Interesting:

Mr. President, it has been an extraordinary honor and privilege to have served you for more than seven years now, the last two years and nine months as your Press Secretary.

The White House is going through a period of transition; change can be helpful, and this is a good time and good position to help bring about change. I am ready to move on. I’ve been in this position a long time, and my wife and I are excited about beginning the next chapter in our life together.

You have accomplished a lot over the last several years with this team, and I have been honored and grateful to be a small part of a terrific and talented team of really good people.

Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Only McClellan, and God, can know for certain…but I note that a very liberal friend of mine is disgusted with McClellan and his book.

UPDATE: From NRO’s Editors:

McClellan tries to walk a fine line between echoing Bush haters and saying utterly irresponsible things. So he specifically stipulates that the administration didn’t lie. But he couches a commonplace point — that nuances were lost in the heat of the debate over Iraq in the run-up to the war — in indefensibly incendiary language. We won’t rehearse the tired debate over the intelligence over Iraq, except to note that the Silberman-Robb commission studied the matter and concluded the fundamental problem was the poor quality of what intelligence we had to begin with.

McClellan makes much of the administration’s emphasis on weapons of mass destruction prior to the war, as opposed to Bush’s desire to transform the Middle East, which wouldn’t have been as palatable to the public. This is an odd sort of supposedly damning charge: that Bush was secretly more idealistic than he let on in public. But the two rationales for the war weren’t mutually exclusive, and Bush talked about the importance of a democratic transformation in the Middle East as well as the dangers of Saddam, even if the emphasis was (appropriately) on the latter.

The most extraordinary aspect of McClellan’s book is the sense that he stumbled into a reckless, propagandizing administration and did its bidding for years without realizing how nefarious it was — until he left and decided to write a book. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he has shaped his views to the marketing pressures of the publishing industry. If so, it is a shameful end to an undistinguished public career.

Yep.

With a wave of my magic wand “poof” and you, dear reader, are now President of the United States. Pretty cool, except that I’ve landed you in a situation where two days ago a 1 kiloton nuclear weapon was detonated in Manhattan. About 100,000 Americans are dead, twice that number wounded and the American financial system is in complete meltdown. Incontrovertible evidence is now presented to you showing that the nuclear weapon originated in Iran. What do you do?

Do you order a nuclear strike on Iran? I believe our least powerful nuclear weapon is 5 kilotons, presumptively able to do much more serious damage to, say, Tehran than a one kiloton device did to Manhattan. Meanwhile, the nuclear weapons aboard our submarine force (and thus likely to be most swiftly available for use) are 475 kilotons. Packs quite a wallop. Lets say, just for argument, that if you use an American nuclear weapons that you will kill at least 250,000 Iranians…and maybe a million or more.

Do you order large scale conventional bombing attacks? Our B-2 bombers can each carry 20 tons of bombs – with 20 in stock, lets say you order ten of them to do a bombing run on Tehran…200 tons of bombs. You can use about 40 of our B-1s, each also carrying about 20 tons…800 more tons of bombs. And then there is the ready standby, the B-52; you get to use 50 of these, carrying 30 tons each…1,500 more tons of bombs. You total out at about 2,500 tons of bombs for your attack on Tehran. How many people would that kill?

Of course, you could eschew all that and just have Congress declare war formally, and then you can spend a year raising the necessary military force for a full scale invasion of Iran – which will likely cost many thousands of US soldiers their lives, but would probably cost hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers their lives, as well as an untold number of Iranian civilians caught in the crossfire.

Or, you can do nothing.

None of these choices is really appealing, is it? Much better if you never have to make such a decision – which, in turn, is why it is vital we curb nuclear proliferation, as John McCain desires:

As President, John McCain Will Establish A Long-Term Commitment To A World Free Of Nuclear Weapons. Like President Reagan, John McCain believes we can see a day when nuclear weapons are banished from the Earth. While a distant and difficult goal, we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern on our security and our allies’ security. The time has come to take further measures to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and the U.S. must be a leader.

John McCain’s Highest Priority Will Be To Reduce The Danger Nuclear Weapons Will Ever Be Used. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used. While working closely with our allies, John McCain will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy.

