segment, Amy talks about two genocides Indonesia committed, first against its own people in 1965 and then against the people of East Timor in 1975. Both of these mass slaughters were sanctioned by the United States government and aided by the C.I.A. Includes scenes from "Bitter Paradise," a video by Elaine Briere. Amy Goodman was filmed by Ralph Cole of Justice Vision.

8. The Panama Deception
(segment 22:10) read segment

Won the 1993 Academy Award for Best Documentary. Directed by Barbara Trent of the Empowerment Project. This film documents the untold story of the December 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama. The United States military deliberately attacked and destroyed primarily residential neighborhoods, killing an estimated 3 to 4 thousand people in the process. This segment exposes the role the U.S. government and the mainstream media play in suppressing information about U.S. foreign policy. Includes never before seen footage of this invasion. Narrated by (actress) Elizabeth Montgomery

This segment comes from the feature-length documentary 'The Panama Deception' available from The Empowerment Project

9. Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
(segment 7:58) read segment

Former Attorney General of the United States speaking in 1998 in Los Angeles. I was there that night and it was a very memorable evening called "Save the Iraqi Children." Ramsey's talk is very powerful as he conveys the sorry truth about U.S. foreign policy. He quotes Martin Luther King Jr. saying, "The greatest purveyor of violence on the earth is my own government." The entire evening's event was filmed by Ralph Cole of Justice Vision.

10. S. Brian Willson, Vietnam Veteran and Peace Activist
(segment 8:45) read segment

Brian is the Vietnam veteran who, in 1987, lost both his legs when run over by a munitions train at the Concord Naval Weapons Station, located in California. The bombs and munitions aboard this train were bound for Central America. Brian is one of the most spiritual, courageous and honest activists who Wages Peace against our violent foreign policies. He is a hero in Central America where the people understand that he has stood up for their rights as equal human beings. Brian says that he doesn’t want mothers and fathers and children to be killed and maimed in our name with our tax money!

Brian’s web site features his auto-biography and a series of essays he has written since then. With an introduction by Kris Kristofferson, this segment includes scenes from "The Healing of Brian Willson" by Lori Joyce of Idanha Films and "Nicaragua Diary" by Mark Birnbaum.

Anyhow, I got my groceries and was putting them in the back of the Bronco when a man walked up and announced, "Ma'am, do you know you have a flat tire?" Well, no, and of course I scurried around to look, like perhaps he was playing some cosmic joke on yours truly. No such luck of course, the dang thing was flatter than the proverbial pancake.

Said manworthless person, asked if I had a phone. "No," I said. No phone was offered. "Well do you have someone to call?" "No," I lied still holding out the hope that said person would do the chivalrous thing and offer to change the tire. No such luck. "Well, just wanted you to know so you wouldn't drive off with it flat." Gee that was helpful I wanted to yell, I'd surely have driven 25 miles on the flat without that alert.

I rummaged through my purse and found four quarters the outrageous price of a lousy phone call, and prayed the Contrarian was not on the internet. He was not, but then, the phone barely worked. I could not hear him, all I could do was yell out my predicament. I faintly heard, "I'll be right there," and a click.

About 35 minutes later, with my ice cream no doubt in a bad state, said husband arrived. Half way there, he pondered whether I had gone to Independence or had gone to Cedar Rapids, but luckily, picked the right direction.  After about ten minutes of cursing, jumping on the tire iron trying to release a lug nut, he announced, "Start moving the groceries into the truck." Hmmmmm, this looked far worse now than anticipated.

"I'm sorry, I truly am." "Not your fault babe," he replied. "Just life." A plan was hatched on the way home. We got the groceries inside, he called his closest friend and working buddy, and now both are on the way back up with more manly tools. Steve had four nearly new tires that we were thinking of buying, and so that deal was now struck. So I guess I'll have brand new ones for Sunday and church.

Anyway, disruptions such as this always put me into a foul mood. I don't like changes in my routine a lot, and we have had two major ones in a week. But, all in all, things could definitely be worse. The Contrarian dreams of the day when he has a flat and can call someone and dump the whole issue on them. I recall years of being single and facing this nasty problem more than once alone and at the mercy of some mechanic type who charged me a full months wages no doubt for the simple task. (NO I DON'T INTEND TO LEARN TO CHANGE MY OWN TIRES, SO DON'T ASK.)

As to the debate, I was hoping for a Palin melt down and a pretty much end of the election. Of course, I knew that would not happen, somehow that woman feels comfortable before millions and freezes up with a single human being interviewing her.  She is still dumber than the dirt I shake off my shoes, and it appears she changed no minds for the positive. Those that liked her, still do, those that don't still don't. Biden was fine, and substantively beat the pants off her. If you like giggles and winks, and inane grins and slopping pronunciation, she's your girl.

So on with the news I picked up during the week.

Let's start off with something good. Baking Delights  often gives us the best recipes, and today is a copycat one. Bennigan's Baked Potato Soup. As the days and the nights continue that downward trend, this is just the thing to come in for after time outside cleaning up the yard. If you do that sort of thing, which I don't, but hey, soup is still the best!

Another recipe that looked mighty good to me was this one from Coconut & Lime,  Baked Ziti with Rapini and Chicken Meatballs. I think you can substitute out the Rapini if you can't find it, with spinach say, and the meatballs can definitely be other meat as you desire. I love to make casseroles that just have to be popped in the over an hour or so before dinner. I'm definitely a morning chef!

At the debates, at one point, Obama claimed that Kissinger agreed with some level of negotiations without pre-conditions. McCain said he was wrong, and later, Kissinger backed him up. Both were wrong and Obama was right, as Factcheck.org suggests in the actual transcript of Kissinger's remarks. Read it at Democrat Dave's Weblog.

