Feingold writes a letter to the Government Accountability Office inquiring about the Pentagon’s in-house propaganda outfit.

Excerpts:

The Pentagon is free to air its views on any military operation but it should do so openly.
Potential covert production of press materials by the Defense Department would
undermine full and open public debate on one of the most important matters facing this
country, the war in Iraq. Such debate is essential to our democracy.

According to the article, the documents suggest that the Pentagon supplied retired
officers serving as analysts for several major American broadcasters with private
briefings with Sec. Rumsfeld, talking points in anticipation of appearing on TV, and
commercial airfare. Allegedly, the Pentagon discouraged the analysts from publicly
describing the nature of their relationship with the Pentagon. This clearly violates the
spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Basically, the Pentagon supplied pro-war, pro-administration retired army officers to news outlets for the purpose of providing what was advertised to the public as unbiased analysis of the war in Iraq.  On-air, these officers’ connections to the Pentagon was undisclosed, and the American people were misled into thinking they were getting analysis based on field expertise, not political bias.

We know the Republicans sold their war to the American people with lies; we just didn’t know how far and how deep those lies went.  Now, at least, we have a little more of the whole picture.

A.J. is right:

While right-wing pundits furiously try to spin Rev. Wright’s comments as speaking for anyone other than Rev. Wright, it’s vital that progressive observers and commentators remember that their machine will do anything — anything — to confuse people and divert attention from the failures of conservative governance. On the economy, on values, on social policy, and, perhaps most of all given the current situation in Iraq, on foreign affairs.

Our policies in Iraq — not to mention places like Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Iran, North Korea — make America and the world a more dangerous place. Expert upon expert and report after report say so, and they’re correct. The right wing wants to tie this common-sense argument to controversial figures so they can marginalize ideas along with individuals, and it’s a smear tactic that can be devastating if people don’t stand up and identify it for what it is. They’re not making substantive critiques, they’re using the politics of destruction and distraction.

The politics of destruction. The politics of distraction. That’s what fuels the Right-Wing Noise Machine–conservatives know that if the election hinges on the issues, they’ll lose. So they try to distract the American people, paying ‘gotcha’ and distracting us from the very real problems we have to face every day.

This is why the right is pushing Wright above the fold day after day:

Bush — not Wright or Bill Clinton — is voters’ main concern

[...]

According to the poll, 73 percent of respondents disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy and 81 percent believe the United States is in a recession.

[...]

What is your preference for the outcome of this year’s congressional elections––a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?

Republican-controlled Congress ……34

Democrat-controlled Congress ……..49

And then there’s this:

The current data show that the most commonly mentioned characteristics about McCain are that he is “too old,” that he is a “good man”/”likable,” that he would give the country more of the same/be another George W. Bush, that he had a good military background, and basic dislike of him.

Interestingly, enough, “Good military background” has actually dropped from 11 percent to 8 percent. His age and the George Bush connection are quickly overshadowing his military service.

The politics of distraction give us headlines like this one:

While Malkin & Co. Continue Endless Circle Jerk On Wright, Deadliest Month Of 2008 In Iraq Gets Worse

The stakes in this election are the highest they’ve been in decades. The economy’s in ruin. Our foreign policy is in shambles. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Gas prices are at record highs. America is in the midst of a health care crisis. Our deficit is the highest it’s ever been. Our enemies are stronger and our defenses are weaker. We as Americans face some of the biggest issues and the toughest battles of our times; we can’t afford to be distracted.

As I’ve said time and time again, Republicans can’t govern. They controlled all three branches of our government for years–we saw the effects of Republican control, and they were disastrous. They can’t win on the issues, so the GOP fires up the Right-Wing Noise Machine to distract us from the issues and focus us on trivial, pointless nonsense.

This time we can’t afford to fall for it. This time we can’t afford to fall for the politics of distraction. This time we have to stand up and tell them that this will not be tolerated. This time we must stand up and change our country for the better, and we will not let these right-wing charlatans stand in our way.

Enough is enough. Once and for all, enough is enough.

UPDATE: Bob Cesca nails it:

Have You Left No Sense Of Decency?

If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it’s very likely we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they’ve spent on Wright, we wouldn’t necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.

If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran’s so-called nuclear program as they’ve been about Wright, there wouldn’t be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking — or entirely obliterating — Iran.

[...]

