The Wall Street Journal is just reporting on their site, that negotiators for the Iraqi government and the US have come to a draft agreement on troop withdrawals.  

Kevin Drum has the breaking news from the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators reached agreement on a security deal that calls for American military forces to leave Iraq's cities by next summer as a prelude to a full withdrawal from the country, according to senior American officials.

The draft agreement sets 2011 as the date by which all remaining U.S. troops will leave Iraq, according to Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Haj Humood and other people familiar with the matter.

...."The talking is done," one U.S. official said late Wednesday night. "Now the decision makers choose whether to give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down."

....U.S. President George W. Bush is almost certain to accept the agreement, according to U.S. officials. The administration believes that the deal doesn't require congressional approval and won't present it to U.S. lawmakers.

You know the story.  Johnny McCain is banking on his support of the splurge to push him over the top.  Barack Obama understands that there are many, many variables at play in bringing some calm to Iraq.

One of the components creating the calm may be unraveling:

A key pillar of the U.S. strategy to pacify Iraq is in danger of collapsing because the Iraqi government is failing to absorb tens of thousands of former Sunni Muslim insurgents who'd joined U.S.-allied militia groups into the country's security forces.

American officials have credited the militias...with undercutting support for the group al Qaida in Iraq and bringing peace to large swaths of the country... Under the program, the United States pays each militia member a stipend of about $300 a month and promised that they'd get jobs with the Iraqi government.

But the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don't intend to include most of the rest.

[Sorry for Short Diary, but I did not see anywhere on DKos and I think this is important in framing the military experience issue for the rest of campaign.]

That's right! Courtesy of right wing "Vets For Freedom" (Think Progress):

his experienced is based on what? The Mekong Delta. It’s based to Vietnam, a totally different fight, a totally different enemy, and by the way, it was 30 years ago.

John McCain is scoring points on Barack Obama by touting the alleged "success" of the "surge," and Obama is reduced to arguing that there hasn't been "political reconciliation" in Iraq, and that the U.S. should be focusing on escalating (a word he avoids, just as Bush and McCain avoided using it with respect to Iraq) the war in Afghanistan, and increasing the U.S. response to Iran (where Obama continues to lie by claiming that "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons") and Russia (where Obama also lies by claiming that "There is no possible justification for Russia’s actions" - he should read this article by a Canadian professor of philosophy if he's looking for a "possible justification") and Pakistan.

. . . why Obama isn't all over the fact that the Iraqi government has basically endorsed his pullout timetable plans? When this hit the news a couple months ago, I took a little baby step toward thinking the election was in the bag. After all, hadn't Maliki just taken the central plank of McCain's campaign away from him? And it could quite easily be argued that it was pressure from the Obama campaign that brought the withdrawal-timetable narrative to the fore. It didn't require "negative" campaigning to say that McCain's "if it takes 100 years" ideas ran counter to what the Iraqis themsevles wanted, which was quite close to what Obama has proposed. But it seems to me that by now this opportunity has pretty much been squandered.

Image: Blank Black Screen for 3 seconds
Audio:Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick (Old alarm clock/bomb style ticking sound twice per second. Ticking continues thru ad.


Announcer(soft non-attack voice): "Which John McCain are you going to vote for?"


Image on screen for 15 seconds: Boots/Helmet/Rifle fallen soldier image.
Text overly: 4144 american heroes dead
Audio: only the audio clips of John McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" "Iraq" "Russia" "War" "War" "War" "That's not too important. What's important is the casualties" "Q:Troops in Iraq for 50 yrs? A:Make it a hundred...that would be fine by me." "...cold war. This is an act of aggession"


Image on screen for 9 seconds: Distraught 50yr old couple at kitchen table with bills image.
Text overlay: # Jobs lost
Audio: only the audio clips of John McCain: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood" "Q: At what point do you move from middle class to rich A:How about $5 million"


Image on screen for 3 seconds, split screen: One side McCain hugging Bush, other side McCain and Bush holding birthday cake.
Text overlay: Large ? mark in middle of screen.
Audio: Old alarm clock goes off ringing loudly.

There are apparently some liberals, and some Democrats, and some independents out there, who claim that the media is not only not "liberally biased," but that it in general slants its coverage in order to make the facts come across as less biased to the right and far right. (Most often accomplished, so this claim goes, by largely ignoring or glossing over them, but other times, by miscontruing them or simply parroting misleading arguments with little objective context.)

TPM has posted some of McCain's prepared remarks to be delivered later today. They are framed as McCain's response to Obama's complaints from yesterday about attacks on his patriotism.