Episcopal Cafe  reports that 33 pastors from the expected wingnuttery right have decided to actively urge their congregations to vote for McCain. In this, they are forcing a show down with the IRS which disallows political preaching in Church, especially endorsing candidates. It seems they think it a good idea given the current SCOTUS. Another reason Obama's election is necessary, to stave off the reactionary appointment that a McCain win would almost necessarily bring.

Boy Garrison Keillor  is always good, but sometimes he is down right preacher, bible thumping good. Don't miss his take this week at the Salon on the Wall Street mess and how McCain deserves so much blame. It's a cutting and rip-roaring good read.

It is pretty much a political axiom that VP candidates in the end don't matter. History News Network has a very detailed and interesting post on VP picks of times past and how those tickets did, and more importantly the impact of the second choice. It's fascinating to see that, well maybe Sarah does matter. If she does, it assuredly won't be good for McCain.

One thing is evident in the mess of the bailout. The Republican leadership leads nobody.That means Boehner has no authority, certainly Bush doesn't and alas, poor John McCain has none either. But what is worse, behind the scenes Newt Gingrich was apparently playing both sides, publicly saying he was for the bailout, and behind the scenes working furiously to scuttle it. One can only surmise his purpose, but the Republicans are a mess as is their candidate.

There is evidence that some dinosaurs breathed like birds. This of course increases the likelihood that dinosaurs are related to birds, something that dinosaur investigators have been saying for some time. Turns out, much to my surprise, that birds don't breath like mammals. Although they have lungs, they have these things called air sacs that somehow transfer air into the lungs without the usual in-out method that we use. This explains why birds can fly faster and higher than bats, I am told. Live Science  has all the particulars to read further.

Fareed Zakaria  is one of the smarter people on the block in Washington. His opinion is worth taking a look at. He has finally weighed in on the Palin effect.No doubt most people are sick of Palin and so I am tending to not put up that much new stuff, but Zakaria is a true journalist, one that is reasoned in the way of William F. Buckley and George Will. You won't find better analysis than this.

If you haven't had a chance to get to Out of Nowhere, you really should. Some very excellent writing. You may find this one particularly good. It's on money and how we relate to it. How did Jesus? And if that one isn't enough, another exceptional post is about the Gospel from last Sunday, the parable about the Kingdom, in Matthew 21:23-32. This one will be posted at Hear I Am Lord later this week.

McCain, meanwhile has been in Iowa. I don't know why, since he has been far behind in the state for months now, and there is little if any possibility that he can win it. Nevertheless, he was here, and granted an interview with the Des Moines Register. By all accounts, it went badly with McCain getting pretty angry whenever his motives are questioned. Did ya know all his ads are 100% true? And don't even suggest he's wrong. He doesn't like being told he's wrong. There are some excerpts over at Political Animal,  and linkage to a full video of the interview.

Meanwhile, again, Glenn Greenwald takes on the neo-cons and their penchance for well, rewriting history. Everything that has gone wrong is somehow the fault of liberals again. This given their near stranglehold control of the presidency and for six years Congress. Oh, yeah, right. It's quite a nice little piece and I urge you to take a look and laugh.

In general, if you don't already, skip over to the NRO. Even Kathryn Parker is backstepping a bit from her "resign Sarah" stance. Seems she got so much hate mail from the belligerent and vicious right wing rednecks that she's at least willing to hope that Sarah does well. The thing about NRO is that their pundits change their mind about Palin like every other week. As soon as they criticize her, then within days they are back to trying to blame it on the "liberal" media. These folks are wingnuts of the first order.

How extraordinary to find that, for two straight days, the American media would preoccupy themselves with the question of who had the greater right—in a debate over foreign-policy "experience," of all things—to quote Henry Kissinger. And how even more extraordinary that it should be the allegedly anti-war Democratic candidate who cited Kissinger with the most deference and, it even seems, the greater accuracy.

It began with that increasingly embarrassing process that might be describable (but probably isn't) as the on-the-job education of Gov. Sarah Palin. On last Thursday's CBS Evening News, facing the mild-as-milk questioning of Katie Couric, the thriller from Wasilla should have been relieved when the topics stopped being about the Bush doctrine or the thorny matter of Russian-Alaskan propinquity and could be refocused instead on Sen. Barack Obama's weakness. But, having duly attacked him for being ready to meet with the dictators of Iran and Syria without "preconditions," she was reminded that her new friend and adviser Henry Kissinger, furnished to her only that very week by the McCain machine, endorses direct diplomacy with both countries. "Are you saying," Ms. Couric inquired with complete gravity, "that Henry Kissinger is naive?" The governor's lame response was to say that: "I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, 'Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.' "

This enabled CBS to tack on a post-interview fact-check moment, confirming that Henry Kissinger did indeed favor such talks with such regimes "without preconditions." This cannot have been hard to do, since only last week at a forum at George Washington University, consisting of himself and four other former secretaries of state, Kissinger had told his audience: "Well, I am in favor of negotiations with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it." He then added something that can hardly have startled anyone who ever watched him usurping presidential prerogatives during the Nixon and Ford administrations: "I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level" before, as the New York Times put it with uncharacteristic brusqueness, "he trailed off." Nonetheless, asked if such talks should be "at a very high level right out of the box," his response was to say, "Initially, yes," which is as much as to say "yes." He then said: "I do not believe we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations," which would appear to justify the use of the term unconditional in conjunction with "very high level."