So I have to ask the appropriate network executives the familiar yet appropriate question: Have you no sense of decency at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

John McCain and George W. Bush’s Iraq war: 5 years down, 95 years to go.

So, since John McCain has all that foreign policy experience, what does he think of the recent violence in Iraq?

McCain ‘Surprised’ by Iraq Developments

[...]

As he launched a tour here designed to highlight his family’s long tradition of military service, Senator John McCain said Monday that he was surprised by the latest turn of events in America’s current war in Iraq.

“Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,’’ Mr. McCain said on his campaign bus as it rolled through downtown Meridian, saying that the move showed independence but that he had expected the military to focus on Mosul.

“I just am surprised that he would take it on himself to go down and take charge of a military offensive,’’ he said. “I had not anticipated that he would do that.’’

You have got to be kidding me.

71 years old. 25 years of Washington experience. 5 trips to Iraq. And John McCain couldn’t have predicted that the government’s crackdown on Mahdi Army members would lead to the collapse of their tenouous, self-imposed ceasefire? Especially since the Mahdi Army is known for starting violent insurrections against the government?

McCain didn’t even entertain it as a possibility? Even I–a 21-year-old college student–considered what would happen if Al-Sadr’s ceasefire ended, all the way back in December.

So John McBush has no judgment and his much-touted experience doesn’t seem to be worth anything. What, then, makes this guy fit to be our next President?

Day 1 ♦ Day 2 ♦ Day 3

From the BBC:

More than 130 people have been killed and 350 injured since a clampdown on militias began in Basra on Tuesday.

Today, the Iraqi government extended the deadline for disarmament they placed on the insurgents a few days ago from 3 days to 10.

According to BBC analyst Magdi Abdelhadi, the extension shows either the fighting is proving more difficult than the Prime Minster predicted, or there are behind-the-scenes peace negotiations. The former seems more likely–the Iraqi government can’t put down the armed rebellion themselves, and they don’t know where to proceed after the deadline expires, so they’re extending it in the hopes a solution will somehow present itself.

Iraq’s progress in the 5 intervening years since the start of the war has been absolutely abysmal. The Iraqi government and military are nowhere near prepared to deal with the deep sectarian divisions in their country, and this most recent uprising shows it. Predictably, when the efforts by the Iraqis did nothing to stop the violence, U.S. forces had to intervene:

American military forces conducted air strikes on targets in Basra late Thursday, joining for the first time an onslaught by Iraqi security forces intended to oust Shiite militias in the southern port city.

Two American war planes shelled two targets in Basra, entering the battle at the request of the Iraqi Army, which asked the American and British forces to make the strikes, according to Maj. Tom Holloway, a spokesman for the British Army in Basra.

The air strikes are the clearest sign yet that the coalition forces have been drawn into the fighting in Basra. Up until Thursday night, the American and British air forces insisted that the Iraqis had taken the lead, though they acknowledged surveillance support for the Iraqi Army.

More from The Washington Post:

Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of American weapons, along with the Mahdi Army’s AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead.

The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad.

This has been the story of Iraq, day in and day out, for years. Whenever things get tough, the Iraqi government leans on the United States to solve their problems for them. It’s been five years since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government–five years to negotiate, to build a military, to stabilize the country and begin making progress. Unfortunately, due to George W Bush and the Republicans’ disastrous policies, the Iraqi government hasn’t made nearly as much progress as they should have. And now, whenever violence breaks out, American soldiers end up getting caught in the middle.

That’s why this war needs to end as soon as possible. As long as we’re there propping them up, the Iraqi government and military will never need to actually deal with their country’s problems. They’ll never be independent problem-solvers. And whenever things get tough, they’ll use us as a crutch.

That’s why I’m glad to see that 42 Democratic Congressional candidates have signed onto “A Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq.” Iraq needs independence, not co-dependence. Iraq needs to be able to stand up and lead on their own, without the United States holding their hands every step of the way. The sooner we start to withdraw our troops, the sooner we can send a signal to the Iraqi government that we’re serious about leaving and the sooner we can begin preparing them to be independent once and for all.

UPDATE: Fred Kaplan puts the present strife in perspective:

The fighting in Basra, which has spread to parts of Baghdad, is not a clash between good and evil or between a legitimate government and an outlaw insurgency. Rather, as Anthony Cordesman, military analyst for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes, it is “a power struggle” between rival “Shiite party mafias” for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country.

