Cross posted at Prairie State Blue.

Some time ago, I (and others) wrote about the Republican nominee for the IL-18 Congressional district, Aaron Schock, bringing in The Decider for a fundraiser.  Though Bush's approval ratings are dismal, he is still popular with Big Money and this fundraiser is expected to generate up to $700,000 for Mr. Schock.  

Well, Colleen Callahan decided to answer back...  

Looks like they want Iraq to go away by November.  Declare victory and begin leaving.  We suggested that long ago:

Statement by the Press Secretary on Iraq

In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

More, after the fold.

In all of this confusion and rhetoric about the economy, Iraq, and everything else, it is easy to get mixed up about what is actually going on.  One side is saying something and the other side is saying something completely different.  Both are saying they are right, but who knows?  Whenever I come to a difficult and confusing situation like this, I know I can always fall back on mathematics.  In Mathematics, you find a true constant and you can work your way to the answer based on the relationships between your variables and that constant.  Applying this principle, I have discovered two laws that will help you figure out our political situation.

Is the "surge" succeeding?  If we stick with the "surge" will we "win?"  If we leave Iraq will we lose?  Implicit in each of these questions are more fundamental questions, like: who are we fighting and why?  what are our goals and why?  These are strategic questions that should dictate our policy and someone should give kudos to Obama for having the judgment to appreciate the need for a comprehensive strategic vision.

Focusing on the "surge" in Iraq is a misplaced focus on "a" tactic and not necessarily a meaningful measure of long term success in the wider war.  The "surge" is simply one tactic we've employed in Iraq, but whether it is "succeeding" or not does not answer the bigger questions of whether we should be there at all, how long we should be there and what we are hoping to accomplish while there.  

Obama's speech yesterday was the first to define a broad strategic vision for true security and a leadership role for this Country at the dawn of the New Global Age.  The following is a discussion of guerilla tactics, Iraq and the implications of each with respect to our broader global objectives.

As President George Bush has steadily rolled back environmental protections – his shocking commitment to open up our beautiful coastlines to offshore drilling is only the latest outrage – the responsibility to protect our environment has fallen to cities, states and many dedicated individuals.

San Francisco is one of the greenest cities in the country today because we did not wait for Washington. We are taking action now to green our environment and our economy from the ground up. But we are making so much progress because we are working with so many talented people.

Mr Obama made an important speech yesterday on national security. It is nice that he wants to get out of Iraq and not have a permenent occupation of the Persian Gulf. But he mimics Bush on the imagined threat of nuclear armed terrorists.

Over the past 7 years, I have been told by many that the Democratic stance on social policy was that of a "feel good" policy.  You know, welfare is supposed to make me feel good for giving.  FEMA is supposed to make me feel good about the risks we face today and assure me that we will be okay tomorrow if a natual/man-made crisis occurs.  And raising taxes on the wealthy is supposed to be a revenge-like feel good policy, the whole schadenfreude thing.

But there are some feelings that are sacred, as sacred as the Hindu cow, and those feelings are based on finances.  We must walk on cracked windows in terms of the finacial world.  The smallest thing could upset our market, cause hundreds of billionairs to loose money and lessen the chances that we will hopefully be trickled on by these billionaires.  But there is hope, cause as we have seen over the past 6 months or longer, these billionaires are terribly defensive when it comes to their emotions.  They absolutely need the "feel good" policies that the Democrates try desperately to provide to those who make less than $1 million a year, and their savior has finally come.  Guess who below.

Excerpts from a Raw Story report on Bush's "News" conference:

On Saturday, President Bush tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and offshore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel.

"It's time for members of Congress to address the pain that high gas prices are causing our citizens," the president said. "Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better."

Bush acknowledged it could take years before opening the Continental Shelf to oil drilling would result in increased U.S. production. But, he said, at least it would put the nation on the right track toward reducing its reliance on imported oil.

"I readily concede it won't produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it will reverse the psychology," Bush told a White House news conference.

I wonder what the resignation of the worst president in recent memory would do for the nation's psychology?

Finally, we're getting around to discussing this as a nation. The final justification settled on by the Bush Administration after all other justifications were proven to be completely fabricated, is that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror."  As I explain, the very argument betrays a fundamental ignorance on the part of this administration and lays bare the profound strategic and tactical incompetence of their "battle plan."

Recall, that in the summer of 2002, we were first scared into believing that Saddam was in league with the terrorists, was somehow part of Al-Qaida, was mixed up in 9/11 and posed an immediate and imminent threat to the United States through the WMD program that Iraq somehow, inexplicably, reconstituted under our noses in the ten years between the first Gulf war and the present incursion....this, despite our maintaining continuous no-fly zones over the Country and routinely bombing threat level activity.....never mind those facts, we gave Bush the benefit of the doubt.... scared Americans went scrambling for duct tape and sarran wrap while our congress issued a carte blanche authorization for war.