"Trailed off" is too kind a phrase even so for the drivel spouted above. Apparently Kissinger believes that the Islamic Republic of Iran is unaware of what we think about its nuclear program, has not studied our position, has not learned anything from its protracted and dishonest negotiations with the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Authority, but might be induced to do so if favored by a sit-down with Condoleezza Rice. Apparently, he does not know that the envoys of the Iranian foreign ministry are only ciphers, easily overridden by the mullah-dominated "Guardian Council" that holds all real power in Tehran. Evidently, he also thinks that Iran is deeply concerned about the maintenance of stability in the region. But then, Kissinger's last memorable intervention in this area was to tell the readers of the Washington Post op-ed page that neighboring Iraq should be handled with care because it was a Sunni majority country. He has been to some trouble since to erase and rewrite this laughable ignorance on his part from the written record: For a trace of his evasiveness, please check here.

Finally, of course, there is Kissinger's habitual fondness for any form of dictatorship. To have been the friend of Pinochet, Videla, and Suharto, while almost simultaneously fawning on Brezhnev and especially on Mao, is to have been a secretary of state who was soft on fascism—and soft on communism, too! Unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad and Assad? Why not? They are the sort of people with whom he (and Kissinger Associates, the firm that introduces despots to corporations) prefers to do business.

Thus for McCain, a full day and night after the exposure of his shaky running mate to such ridicule, to make the same mistake himself in Oxford, Miss., was really something to see. It was even worse if you heard it on radio, as I initially did, than if you saw it on television. (You can hear that geezerish whistle in his pipes much more ominously than when you are looking at his elderly face.) Anyway, on the same question of "without preconditions," he walked into Obama's tersely phrased riposte, which was to quote Kissinger in precisely the same way as Couric had already done. McCain looked and perhaps felt a fool at this point, and may have been only slightly cheered up when Kissinger told the Weekly Standard after the debate that he after all doesn't, at least not for this precise moment, "recommend presidential high-level talks with Iran." Which, when compared with his earlier remarks, makes it seem that he has no idea what he currently thinks and should either be apologized to by, or should apologize to, either Sarah Palin or Katie Couric, or conceivably both.

But the true farce and disgrace is that this increasingly glassy-eyed old blunderer and war criminal, who has been wrong on everything since he first authorized illicit wiretapping for the Nixon gang, should be cited as an authority by either nominee, let alone by both of them. Meanwhile, I repeat my question from two weeks ago: Does Sen. Obama appreciate, or do his peacenik fans and fundraisers realize, just how much war he is promising them if he is elected? Once again on Sept. 26 in Mississippi—at the end of a week when American and Pakistani forces had engaged in their first actual direct firefight—he repeated his intention of ignoring the Pakistani frontier when it came to hot pursuit of al-Qaida. Out-hawked on this point, as he was nearly out-doved on the Kissinger one, McCain was moderate by comparison. Obama went on to accuse Iran of having built more centrifuges than most people think it has. This allegation has a confrontational logic of its own, above and beyond the minor issues of preconditions and the "level" of diplomacy. I think Obama is to be praised for doing this—always assuming that he does in fact know what he is doing. But as we all press bravely on, the debate would look more intelligent, and be conducted on a higher plane, if it excluded a discredited pseudo-expert who has trampled on human rights, vandalized the U.S. Constitution, deceived Congress, left a trail of disaster and dictatorship behind him, and deserves to be called not a hawk or a dove but a vulture.

A recent addition to our offerings: Erik Peterson, a specialist on demography and population. He speaks on geopolitical and country risk assessment; international trade and finance; international business strategy and global strategic planning.

Peterson is the senior vice president at CSIS, where he is director of the Global Strategy Institute. As director, he heads the Seven Revolutions Initiative, an internationally recognized effort to identify and forecast global trends out to the year 2025 and beyond. Peterson also holds the William A. Schreyer Chair in Global Analysis at CSIS. For his contributions to the Center, he received the 2006–2007 CSIS Trustees Award. Before joining CSIS, he was director of research at Kissinger Associates.

For more information on Erik Peterson's keynote speaking, please contact us at 310-459-0159.

• Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran. (Obama stated during the debate the he (Obama) was referring to Ambassadors and Secretaries and not the President). 
• McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.
• McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.
• McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.
• McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter, but he didn’t mention resigning.

For full details, as well as other dubious claims and statements, please read our full Analysis section.

www.factcheck.org
 

Jurij Gagarin från Sovjet var den första människan i rymden 1961. Han chockade en hel värld då han under några timmar cirklade runt jordklotet i rymdskeppte Vostok 1. Det satte fart på amerikanarna. Dom fick fanimej spader. Under hela 60-talet pågick en kamp på liv och död i rymden. Kennedy lovade att USA skulle ha en människa på månen inom tio år. Och i juli 1969 klev dom första människorna omrking på månen - och dom var amerikanare (fan tro´t).

Det har varit dockningar, rymdpromenader och landningar i kamp med ryssarna. Och många människor har strukit med. Men sen USA landsteg på månen fick ryssarna ge sig. Dom blev knäckta. Men den stora frågan återkommer - varför har dom inte återvänt en enda gång sen dom världsberömda promenaderna på månen.

Filmbilderna från månpromenaden visar ett grått ökenlandskap med en kolsvart himmel. En ensam astronaut i vit dräkt skuttar fram mot den amerikanska flaggan. Fanan vajar helt plötsligt till i vinden medan astronauten förtvivlat försöker få den att stanna. De pinsamma bilderna kablades ut över världen vid flera tillfällen under det amerikanska månprogrammet. För pinsamt var det. Om det blåste på månen så fanns det ju luft där, något som vetenskapsmän och rymdforskare samstämmigt förnekat. Och om det fanns luft - varför var då astronauterna tvungna att gå omrking i klumpiga dräkter när de lika väl hade kunnat andas utan hjälmar och visir? Kanske var det i själva verket så att bilderna från månen hade filmats på jorden?

