Yesterday, May 31, Barack Obama criticized John McCain for his statement that the Iraq surge was working and that troop levels had diminished since it was instituted.

McCain, as typical, was dead wrong and Obama is to be commended for his criticism.  After leveling it, however, he moved into other terrain that proved considerably less firm.  

Obama criticized McCain for his failure to admit making a mistake, indicating that all political figures of any duration ultimately make them.  He noted that the problem was in failing to admit making mistakes and move on.

The next point Obama made was to draw an analogy between McCain and George W. Bush in Iraq.  He noted that Bush's serious problem was his failure to concede that he had made a mistake in Iraq.

Senator McCain, while you criticize Barack Obama as too "inexperienced" to become America's commander in chief we notice of what you have been doing.  You have taken the baton from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and are using terrorism at every turn to attempt to frighten the electorate with steady 9/11 exhortations.

We noticed you singing with supreme gusto "Bomb Iran" with the kind of zeal indicative of someone serious about what he is singing.

Senator McCain, according to that reliable barometer, our National Debt Clock in Times Square, we currently stand ever closer to the at one time unimagined precipice of $9.3 trillion en route to a staggering $10 trillion figure.  

First, do you intend to launch a McCain Administration in the manner that ardent neoconservatives such as the "military expert" team of Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, George Will, Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry would urge by launching a military attack against Iran?

There is nothing like spinning a story two ways in an attempt to make your supporters as well as your opponents feel that a correct step has been taken on an issue as crucial and controversial as the Iraq War.

For some time well-intentioned progressives had trained their efforts on petition drives and letter writing to seek to convince the neoconservative Republican administration to remove Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in hope that fresh blood would improve conditions in a steadily worsening Iraq War tragedy.

How delighted so many of these forces were when it was announced that Rumsfeld would be stepping down.  Many naively believed that an opportunity for genuine progress might lie ahead with a new secretary installed.  

Others, as exemplified in this column, believed that the only way tangible progress could be achieved was by removing the duo of Cheney and Bush.

When Donald Rumsfeld warns, as he did in his speech at the American Legion Convention in Salt Lake City last week, about "a new type of fascism" he is correct, but in the opposite manner from the intent of his explosive remarks.

When Democrats fight back by flailing at Rumsfeld and stating that he should leave for advocating the wrong policies regarding the Iraq War the question that remains is:  If Rumsfeld leaves before sundown what kind of replacement will surface?  After that the corollary question should be asked of, "Will a definitive policy change be made?"

The most cursory look at the Cheney-Bush playbook provides one resounding answer - there will be no change.  The reason is that the game plan for global empire established when Bush's father was in office and declared the dawning of a New World Order is looming ever larger with breakneck rapidity.

Rumsfeld is one of the "good old boys" of the Project for the New American Century.  This is the gang that invoked a New Pearl Harbor in a famous position paper as it sought to mold the world in accordance with its image.  

The last week has been a hard one for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  Not only has he been forced into overdrive having to justify the Iraq War in the wake of mounting deaths and casualties along with sharply accelerating costs; now generals of vast experience in the field are calling for his removal.

The rationale of the generals is sound and comparable to what we have been hearing for some time in the wake of early commentary and analysis from brilliant and courageous journalistic ombudsman Seymour Hersh.  Certainly the game plan has been wrong from the outset and it is refreshing to see the haughty and arrogant Rumsfeld being given his justifiable comeuppance.

It was not that long ago that in an earlier effort to hold Rumsfeld accountable, sincere progressives were leading a drive to encourage concerned citizens to send telegrams and letters along with e-mails to George W. Bush in the White House.  Despite the sincerity of the effort and the correctness of viewpoint, are these efforts not straying from the main point?

Since we have just launched into another baseball season an expression from America's pastime is apropos to describe the current situation relating to Iraq.  The old expression, applicable to anyone playing baseball from the little leagues to the majors is, "Keep your eye on the ball!"

I don't usually prowl around Newsmax, but I took Tom's quiz (humph) in Template for Invasion, and bumped into this interesting article, Bush WMD Response to Target Bill Clinton.  

The next counter-offensive to squash Bush's war critics is presented here:

U.S. News & World Report says the RNC ad will spotlight Clinton's Feb. 17, 1998 speech on Iraq, where the former prez "guaranteed" that Saddam Hussein would use his weapons of mass destruction.

I had wondered where the winger's recent interest in Bill was going, since he is not someone on the WH's A list.  A quick snoop around the net produced a few details, but nothing coherent.  Here they are in case they do, or do not, have any relevance to the latest anything but the truth White House.