Yesterday, Senator Obama got a little testy on this issue. He said that I am questioning his patriotism. Let me be clear: I am not questioning his patriotism; I am questioning his judgment. Senator Obama has made it clear that he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq, even today with victory in sight. Over and over again, he has advocated unconditional withdrawal -- regardless of the facts on the ground. And he voted against funding for troops in combat, after saying it would be wrong to do so.

He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America, but because he doesn't seem to understand the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq, how it would risk a wider war and threaten the security of American families.

The National Security Archive has just released a Load of Files Electronic Briefing Book No. 253 Posted - August 20, 2008 under the title: 1998 Missile Strikes on Bin Laden May Have Backfired with a subtitle: Extensive 1999 Report on Al-Qaeda Threat Released by U.S. Dept of Energy, Taliban Told U.S. They Wanted to Bomb Washington

With backlinks to the PDF's and more links in the sidebar on the left.

Despite the bloviating by the CiC about 'time horizons,' the Iraqi government and the US appear to have come closer to an agreement on withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. First is a pullout from the cities by June 30, 2009 and a complete withdrawal by 2011. I'm guessing that the 2011 is for 'combat troops' and that US troops will remain in Iraq for training, ISF combat support, counter-terrorism operations, and defending US assets in the country.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have finished a draft agreement that would see American troops removed from Iraqi cities by June 30, an Iraqi official said Wednesday. But the draft has not been approved by the Cabinet and some members have expressed opposition.

The official, who was involved in the protracted negotiations, said the agreement calls for U.S. troops to fully leave the country by the end of 2011.

He said a compromise was reached on the contentious issue of immunity for American troops from prosecution under Iraqi laws, but he did not give details. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not supposed to release the information. ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

The announcement today that the United States will deploy up to 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan is just the latest signal of the Pentagon's seeming support for Barack Obama's strategy to fight Al Qaeda in the region.  Following by just weeks Obama's latest call to send at least two more brigades of American troops there, the request by U.S. commanders again confirmed Obama's assertion, one denied by John McCain, that Iraq represents a "zero sum game" for scarce American military resources.

The political career of John McCain has been made possible by a series of political maneuvers and a skillful public relations campaign, creating the juggernaut that I like to call The Legend of John McCain^TM.  There are many facets of The Legend^TM, but the base of the entire concept lies in John McCain’s military service.  The deification of his service and of his time in Vietnam as a prisoner of war has been constructed into a nearly impenetrable firewall against scrutiny, and have also served, along with media complicity, as rose colored glasses to the public throughout his political career.  Up until recently, no one could ever think of questioning any part of The Legend^TM without facing serious public backlash.  Fortunately, his candidacy for President has allowed and demanded closer scrutiny of his history, and of the phenomenon that is The Legend of John McCain^TM.

The Pentagon will be sending 12,000 to 15,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, possibly as soon as the end of this year, with planning underway for a further force buildup in 2009...

Today, a continuation of a short series looking into the factors affecting the current political climate.  It's no secret that the country isn't too happy about the economy, the war in Iraq, and the direction the country is headed in.  But for me at least, I like to see the data.  First, the right track/wrong track question:

Click to enlarge.

The trend is clear, the numbers are huge: almost three quarters say we're off on the wrong track.  Much more below.

I don't think John McCain really understands that the United States was founded primarily on the ideals and principles of the Enlightenment, rather than simply "Judeo-Christian values.”  Sure, such religious values played an indirect role in the founding of the country, but the fact remains that our founders were convinced that an official state religion should be avoided at all costs.  Indeed, several of our founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin - were actually deists rather than traditional Christians.  More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  

I discovered this morning that one of my closest friends and confidants is being deployed to Iraq. The spectrum of emotions I have gone through today is unlike anything I have ever experienced before. I fear for my friend, I worry for his safety, I shudder at the possibility of a young life without such a friend, and I feel guilt at the selfish emotions coursing through my thoughts, when I am not the one destined for the battlefield, and I am not the one putting myself in harm's way.

I cannot begin to imagine the feelings of mothers or fathers, brothers or sisters, wives, husbands or children, who are seeing men and women whom they have watched grow as adults, as siblings, as partners, or as parents being shipped off for their first or second or third deployments. Nor can I begin to understand, the grief of those who have lost their loved ones in this war.

(Cross-posted from "Bayh-Bayh-Bayhden.org")

    Some say Obama chose a VP already.
    Well, maybe it's time to un-choose.

    While this diary resembles my previous di on similar topics, there's a lot more to say:


JOE BIDEN

1. Biden is a plagiarist. Even if it was 2 decades ago.

    Actually, more than a plagiarist; just peep the Wik,

(look out below)