Tanken på att den amerikanska rymdflygstyrelsen Nasa förde hela världen bakom ljuset började sakta växa fram i USA. Flera artiklar och böcker publicerades som pekade på en lång rad omständigheter som visade på samma sak: Allt var en jättelik konspiration där allt gjordes för att dölja att månprogrammet i själva verket aldrig lämnade jorden. Att allt var en bluff där hela mänskligheten blev lurad.

Avståndet från jorden till månen är ungefär 385 000 kilometer. Att ta sig dit okey - men väl på månen - hur kunde dom får raketen att lyfta därifrån mot jorden med tanke på hur man skjuter iväg Fuglesang o s v. Vilken apparat! Hur kunde bränslet räcka? You tell me...
År 2001 blev en dokumentär färdig om det här som heter: "Conspiracy theory: Did we land on the Moon?" som producerades av tv-kanalen Fox Television och som ifrågasäter hela månlandningen. Filmen har visats vid flera tillfällen även i Sverige. Jag såg den för ett år sedan. Där sitter Nixon och Kissinger och talar om att det hela är en bluff. Det kan vi säga nu eftersom det hela är en vedertagen sanning - det finns ingen som kommer att tro oss var deras kommentarer.

Enligt Bill Kaysing och fotografen David Percy som gjort filmen så är månlandningen inspelad i en stuio i Nevadaöknen, troligen i försvarets testområde Area 51. Ingen Apollo-farkost eller astronaut landade någonsin på månen utan cirkulerade runt jorden under drygt en vecka för att sedan inför tv-kameror och press landa i Stilla havet. Dokumentären om den stora månbluffen har fått ett stort genomslag runt om i världen.

Har du möjlighet ska du se filmen och dra din egen slutsats - det ombeds man som tittare att göra. Jag känner mig lurad och det gör 6 % (15 miljoner) av amerikanarna också. I dokumentären får man se regissören Stanley Kubricks fru berätta hur det hela gick till. Att det spelades in i en studio. Den mycket kände regissören själv är död. Flera av dom människor - bl a CIA-agenter - som var med om det här hemlighetsmakeriet har dött - förmodligen har dom blviit mördade för att eliminera så många spår som möjligt.

Har du möjlighet ska du också se science-fictionfilmen Capricorn One från 1978 så förstår du att månlandningen 1969 kan vara Jordens Bluff alla kategorier. Den filmen visar hur man relativt enkelt kant iscensätta en landning på en annan planet. Filmen handlar om hur Nasa fejkar en Marslandning på samma sätt som Kaysing och Percy anklagar Nasa för att ha gjort med månlandningen 1969.

Några tecken (det finns flera) på att det hela är en bluff:

* Det syns inga stjärnor på himlen på bilderna från månen. I själva verket borde stjärnorna ha synts tydligt eftersom det inte finns någon störande atmosfär i vägen.
* Den amerikanska flaggan vajar trots att det inte finns någon atmosfär på månen och att det därmed inte kan blåsa där.
* Det syns ingen eldkvast från raketmotorn när astronauterna lyfter från månytan.
* Skuggorna faller åt olika håll på vissa bilder, vilket de inte borde göra eftersom det bara finns en ljuskälla på månen: solen. Detta visar att Nasa använde sig av en studio med flera lampor.

-------

I had just signed on to watch for a sign thief and chat with some of my fellow Mudflatters when the debate started. Within five or ten minutes I had to leave the sign watch and concentrate on the debate, so, with a quick note to my fellow watchers saying that both candidates were off to a poor start, I signed off and hopped on the bed to lay back and enjoy the debate.

 Of course I expected a lot of contradiction and confusion during the debate and I learned years ago that, sometimes, the best way to deal with confusion is to become confused yourself. So, with that in mind, I lit up a good size joint and settled in to listen to McCain and Obama trade barbs for an hour and a half.

 It almost immediately became obvious that Obamaand McCain were both just a tad bit confused about why they were there, they seemed to think they were in and interview, not a debate, as the moderator (Jim Lehrer) had to repeatedly remind them to talk to each other, not to the audience or the moderator. But eventually they caught on and started to debate like they should. Although I did get the feeling that they were still talking to the audience more than each other.

  Now, on to the debate itself. The two of them contradicted each other constantly through the debate (I was expecting that), and both of them made statements that were either just not true, or mistakes due to misinformation or outdated information. When separating the non-truths (ok, just plain lies), from the misinformation it became very apparent that McCain would rather lie than admit to any mistakes, while Obama remained mostly honest about his past voting record and bill support. In my opinion, Obama won this debate hands down.

  Here are just a few of the questionable statements made by each of them and why I think they are questionable.

Obama said that McCain's adviser, Henry Kissinger said he favored the idea of meeting with Iran without pre-conditions. McCain said he knew Kissinger for 35 years and he wouldn't say that. But Kissinger did say that, however, AFTER THE DEBATE, Kissinger issued another statement saying McCain was right and that he opposed talks with Iran without preconditions. Yes, that phone called played itself through my brain a couple times, "Hello,... Henry? Henry, you gotta help me out here, I just lied on a live broadcast, so you have to get out and tell everyone I was right and you don't support talks with Iran,,,".

McCain insisted that Mike Mullen (Joint Chiefs of staff Chairman) said Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq would be dangerous. Mullen did say that a time line for withdrawal would be dangerous, but he was not talking about Obama's plan, he was talking about withdrawal in general and not about anyone's specific plans. McCain knew this so this statement was a deliberate lie aimed at discrediting Obama's ability to handle the situation in Iraq.