At The Same Time, The U.S. Must Continue To Deploy A Safe And Reliable Nuclear Deterrent, Robust Missile Defense And Superior Conventional Forces.

John McCain Supports Further Strategic Arms Reductions. John McCain will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments, moving as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force.

John McCain Will Work To Strengthen Existing International Treaties And Institutions To Combat Proliferation And Develop New Ones Where Necessary. The U.S. should move quickly to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and improve the ability to interdict the spread of nuclear weapons and material under the Proliferation Security Initiative. John McCain will increase funding for American nonproliferation efforts, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs established by the landmark Nunn-Lugar legislation.

To Prevent Countries From Using Civilian Nuclear Programs As A Cover For The Development Of Nuclear Weapons, John McCain Will Limit The Further Spread Of Enrichment And Reprocessing. John McCain supports international guarantees of nuclear fuel supply to countries that renounce enrichment and reprocessing. He also supports establishing international nuclear enrichment centers and an international repository for spent nuclear fuel.

When you have heard me state over and over again these past few years that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, this is what I’m thinking of – lots of dead Americans making a situation where we make lots more dead Iranians. Massacre, however, is not good policy on either a strategic or moral plane. My whole motivation – and I believe this is shared by President Bush now, and will be shared by a President McCain – has been to reduce the possibility of an attack on the United States even more horrible than that which we endured on September 11th. We can’t do this by diddling with the UN or waiting for our enemies to become reasonable – we have to attack the problem with diplomatic, economic and military means. In the end, if Iran – and other grave threats to world peace – refuse to give up their nuclear ambitions, then we must compell them to do so, even if this requires military action. Any such action will end up being far less costly than any enemy attack on us, and our retaliation against them.

Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons – regardless of cost to ourselves – is not really a debatable position. But Obama’s position on this (unconditional negotiations with Iran followed hard upon a US withdrawal from Iraq) is beneath contempt. Essentially, Obama’s policies would just about ensure that either Obama or his successor will be faced with the scenario I described. A six year old fed on fairy tales can hold such views, but men and women who are serious about the world know better. We must have a President who deals in reality – with the world as it is, not as a liberal hopes it will be. We have enemies. There are evil people in the world. We must prevent the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands. It will be wonderful if we can get all we want by talking, but we must be prepared to do whatever proves necessary. McCain’s plan is hopeful but also realistic, and I pray that we’ll have a chance to really end this long-standing nuclear menace.

And not just ’cause HillBama can’t agree who will be the nominee:

The Democratic Party is struggling to raise money for its convention in Denver on Aug. 25-28, with fund-raising by the host committee falling far short of the party’s goals and lagging behind the Republicans’ efforts for their convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

So far, the Denver host committee is about $15 million short of the $40.6 million it must raise by June 16. With only $25 million raised so far, the committee is scrambling to offer a new round of special deals for corporate underwriters, as well as to devise a backup plan should the fund-raising fall short and plans for the convention need to be scaled down.

My bet is that the HillBama campaigns are just sucking up all the Democratic money out there – which puts into question just how much they (and the auxiliary leftwing groups) will have for the fall campaign. I read somewhere recently that Hillary and Obama have raised (and mostly spent) half a billion dollars betweem themselves during this primary campaign. Naturally, Democrats will come up with sufficient funds to cover their convention, but a large question mark is starting to appear about Democratic finances.

From USA Today:

In Idaho, about 21,000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. For that, he won 15 delegates to three for Clinton — a net gain of 12 delegates.

In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama’s 48 — a net gain of 11 delegates.

Now under what system does it make sense for Obama to collect more net delegates for beating Clinton by 13,000 votes in one state than Clinton does for beating Obama by 110,000 in another?

That inequity, by the way, won’t be repeated in the general election, when the winner of Idaho will collect four electoral votes while the winner in New Jersey will get 15 — and the losers get nothing.

It is becoming more likely that Hillary will end up with more actual votes, while Obama has more delegates, and then gets the nomination. The fissures are starting to widen in the Democratic party as the Obama and Hillary camps grow ever more angry at each other over various slights, real or imagined. To win, Obama will need a completely united Democratic party behind him, and I’m starting to figure he won’t have it.