Net-roots, American's celebrate. We have a real Presidential candidate on Foreign Policy.

Today,when Obama gave a Major Foreign Policy Speech on Iraq, Iran, Afghan, and Pakistan. He spoke about a range of realistic concerns & solutions.

After 8 years of George Bush lies and cover ups. I can honestly say Obama touched some truths, that you would ever hear from a major American politician.

It's Ironic that one of the top diaries today are from Brandon's rehashed 911/Taliban/$$, terrorism link.

Obama boldly stated(paraphrases):

Iraq is not the center of the war on terror and it never was".

He also said we have to understand that we have to get serious about Pakistan, and stop sending a blank check to a Dictator, that doesn't have our best interest.

He also said that:

"George Bush and McCain don't want to win in Iraq, but they want to stay in Iraq. He says, "They want to stay when violence is up, or when violence is down". Wow! I've been saying that for months.

"Obama, also stated, We have to move beyond just a military alliance, where the people don't like us, just to facilicate ourselves, that creates more violence.  He even defined what victory in Iraq would be

A sensible foreign policy indeed.

In a stunning development Sunday morning and a rare act of journalism, Wolf Blitzer asked Governor Mark Sanford, a hapless McCain surrogate, whether there were any economic policy differences between Bush and McCain.

A mix of hemming, hawwing and stammering initiated an unequivocal non-response from Sanford. After making a few sputtering sounds, he Kevin-Jamesishly admitted that he's drawing blanks and noted the inopportunity of doing so on a live, national news show.

Hoping to rescue himself from youtube oblivion, he blurted out "NAFTA" in response to Wolf's question, and then he quickly attempted a recovery by crying out "earmarks! earmarks!" Wolf, in an unprecedented move for a cable news reporter, didn't let Sanford's NAFTA/earmark subterfuge go unnoticed, noting that Bush and McCain have no daylight between their positions on free trade. So Warner, in an effort at cleverness, agreed and added that the salient issue is the stark difference between Obama's and Bush/Mccain's economic policies.

Sounds to me like the Governor gets it. Some awesome, petard-hoisting video lies across the fold...

This morning on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer", McCain supporter and potential vice presidential candidate Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina could not come up with one substantial difference between Bush's and McCain's positions on the economy.

It was amazing, hilarious, and frankly embarrassing to watch Gov. Sanford stumble and fumble while he tried to come up with something, anything, for minute after minute.

CNN has not posted the official video or transcript yet, but my own transcript is below:

Update: I found the video!  Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/...

The following info is the first in a series of diaries that contain relationships that are probably mostly coincidence, but...on the slim chance that they aren't they might form an illustration about the attitude and the greed that keep and have kept us at war, or on a war footing:

The WWI war industries board is a good place to start. The chairman was Wall Street investment banker, Bernard Baruch. Assistant Chairman was Clarence Dillon, father of future US Treasury Sect'y and Jupiter Island, Fl, resident, C. Douglas Dillon. Clarence was described by Time, in 1957, as "one of the richest men in the United States". John Foster Dulles, "received an Army commission as Major on the War Industries Board"...and, "Samuel P. Bush became chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms, and Ammunition Section, with national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with munitions companies....."

I know I have been criticized for not writing enough in some of my previous diaries.  But one of my hobbies is to find the interestring videos I find on the internet.. It is much more entertaining and informative than TV (Obviously)

Normally, the IL-18 Congressional district would be a safe seat for the Republicans.  It has been in Republican hands since World War I times and they now have "boy wonder" Aaron Schock running.

Schock made news for taking the Illinois 92'nd House seat away from a Democrat (in 2004) in a district that John Kerry won easily.  

But Schock has made some blunders and the race now appears to be competitive.

More below the fold

What Iran and Other Have Not Nations Are Learning from North Korea

I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m guessing that the fireworks around my neighborhood on July 2nd were not in celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the agreement in which the United States and other nuclear powers agreed to eventually eliminate their nuclear weapons, and non-nuclear states that signed onto the treaty agreed they would not seek to develop nuclear weapons capabilities.

As treaties go, this one is said to be more significant than others.

The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.

Read on to see what non-nuclear-weapon states are learning.

In the past couple weeks there has been a lot said here about the Olympics. Bush should do this he shouldn't do this.

Not much of a fan of George W but this is one place he is right.

In another time in my life I played a few sports on a national level. Heck, for most of my life I thought I'd play at least one of those sports for a living. Short of winning a Noble Prize for peace there is nothing, I mean nothing I'd rather do then represent the United States in the Olympics.

I personally can't think if anything cooler then walking into an Olympic stadium, holding the American flag high, and leading our delegation of athletes.