  Obama said that Iraq had a 79 billion dollar surplus, which was true at one time, but the figure is now closer to 60 billion, I see this as, not a lie, but outdated information, which we all have in one area or another. It's impossible to stay up to date with everything and still manage to get an hour or two of sleep at the end of the day.

  But this was one of my favorites:  

McCain: Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

  First of all, we don't spend that much on oil period. We spend about $535 billion on oil and a third of that is to Canada and Mexico, and we also get it from other countries that we are friends with. Also, if he had been correct, it wouldn't have looked good for the Republicans because it's a Republican administration that he's talking about who is sending the money that could end up in the hands of terrorists. Perhaps this was one of those times that he should have just kept his mouth shut.

  McCain said Obama was naive  because he said that Georgia and Russia should both show restraint rather than let the situation esculate into a full blown war. I'm guessing that McCain also thinks the present administration is naive too since the Whitehouse issued a statement saying the same thing Obama said.

  Another false statement by McCain came when he said "I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time...." . Since he really voted against it 11 times, I would say that perhaps he's for the idea of alternate energy, but he's not one who would actually support any kind of funding for it.

  Another big one for McCain was when he said that in 1983 he stood up and voted against Ronald Reagan's proposal to send Marines into Lebanon because he didn't think that several hundred Marines could succeed in bringing peace to the region. Then he claimed that he was tragically right because 300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the Marine barracks. However, those Marines had already been deployed in August of 1982, more than three months before McCain was even voted into the House, so he couldn't have voted against sending them.

  McCain also falsely claimed that Obama was against nuclear energy, when he is really in favor of it, he just insists that it be clean and that all safeguards are carefully met for the storage of wastes. I think that's something that we can all agree on, nuclear energy, if used, MUST be made as safe as possible.

  But perhaps McCain's biggest blunder came when he said that earmark spending had tripled in the past five years, when it has really declined by about 24%.

  Obama didn't exactly have a perfect showing in the debate either, but I believe most of his mistakes were either stretches to get his point across or bits of misinformation that he had gotten and passed along in the debate as I didn't notice any outright lies from him and he seemed more honest in his statements than I have seen any candidate be in a debate in many years.

  Remember that during most of this time I was under the influence of a mind altering green leafy substance, so I naturally had my sense of humor kicked into high gear and found myself giggling from time to time at the unexpected bits of humor that crept into the debate. These are just some random quotes from the debate that made me giggle:

  McCain: "A lot of us saw this train-wreck coming" and "We've got fundamental problems in our system".  (Hmm, remember this? "The fundamentals of our economy are strong")

  Obama: "John, you want to give oil companies another 4 billion dollars."

  McCain: "It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left."

  McCain: "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs." (I almost choked on my fruit cocktail when he said this, spend money on basically nothing but the military, that'll keep everyone happy)

  Obama: "So to stand here and after eight years and say that you're going to lead on controlling spending and, you know, balancing our tax cuts so that they help middle class families when over the last eight years that hasn't happened I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow." (I found it kind of hard to swallow too)

  McCain: " It's well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality " (he said this a couple of times. Should we let him know that he didn't win in the bathing suit competition either?)

  Obama: "John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007...... The war started in 2003,"

  Obama: " John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is." (bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran)

  Obama: "Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too, "

  McCain: "I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet."

  McCain: "He's parsing words, my friends." (did anyone get a count on how many times he said "My friends"?)

  McCain: "I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a "K," a "G," and a "B." " (oh, the things you can see in someone's eyes)

  McCain: "You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue,"

  McCain: "Jim, when I came home from prison,..." (I knew it, I knew it. He almost made it through without mentioning it, but I knew he couldn't let a whole hour and a half go by without mentioning that he was a POW)

  So, that is how the debate looked to a stoned out hippie with a bed full of munchies and spilled milk. Both candidates made mistakes and both made points, but overall Obama was the clear winner and McCain seemed to rely on rhetoric, lies and humor to bully his way through, all three tactics failed in my eyes.

  Next up, the debate between Biden and Palin. I am going to make every effort to attend this debate in person, it should be entertaining and hilarious. I'm just afraid that Palin will make such an idiot of herself that she'll be unable to continue serving as Governor of Alaska without getting laughed out of her own state.

  Stay tuned and let's see what happens Thursday.

In the link to video provided up above, Sarah Palin is seen outside, leaving Kissinger's office.  Originally, I saw the video on CNN or MSNBC, and what struck me was the look on Kissinger's face.  It was this totally leering captivated look.  It's the same look I saw on my hypersexed father's face, who's in the early to mid-stages of dementia, who leered at the occupational therapist.  Later on, he had attempted to pull the OT down next to him while he was seated at the edge of his bed, wherein we quickly intervened.  Kissinger's facial expression totally creeped me out.

I ran across a column written by Judith Warner from the NYT who feels empathy with Ms Palin being in over her head in the presence of 'powerful men.'  Warner references "our Inner Elle" - those couple of 'Legally Blonde' movies with Reese Witherspoon as the rich and pampered husband hunter who eventually ends up at Harvard Law who with her straightforward  and although has quite an 'natural intelligence' she is just unsure enough to be endearing.  I think Sarah Palin is quite narcissistic enough to think she can handle the Kissinger sharks of the world.  Besides she's a Christian.

Whether or not Palin has the intelligence to hold her own, which I don't think she does - it's obvious from some of the stupid comments made by men recently, that she is not respected. I don't think it's about respect when men say to your face, "you're gorgeous" and that's the extent of it.  I think it also speaks to the respect McCain's choice for vice-president garners as well.   I think Palin will do more damage to the status of women in politics and across this country if she gets anywhere near the White House.