The Defense of Marriage amendment to the California constitution is favored by 54% of California voters.

Given the trouble many people in the world have getting food each day, the Pope’s recent statement is appropriate:

“The Lord and Creator of all things became a ‘grain of wheat’ to be sown in our land, in the furrows of our history”, said the Pope. “He became bread in order to be …. shared; … He became our food in order to give us life, His own divine life”.

“The Eucharist is a school of charity and solidarity”, he went on. “Those who nourish themselves on the bread of Christ cannot remain indifferent before people who, even in our own time, are without daily bread. Many parents have great difficulty in feeding themselves and their children. It is an ever more serious problem which the international community struggles to resolve. The Church not only prays to ‘give us this day our daily bread’ but, following the example of her Lord, seeks in all ways ‘to multiply the five loaves and the two fish’, through countless initiatives of human promotion and participation so that no-one may lack what they need to live”.

“May the Feast of Corpus Christi be an occasion to increase this authentic concern for our brothers and sisters, especially the poor”, said Benedict XVI and he concluded by calling upon the Virgin Mary “from whom the Son of God drew flesh and blood”, to intercede to this end.

I like Food for the Poor and Missionaries of the Poor…but feel free to help out in any way you can.

McCain ahead of Obama in money on hand? So says McCain advisor Carly Fiorina The Hill.

Sales of new homes rose in April. This suprised the experts. It doesn’t surprise anyone who knows that when prices go down, you can move more product. Apparantly the “experts” figure we’re all dumb and only buy when prices are on the rise…

Dicuss these issues and any others you’d like.

From Jonah Goldberg over at NRO’s The Corner:

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg and staff,

I have recently realized that I feel little if any Clinton hatred anymore. I guess I still think Bill is sleazy, but I have come to view Hillary in a neutral or even somewhat positive way. I am wondering if you feel the same way (I know you had more direct experiences with the Clintons in the 90’s). For the last several months, Hillary has been given the “Republican treatment” by the media. Obama is the new Bill Clinton, the one the media and the intelligentsia will defend and adore to all lenghts. Hillary is now evil, just as the first Bush and Bob Dole were evil. Maybe I delighted in this turn of events for a while, but now I guess I feel like Hillary has been through a purgatory of sorts. Wondering if you feel the same way.

Me: “And staff?”

Anyway, I know what the reader is getting at, but I’m not really there. For the record, I never had much hatred for Hillary Clinton. I never liked her much, and still don’t. But my biggest gripe with her was with the completely unwarranted celebration of her as an impressive person. It seemed to me in the 1990s she was the subject of enormous projection. It was simply asserted that she was charismatic, charming, exciting etc. And I never saw it. Not even a little. I still don’t. I find her to be completely charmless. At times, that feeling of “What am I missing” could grow into full-blown anger or even hatred, particularly when she was getting away with so many lies and benefiting from so many other mendacities. But, generally, such feelings were short-lived.

It still gets me how people downplay Clinton corruption – shady land deals, illegal fundraising, serial lying, perjury, obstruction of justice, that sort of thing – but I do have to say I feel a bit of sympathy for Hillary Clinton these days. She has, indeed, gotten the “Republican treatment” from the left and the MSM…and while I’m not nearly as famous – nor even remotely as big a target – I, too, have felt the brunt of scurilous campaigns of slander and intimidation. Its disheartening to be the object of hatred and scorn, merely for not being a person blessed by the left.

My clearly favorable opinion of citizenship for illegal aliens? My sympathy towards my fellow Americans who are gay? My distaste for large corporations? My willingness to massively increase education spending? My opposition to the death penalty? Its all nothing – because I’m not in lock step with the left, I’m just an evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted tool of the PNAC/NeoCon cabal of imperalist oppressors of the masses/rapists of the environment. I expect leftwing opposition, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why so many of my fellow Americans choose to hate me because I’m conservative. But for Hillary, it has to have really hurt a lot – she is a leftist. Down the line she’s a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who wants to completely change American society in a leftwing manner…but because she won’t apologise for her pro-war vote in 2002, she’s been anethematised on the left…she’s hated by them as much as I am, and it doesn’t matter how much she kowtow’s to them on all other leftwing positions, they’ll go on hating her for that one, small diveregence from leftwing orthodoxy. A lifetime’s devotion to the cause, all for naught because the left will not allow even an iota of independence – Stalinists to a man, woman and “other”, the left doesn’t tolerate dissent.