Yesterday, President Bush portrayed the intense fighting in Iraq as a return to ‘normalcy.’  While I agree that massive  amounts of violence and bloody sectarian fighting have become the norm in Iraq, that’s not exactly the kind of progress I would tout if I were him.

John McCain has some problems to deal with.

First, his latest FEC report shows his campaign violating the $54 million fundraising limit set by campaign finance laws. McCain opted into the public financing system months ago; by exceeding this limit, he has broken the very campaign finance reform laws he shepherded through Congress in 2002.

Then again, this isn’t unexpected. On this issue, McCain declared that the laws don’t apply to him–that he’s no longer restricted by public financing limits. Unfortunately for him, this isn’t his decision to make–McCain opted into public financing (receiving benefits such as money and ballot access) and he can’t pull out until and unless the FEC agrees.

A month ago, the FEC sent McCain a letter:

The nation’s top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall.

[...]

The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain’s campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio

[...]

By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party’s nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.

[...]

Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.

In response to John McCain breaking campaign finance laws, the DNC filed an FEC complaint. In addition, a number of progressive bloggers also filed an FEC complaint; they’re coupling it with a petition, which you can sign here.

Second, McCain gave what was billed as a major foreign policy speech yesterday. Unfortunately for him, it was light on specifics, and the policies he actually proposed were more than lacking.

McCain echoed George W. Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq, casting the war as a choice between staying the course and winning or ‘cutting and running’ and surrendering to Al-Qaeda. Middle East expert and former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg had this to say about McCain’s false choice:

The trouble with this set up is that McCain’s core premise is dead wrong. By our own senior commanders’ accounts, Al Qaeda is but a minor player in Iraq, and there is no way the U.S. presence, surge or not, that will keep a lid on sectarian tensions. Just look at what is going on in Iraq at the very tragic milestone of 4,000 Americans killed: the worst sectarian violence in months has broken out with hundreds of lives lost despite a McCain’s surge that he continues to tout as the fire extinguisher that will stop sectarian strife from igniting once again.

McCain proposed forming a ‘League of Democracies,’ a new international institution that would provide political cover for whatever disastrous foreign policies a McCain presidency would come up with.

But the League of Democracies would be the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ by a different name, made up of countries trying to curry our favor by rubber-stamping our foreign policy decisions, no matter how idiotic or ill-fated. In other words, it would be the exact kind of wrong-headed ad-hoc alliance that helped get us into Iraq in the first place.

In addition, the League of Democracies would be a formalized version of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy–it would institutionalize our current foreign policy, which ignores and marginalizes any country that doesn’t follow our foreign policy directives. Much like the Bush presidency, this plan will both galvanize and unite America’s enemies, creating a dangerous, unstable bi-polar world.

Ambassador Ginsberg says it best:

What is so strikingly and inherently wrong with McCain’s world vision is that America’s global leadership will not be restored by ignoring adversaries that, left to their own devices, may further challenge and undermine America’s national security.

If this is the kind of foreign policy insight 25 years in Congress gets you, then I’d say Barack Obama has a point.

Third, McCain’s speech invoked this gem from his childhood:

When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor.

Good God, John McCain remembers Pearl Harbor. Nothing like reminding the American people that, if elected, you would be the oldest President in American history.

Along those lines, take this quote from a McCain staffer:

If America is looking for a second term of the Jimmy Carter Administration of high taxes at home and weakness abroad vote Obama. I doubt they are.

Looking over the 2000 census numbers, roughly half of the voting-age population in the United States is 40 years or younger. If you’re 40 today, that means you were born in 1967 or 1968; since Jimmy Carter left office in January, 1977, it stands to reason that if you’re 40 or below, you probably don’t remember very much about the Carter administration.

So the McCain campaign is invoking the Carter administration, despite the fact that nearly half of America’s voting-age population aren’t old enough to even remember it. (Hell, I wasn’t even born until the Reagan years)

Of course, there’s a good way to re-work that quote to make it more recent…and more accurate:

If America is looking for a second term of the [George Bush] Administration of [economic devastation] at home and weakness abroad vote [McCain]. I doubt they are.

There. Perfect.

BREAKING: CNN brings us this headline:

A U.S. government official was killed today when militants fired rockets into the Green Zone in Baghdad, the U.S. Embassy says.

Today, violence has continued to rage in Iraq:

Forty-two people were killed Thursday in Kut, southeast of Baghdad, Iraq’s Interior Ministry said, the latest casualties in three days of clashes between militias and Iraqi security forces.