President Zardari's charm offensive on Ms. Palin was, well, offensive," wrote political analyst Mosharraf Zaidi in an op-ed for TheNews. "What excuse does the husband of a global feminist icon have for his faux pas?" he asked, in a reference to the late Benazir Bhutto's status as the Muslim world's first prime minister.

Whereas, Mr. Uribe from Columbia apparently wasn't reported to have been as unseemly and uninviting with his remarks.

With both Karzai and Uribe, Palin discussed the importance of energy security. With Uribe, the conversation also touched on the proposed U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement that McCain and Palin support but Obama opposes.

Anywhooo...

The first debate between the two Presidential candidates was on Friday.  This idiot watched very closely, which is why I am puzzled that the reviews are so mixed.  Although I am already proudly displaying my McCain sign on my lawn, (p.s.- almost a week and no egging or vandalism by my always open minded liberal friends and neighbors!) I know that debate performance is crucial, at least in the court of public opinion.  I knew what I was looking for ahead of time:  a strong performance citing wisdom, experience, and actual examples of what the candidates have accomplished during their tenure in the senate, and what they plan to do after they take office.

McCain's performance was strong.  He cited his career  long crusade against wasteful spending, while highlighting Obama's love of earmarks.  There is no doubt that Obama is an eloquent speaker, however, unless the job requires extensive knowledge of bumper sticker rhetoric, he brought nothing substantive  to the table.  This idiot is sure that Obama supporters thought he did a great job, but he didn't offer anything new.  He did an excellent job of implementing his tried and true "it's all of us against the angry, rich, GOP machine" strategy that seems to have served him well thus far among the wide eyed naive masses.   Although I did get a chuckle at the thought of Barry and Ahmadinejad sitting around a brightly decorated table making small talk over afternoon tea, the debate did nothing but reinforce my opinion that Obama would be a DISASTER for this country.

He talked about cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  What he neglected to mention is that his plan is more of a government paycheck than an actual cut. A large percentage of those who would receive this "cut" actually pay very little or no taxes, because the current tax code does not tax below a certain threshhold.  To put it clearly, a large chunk of Americans, under Obama's plan, will simply get government paychecks as a reward for their current economic status.

Forgive me for being an idiot, but is this not governmental social engineering?  Is this not considered social redistribution of wealth- taking from the haves and giving to the have nots?  Is America willing to put a Robin Hood in the whitehouse whose socialist policies completely contradict the free market system that has, thus far, made this the greatest country in the world?

I have yet to hear a good explanation from anyone in the Obama camp.  As per Joe Biden, redistribution of wealth is "patriotic".  Seriously?  Am I the only idiot infuriated by this?!  We all have conflicting views about foreign policy and social issues, but EVERY American (well, maybe every American not lined up for their free government paycheck) should be outraged and terrified that a socialist under the cloak of the Democratic party has an actual chance of becoming the leader of the free world.  Electing Barack Obama would be the death of the American dream.  We already have the largest governmental machine since the birth of our country, if Barack wins, it is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Although Obama is wrong about so many issues of foreign policy, including his insistence during the debate that Kissinger himself supports meeting without precondition with the evil dictators of the world (Kissinger immediately responded post debate to refute Obama's claims, saying that he supported low level talks, NOT meetings between the Commander in Chief and, for example, Iran), none of it even matters if he expands the role of the federal gov't to include bail bondsman and social worker.  Obama supports a culture of reliance that is dangerous.  This idiot believes that the government should protect and encourage it's citizens, not handicap them to the point that they cannot survive without governmental handouts.  What ever happened to hard work and accountability?  I agree that we are a compassionate nation with a history of holding up our fellow citizens in times of trouble.  But, over time, the mindset seems to have shifted from one of hard work and compassion to one without motivation to be productive.  People now expect the gov't to shoulder the burdens of it's citizens more than ever before.  The government should function as a support system for it's citizens that encourages hard work and success, not a life support system that cripples it's citizens by not requiring any responsibility or accountability.  Shame on us!

This idiot often feels like the smartest chick in the room when she hears her liberal friends speak so enthusiastically about Obama.  I think he preys on people's  anger at the current administration (helped along in no small part by the liberal media machine which takes it upon itself to blame everything bad in the universe on GWB), which allows him to make grand, sweeping statements about his plans and intentions without really  explaining how such plans would be implemented.  I had no idea that standing in front of a teleprompter making bold, yet empty promises could get one so far in politics.  If I knew that a brain full of one liners and hollow rhetoric were all it took to be a candidate, I might have considered running for office myself.  Then again, I am still so young and fresh that I do not meet the required age minimum- at least now I have something to work towards- HA!

Onto the current wall street clusterfu@*.  There is no doubt that greed and corruption contributed in no small part to this mess.  Greedy CEOs who did not have the individual investor's best interests at heart, and loan sharking sub prime lenders are largely to blame.  But there is another very serious element to this disaster that seems to be getting very little airtime or newspaper attention.

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.  Pressure to force social engineering of lower income populations by the Clinton administration encouraged Fannie Mae to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income.  That’s what made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.  Fannie and Freddie were required to devote almost 50% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers, under targets set by HUD.  Ironically, Fannie and Freddie might have forseen their own imminent collapses when     they warned  that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD accused Fannie Mae of resisting more low-income loans because they were not as profitable.

How much money has been lost because lenders were essentially forced to lend to unqualified loan candidates under social engineering pressure from our own government?

In an effort to bring class warfare on behalf of the underprivileged, the government, under Clinton, played a huge  part in the current financial mess.  It is easy to place the blame solely on the backs of CEO s with Greenwich country homes, but let's not under estimate the negative effects brought on by our own government's failed social experiments.