Hillary, however, can have her revenge – and, actually, do a bit of service to her nation. She can run as an independent. I’ve never thought she would, but what love or loyalty does she now owe that left and that MSM which has so cruelly turned on her in favor of a slick-talking con-artist? Not a bit…

Lets see if the Goron has any guts at all:

Washington – Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. “I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he’s not too much willing to make such a conversation,” Klaus said. “So I’m ready to do it.”

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles – What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.

“My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity,” he said.

Gore a former US vice president who has become a leading international voice in the cause against global warming, was co-winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Gore’s effort was highlighted by his Oscar winning documentary film An Inconvienent Truth.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the “climate alarmism” perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

“Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality,” he said.

“In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat – this time, in the name of the planet,” he added.

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he oppposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.

“It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda,” he said.

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.

That pretty much says it all about the motivations behind global warming alarmism – just another attempt at making a utopia on earth, and the only thing we have to sacrifice is the Common Man…’cause the elites, once again, have need of his blood and treasure for one more attempt at getting it right.

I think, though, that Klaus is right about facts and reason having no place here – it is my view that we have utterly lost the global warming debate; not on facts and reason, but because of relentless, alarmist propaganda, all too often joined in by politicians on the make and grant-mongering institutions and individuals. But if Gore has the courage of his convictions – if he really thinks that the truths of global warming are so solid – then he’ll take Klaus up on his challenge…and if he doesn’t, then just what are we to make of such an act of cowardice?

Nothing like hitting hard all the time, huh?

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Republican John McCain on Monday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together.

“Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost,” the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator’s last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.

“He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time,” the Arizona senator added. “If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn’t had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly.”

I doubt, of course, that Obama will accept such a challenge – he’d either have to abandon his defeatism, and thus lose support on the left, or argue that victory isn’t victory, and thus look like a fool. Meanwhile, not going will start to look like an act of political cowardice – this could be a very brilliant stroke on the part of McCain, as it boxes Obama into an impossible position…and, better yet, boxes Obama into a position of his own making. Think about it: If Obama hadn’t gone completely defeatist in 2006, none of this would matter…but as he became a Defeaticrat for a war we’re winning, he’s now caught trying to argue against success…and trying to spin this fool hardiness into a credible story about how he’s better than McCain for the job of Commander in Chief.

It might very soon start to suck to be a Democrat – and I mean more than usual.

So says Rasmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 62% of voters would prefer fewer government services with lower taxes. Nearly a third (29%) disagrees and would rather have a bigger government with higher taxes. Ten percent (10%) are not sure…

…Republican voters overwhelmingly prefer fewer government services—83% of the GOP faithful hold that view while just 13% prefer more government involvement. Democratic voters are evenly divided on this question: 46% prefer more government services, while 43% prefer less government services.

Not surprisingly, conservative voters like less government while liberal voters favor a bigger government. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of politically moderate voters prefer smaller government. A separate survey found that most adults (56%) are worried that the next president will raise taxes too much.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters think American society is generally fair and decent. Twenty-seven percent (27%) think it is unfair and discriminatory. Those numbers have become slightly more positive over the past month.

A lot of bad news in there for Obama and the basic leftwing worldview…this, though, tends to confirm (with the proviso that polls are always weak reeds) my long held view that America is at bottom a center/right nation; any politician who can bring together the center and the right will have the majority, while any attempt to curry favor with the left will make a politician just about un-electable. This year is the best year for the left to win not because the left is popular, but because the right is less popular than usual, and many consevatives are threatening to sit it out…but if McCain can re-energise the right and carry with him the center he’s already got, then he will win in November.