[...]

Since Tuesday, clashes in Basra and throughout Iraq’s Shiite heartland have left more than 100 dead and many wounded in Basra, Baghdad, Hilla, Kut, Karbala and Diwaniya.

[...]

Thursday, a car bomb explosion killed three people and wounded five others near a police patrol in central Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. There are no apparent links to the violence in the Shiite regions.

Witnesses in Basra report smoke rising and gunfire and explosions ringing out across the city, where Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. and British troops, have been taking on fighters using grenades, mortar rounds and machine guns.

There was fighting Thursday in Jamhouriya, one of five neighborhoods the Mehdi Army controls, and Muqal, according to an official from Basra province and witnesses.

In addition to the recent death of an American official, an Iraqi government official has been kidnapped:

A spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, Tahsin al-Sheikhly, was kidnapped from his Baghdad home by armed men on Thursday, security officials told AFP.

The officials said Sheikhly, who spoke on civic matters related to the security plan launched in February last year, was abducted from his home in Baghdad’s al-Amin neighborhood at around 2:30 pm (1130 GMT).

“Armed men stormed his home at a time when there were clashes in his neighborhood,” a security official with the interior ministry said.

“They burnt his home and stole two cars and weapons before fleeing with him.”

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is saying that the end of Al-Sadr’s ceasefire and the violent armed rebellion by his Mahdi Army is a good thing:

The fighting in Basra, and rocket attacks on Baghdad’s Green Zone by members of the Mahdi Army militia, have led some analysts to believe the unilateral ceasefire called by the militia’s powerful leader Moqtada al-Sadr is falling apart. Among those analysts is Ilan Goldenberg, policy director of the National Security Network, a frequent critic of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy.

“It looks like it’s breaking down. If it is in fact breaking down, and not just a temporary blip, then you could have a major increase in violence,” he said.

That’s not how the Pentagon sees it, according to Press Secretary Geoff Morrell. “I do not think at this stage, at this stage, which is mere days into this operation, anyone is prepared to stand here and tell you that they feel as though the gains we’ve made over the past several months are in jeopardy,” he said.

[...]

Goldenberg sees the situation very differently. “Realistically, this is a massive power struggle between the two strongest segments in the country, at least in the Shia’ south. I can’t see this as being a good thing especially since you already see it spreading to other cities, like Baghdad and Kut and Najaf. What you’re looking for here is potentially an all-out breakout in Shia’ civil war. I can’t really see how that’s a wonderful sign,” he said.

That’s the standard Bush administration/Republican line for you: no matter what happens in Iraq, it’s good news.

If violence goes down, they say it means that our strategy is working and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home since they’re the only thing keeping violence down.

If violence stays the same, they say it means we’re stabilizing the country and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home since they need to maintain the stability and make further progress.

And if violence goes up, they say it means we’re doing so well that the anti-American forces are desperately lashing out against us (in what is inevitably their ‘last throes) and it’s good news. Of course, then we can’t bring American troops home because they have to put down the uprisings and bring stability.

What does this show us? Well, that–in the eyes of Republicans–spin trumps reality.  Right now, though, the reality on the ground is undeniable: violence is going up in Iraq, and it’s bad news no matter who you are.

Ilan Goldenberg at Democracy Arsenal explains the connection between the Mahdi Army’s ceasefire and the reduction of violence in Iraq:

The drop in violence in Iraq has generally been attributed to four elements 1) More American forces and the change in tactics to counterinsurgency; 2) The Awakening movement; 3) The Sadr ceasfire; and 4) The ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides.

It’s hard to say for sure, which of these factors was the most important. The Bush Administration will tell you it’s all about the troop levels. I’ve tended to believe it’s more of a mix and was most inclined towards the Anbar Awakening and the sectarian cleansing as the important factors. But when you look at the data it really seems to indicate that the Sadr ceasefire may have been the key.

[...]

If you look at the graph that MNF-I has been using on civilian casualties [available here] it looks to tell a pretty clear story. The first major drop in violence came in early 2007 before the troop surge. It looks like it was mostly based on the fact that the worst of the sectarian cleansing in Baghdad had been completed

[...]

The second drop in violence came in September. By that time the full surge had already been in effect for 2-3 months and the Awakening had been going on for a year. The Sadr ceasefire occured on August 28 and suddenly boom a big drop in violence. That could be a coincidence and it could be that all four factors came together. But the data seems to point to the fact that the Sadr Ceasefire more then anything else is what caused the drop in violence in the early fall.