This idiot is no economist, but even I know that banks offer loans based upon the risk level of the applicants.  How could we have ever expected Fannie and Freddie to remain solvent when they were expected to purchase loans that no other institutions would be dumb enough buy?  Should it matter that a particular loan, high risk though it may be, will increase minority homeowner stats in a particular region?  It doesn't really matter which underprivileged segment of the US population gains homeowner stats if the mortgage simply doesn't get paid.  The free market was successful when it offered loans based upon financial criteria, not race or class quotas.  Even THIS idiot knows that and I need a calculator to handle any figures beyond my finger and toe capacity.

And now for your viewing pleasure, take a look at this awesome Sarah Palin Corn Maze.

Ok- now back to real life and all the laundry and craft projects therein.

Economic Bailout

They said they would be working through the weekend. I checked today, Saturday, at 3:00 PM PT.  “H.R.2638”, “Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes”, had passed. No other Nay or Yey votes so far.

On Friday the Senate got as far as kicking this football, that looks similar to the one the House just passed.

Senate Republicans block economic stimulus bill

Associated Press

Published September 26, 2008 at 10:36 a.m.

Updated September 26, 2008 at 11:28 a.m.

Bush, Congress resume bailout talks

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a plan by Democrats to pump $56 billion in government spending into the economy through public works projects, help for the jobless and money for states struggling with their Medicaid bills.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/26/senate-republicans-block-economic-stimulus-bill/

Debate results

Apparently a lot of the MSM thought the debate was a winner for Obama. Although, it’s hard to see how, what Lynn Sweet calls inconclusive, turns into a McCain rout. If you’ll recall, everyone expected McCain to fail because of all the build up over his “supposed” inability to speak in a debate setting. Yet he had all the command and tactics he needed at his fingertips last night.

My husband and I are having arguments over whether his choice to look at Lehrer, instead of Obama, was a failing or a successful tactic. I vote the latter. Lehrer was attempting dialogue, which is what would have happened in the town hall meetings McCain has asked for, and Obama has declined. McCain played it as a debate, and did not let Obama out-talk him. However, I think my husband is right in how it was perceived, by those looking for a racist answer.

Obama, McCain inconclusive debate

By Lynn Sweet on September 27, 2008 11:17 AM

OXFORD, Miss. -- The economy is going to hell, we may be on the brink of a depression and John McCain and Barack Obama, during their first presidential debate Friday at Ole Miss, found it impossible to simply say what Congress should do -- right now for real people who are worried sick they may be losing their homes.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/obama_mccain_inconclusive_duel.html#more

Lynn has also provided a text of the debate. Take a gander:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/barack_obama_john_mccain_debat.html

It made no sense to me to persist in the question over a third party opinion, until I recollected this:

[…Palin v. Kissinger: "Asked if she considers former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to be 'naïve' for supporting talks without preconditions, Palin said, 'I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met," ' per ABC's Teddy Davis and Rigel Anderson. "Palin was overlooking that Kissinger (with whom she met earlier this week) has backed negotiating directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues -- a point which Couric reconfirmed at the closer of her interview."…]

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3105288

This is a classic SunTzu move. To paraphrase, if you have a guy that is your enemy, but he is too strong, attack a lesser, associated enemy, and you are going to get the same result. You’ll note that what Palin said above, and what Kissinger said, are not contradictory. McCain was having none of that! In case you don’t remember, we saw that same move from Bush, when he attacked Dan Rather, raised the hackles of the “Hate Liberals” groups and successfully pinned that uproar on Kerry.

In case you weren’t sure this was an attack; in the true tradition of rabid right wing bats, there have been 29,200 google hits in the last 24 hours on just the subject of “Palin, Kissinger”. Only thing is, this disease is spreading in the liberal blogosphere. Dick Morris and David Horowitz must be proud!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&as_q=kissinger+palin&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=d&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

Then we have the reported word from “The Kissinger” himself as further evidence, via Politico, wherein he refutes Obama.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Kissinger_fact_check.html?showall

Finally, McCain did address at least one economic issue firmly. Iowans don't like it anymore than they did the first time they heard it. Hmmm.. Food or fuel?

McCain hits pitch but Obama makes sale

How will it play in the Iowa?

[For those in Iowa looking for specific personal financial reasons to pick a candidate, McCain may be the only one who has provided us one — and it is not good for him in this state.  McCain made it clear one of the casualties of the potential Wall Street bailout should be ethanol....

...”Supporting ethanol might be debatable on a national level, but it is N.I.M.B.Y. around here.

“I’d eliminate ethanol subsidies,” McCain said flatly. “I oppose ethanol subsidies.”

Those are likely deal-killing words for farmers and others in rural America who have made investments and business decisions based on ethanol.

Iowa’s ethanol industry has resulted in more than 47,000 new jobs in Iowa.  Production of ethanol puts $1.7 billion into Iowa consumers’ pockets each year, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

In neighboring Nebraska, ethanol is big business, too, and because the Cornhusker State bases three of its five electoral votes on how presidential candidates do in individual congressional districts, McCain’s ethanol blast only serves to help Obama’s already aggressive efforts in Omaha”...]

http://iowaindependent.com/6194/mccain-hits-pitch-but-obama-makes-sale

Otherwise, you didn’t really think they were going to say anything conclusive on the economy did you? In fact I thought it was distracting, even though I know everyone wants answers. THERE AREN’T ANY RIGHT NOW! Try back Wednesday on that issue. We gave one third of the debate time that could have been better directed to Homeland Security, and FEMA, and, and, 

I Own My Vote, PUMA, The Denver Group, Just Say No Deal

This post on Obama's argument last night that he and McCain advisor Henry Kissinger agree on talking to Iran -- and McCain himself is on the wrong side of this question -- is right on point, exactly the kind of thing you hope to read in a political blog.