Today’s speech:

Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you for the kind introduction. Members of my Cabinet, members of the administration, Admiral Mullen, members of the United States Congress, Senator Warner and Congressman Skelton, members of the military, our veterans, honored guests, families of the fallen: Laura and I are honored to be with you on Memorial Day and thank you for coming.

A few moments ago, I placed a wreath upon the tomb of three brave American[s] who gave their lives in service to our nation. The names of these honored are known only to the Creator who delivered them home from the anguish of war — but their valor is known to us all. It’s the same valor that endured the stinging cold of Valley Forge. It is the same valor that planted the proud colors of a great nation on a mountaintop on Iwo Jima. It is the same valor that charged fearlessly through the assault of enemy fire from the mountains of Afghanistan to the deserts of Iraq. It is the valor that has defined the armed forces of the United States of America throughout our history.

Today, we gather to honor those who gave everything to preserve our way of life. The men and women we honor here served for liberty. They sacrificed for liberty. And in countless acts of courage, they died for liberty. From faraway lands, they were returned to cemeteries like this one, where broken hearts received their broken bodies — they found peace beneath the white headstones in the land they fought to defend.

It is a solemn reminder of the cost of freedom that the number of headstones in a place such as this grows with every new Memorial Day. In a world where freedom is constantly under attack and in a world where our security is challenged, the joys of liberty are often purchased by the sacrifices of those who serve a cause greater than themselves. Today we mourn and remember all who have given their lives in the line of duty. Today we lift up our hearts especially those who’ve fallen in the past year.

We remember Army Specialist Ronald Tucker of Fountain, Colorado. As a young man, Ronnie was known for having an infectious smile and a prankster’s sense of humor. And then he joined the United States Army, which brought out a more mature side in him. Ronnie transformed from a lighthearted teenager into a devoted soldier and a dutiful son who called his mother every day from his post in Iraq. In his final act of duty, less than a month ago, he worked with other members of his unit to build a soccer field for Iraqi children. As he drove back to his base, an enemy bomb robbed him of his life. And today our nation grieves for the loss of Ronnie Tucker.

We remember two Navy SEALS — Nathan Hardy of Durham, New Hampshire, and Michael Koch of State College, Pennsylvania. Nate and Mike were partners in the field and they were close friends in the barracks. Through several missions together, they had developed the unique bond of brotherhood that comes from trusting another with your life. They even shared a battlefield tradition: They would often head into battle with American flags clutched to their chests underneath their uniform. Nate and Mike performed this ritual for the last time on February the 4th — they both laid down their lives in Iraq after being ambushed by terrorists. These two friends spent their last few moments on earth together, doing what they loved most — defending the United States of America. Today, Nathan Hardy and Mike Koch lay at rest next to each other right here on the grounds of Arlington.

The men and women of American armed forces perform extraordinary acts of heroism every single day. Like the nation they serve, they do not glory in the devastation of war. They also do not flinch from combat when liberty and justice are embattled. Ronald Tucker, Nathan Hardy and Mike Koch make clear, they do not waver — even in the face of danger.

And so today, here in Washington and across our country, we pay tribute to all who have fallen — a tribute never equal to the debt they are owed. We will forever honor their memories. We will forever search for their comrades, the POWs and MIAs. And we pledge — we offer a solemn pledge to persevere and to provide the security for our citizens and secure the peace for which they fought.

The soil of Arlington and other sites is filled with liberty’s defenders. It is nourished by their heroism. It is watered by the silent tears of the mothers and fathers, and husbands and wives, and sons and daughters they left behind. Today we pray for God’s blessing on all who grieve and ask the Almighty to strengthen and comfort them today and everyday.

On this Memorial Day, I stand before you as the Commander-in-Chief and try to tell you how proud I am at the sacrifice and service of the men and women who wear our uniform. They’re an awesome bunch of people and the United States is blessed to have such citizens.

I am humbled by those who have made the ultimate sacrifice that allow a free civilization to endure and flourish. It only remains for us, the heirs of their legacy, to have the courage and the character to follow their lead — and to preserve America as the greatest nation on earth and the last best hope for mankind.

May God bless you and may God bless America.