It's especially significant because Kissinger is out and about these days saying he supports McCain's position, not Obama's.

Marc does the research to show (a) that Kissinger's assurance is exceptionally carefully worded -- too clever by half, some might say -- and (b) it thus succeeds in conveying a false impression, if it does not cross the line into overt falsehood.  Kissinger and Obama do agree on the basic idea, and, as Obama stated last night, McCain is the odd man out.

So, kudos to Marc.  Go read the post.

Update (great minds think alike division): DeLong, another frequent critic of Ambinder (and kind republisher of my complaints) more or less simultaneously praised the same piece that caught my eye.

Image:  Nicolas Gosse, "Napoleon I receiving  Baron Vincent, the Austrian Ambassador, at Erfurt, 1808," 19th c.  Source:  Wikimedia Commons.

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.

My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.

We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

Personally, I felt both McCain and Obama vacillated on key points, and that Obama had a shaky start at best. I don't feel that Obama truly drove home his point that deregulation caused the current economic crisis, and that McCain is a long-time deregulator supporter, as forcefully as he should have. And it is in the beginning where Obama makes his biggest mistake, agreeing with McCain in literally every question. Take a look:

In the very first question, Obama's first response to McCain:

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street.

Second question, Obama's first response to McCain:

OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.

Again, in the second question, Obama's third response to McCain:

Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right...

third question, obama's first response to McCain:

OBAMA: Not willing to give up the need to do it but there may be individual components that we can't do. But John is right we have to make cuts.

4 of the 8 times Obama agrees with McCain comes in the first three questions. In each of these instances, he sould have phrased his replies in such a way that shows more strength, while pointing out McCain's weaknesses on the economy. This is why I feel Obama was shaky on the economy.

Now, onto why I felt Obama dominated the foreign policy segment. As I wrote quickly last night, he was authoritative, his answers came easily, he did not rely on anectdotes or generals, or the old guard. As I also mentioned last night, McCain tired quickly. He looked, to me, to be extremely tired.

While Obama's first response to MCCain in the first question on the Lessons of Iraq contained that awful, McCain is right, Obama does slam McCain on when the war started. Back to the transcript:

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...

Obama goes on to show he does indeed know the difference between strategy and tactics, and then, in the next question follows up with the lies from this administration that McCain swallowed hook, line and sinker, and repeated, to get us into a war in Iraq.

Now, while some are laughing and carrying on about Obama's flub on the name of the soldier's bracelet he is wearing, McCain had several MAJOR gaffes that completely overshadow Obama's flub. Let's start with Pakistan.

MCCAIN: I -- I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.

Interestingly, McCain is trying to change history here, and lacks the understanding of what is a failed state.

And in response, Obama slaps McCain over his statement of "muddling through Afghanistan." If you want to be involved in a war, you don't muddle through.

Now, if we really want to focus on mangling names, McCain made the bigger gaffe when he could not sputter out Ahmadinejad's name.

Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York

Now that McCain has refocused/repeated the Sarah Palin/Kissinger gaffe, Kissinger has flip-flopped. Of course, this comes after ABCNews verified Kissinger's stance on talks with other leaders, and Iran specifically, after the Palin interview. Here is the pertinent part:

Palin was overlooking that Kissinger (with whom she met earlier this week) has backed negotiating directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues -- a point which Couric reconfirmed at the closer of her interview.

"Incidentally," said Couric, "we confirmed Henry Kissinger's position following our interview, he told us he supports talks if not with Ahmadinejad, than with high-level Iranian officials without preconditions."

Interesting how advisers will change their statements when that statement directly conflicts with thier chosen candidate.

Over and over again, on foreign policy, McCain looks to the old guard -- Nixon and Reagan -- and I feel this is extremely important when we take into account that when bin Laden originally hit the US, nearly everyone in this current administration kept saying it was a 21st century strategy by bin Laden. Yet, we have fought back using Cold War strategies, and to support that all I have to do is point out bin Laden is still free, roaming around lord knows where, and Afghanistan is in shambles.

The simple fact is, that on foreign policy, McCain showed us last night that he represents the past. We, as a country, truly need to move past a Cold War mentality. And this is why I felt Obama was far stronger on foreign policy.

Pues estando así el país, y encontrándonos en medio de una campaña electoral para elegir al que será nuestro presidente durante los próximos cuatro u ocho años, lo mínimo que podemos exigir es que los candidatos al sillón presidencial que ahora ostenta W. digan la verdad.

Estamos hartos de mentirosos y estamos hartos de medias verdades, de politiqueos, politicuchos y de frases que, depende como las mires, pueden significar una cosa u otra. Estamos hartos de todos los "consejeros de campaña" que en cuanto termina un debate entre los dos candidatos a la Casa Blanca no dudan en sentarse frente a las cámaras de CNN y NBC y de cualquier canal que quiera darles cobertura para "explicar" lo que ha querido decir su candidato.

¡No me jodas! Graduados de West Point, Harvard, etc... ¿y no saben EXPLICAR lo que quieren decir? ¿Tiene que venir un donnadie a EXPLICAR si Hernry Kissinger de verdad dijo o no dijo que sería bueno hablar con Irán sin condiciones acordadas de antemano? ¿Tiene que decir el jefe de campaña de un candidato presidencial que en realidad, a lo que el candidato se refería cuando dijo X era Y, pero que dijo X y después dirá Z, porque la situación lo aconsejaba? ¿WTF?

Factcheck.org te brinda sólo la verdad, toda la verdad y nada más que la verdad sobre lo que ocurrió en el primer debate entre John McCain y Barack Obama.

Como diría Richard Nixon: "I'm [They're] not a crook".