[Emphasis added]

So data from the Multinational Force in Iraq (MNF-I) shows that, to a large extent, the Mahdi Army’s ceasefire played a major role in the drop-off in casualties and violence since the end of summer. Now that they’re once again clashing with both U.S. and Iraqi forces, will violence go up to where it was in August?

The major question is, what sparked the Mahdi Army to take up arms once again after over seven months of a successful ceasefire? Well, Iraqi’s security forces began cracking down on Sadrists for, ostensibly, political & sectarian reasons. Eric Martin explains:

It is no secret that America’s main ally in Iraq (and Iran’s), the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), is likely to lose ground to the more popular Sadrist current in the upcoming provincial elections (the Sadrist current boycotted the 2005 round). Absent some extracurricular activities to level the playing field that is. As Cernig noted quoting an AP article on Friday, ISCI, whose Iran-trained militia (the Badr Corp.) has heavily infiltrated Iraqi Security Forces, has been moving aggressively (in tandem with US forces) to help overcome what it lacks in popular appeal:

A Sadrist member of parliament alleged that the crackdown in Kut and elsewhere in the south was part of a move by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party and [ISCI] to prevent al-Sadr’s followers from winning control of key southern provinces in provincial elections expected this fall.

“They have no supporters in the central and southern provinces, but we do,” Ahmed al-Massoudi told the AP. “If the crackdown against the Sadrists continues, we will begin consultations with other parliamentary blocs to bring down the government and replace it with a genuinely national one.”

So the Iraqi government, fearful of losing ground to the Sadrists in the upcoming election, implemented a crackdown in order to reduce their influence in the upcoming elections, particularly in their strongholds in southern Iraq. Unfortunately, that crackdown pushed the Mahdi Army too far, leading them to violently revolt against the government.

Recently, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki gave the militia three days to lay down their arms:

Clashes continued Wednesday between Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra, as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki laid down a deadline for gunmen to surrender and fresh rocket attacks hit Baghdad’s Green Zone.

[...]

According to wire service reports, Maliki issued a statement giving gunmen in Basra three days to give up their weapons and renounce further violence. Those who don’t, said a Maliki aide, will be targeted for arrest in the ongoing security operation.

[...]

In a sign of the offensive’s importance, Maliki flew to Basra on Monday to oversee operations.

By Tuesday evening, Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias had also clashed in the cities of Kut and Hilla, as well as outside Sadr’s Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City. Dusk-to-dawn curfews were imposed on at least six cities in southern Iraq, police said.

The head of the Mahdi Army, Moqtada Al-Sadr, hasn’t officially lifted the ceasefire yet, but he has told his followers that they can attack Iraqi and American forces in self-defense. While it’s good news that the ceasefire technically still stands, the bad news is that he gave his followers orders to use violence when necessary. The ceasefire is already crumbling, and it will continue to do so with or without his explicit endorsement–the violence will rage on regardless of what he does.
This is a key test at a critical time in Iraq. While the administration and their Republican allies claim that progress is being made in Iraq, the level of violence remains abysmally high. The fact that Iraq’s security forces went after the Sadrists for political reasons shows that sectarian interests are trumping Iraq’s national interest in the eyes of the government. If Iraq’s security forces can’t put down this armed rebellion, there will be no question that the Republican policies in Iraq have failed.

This is exactly why we need to end the war in Iraq–the Iraqi government has become too reliant on American troops to keep them safe. Five years after the start of the war, the Iraqi government’s crippling dependence on us is shameful; we should have been pushing them towards independence a long time ago. We need to teach the Iraqi government to solve their own problems, and we need to show them that the United States of America isn’t going to stick around and protect them forever.

Iraq has extensive problems and deep divides that can’t be solved with bullets–there needs to be political reconciliation that brings all of Iraq’s major players to the table and charts a course for the future of the country. They need to be able to manage their own factions, to hold their own country together, to provide basic security and stability to their people. Unless we give the Iraqi government a wake-up call and start pushing them in the right direction, every violent flare-up in Iraq will consume more American lives.

UPDATE: More news from the battlefield:

The day saw street battles in Baghdad and Basra, mortar attacks by Shiite rebels against Baghdad’s Green Zone, bombing by U.S. aircraft and encounters that left government tanks in flames. More than 97 people were reported killed and hundreds were wounded since the operation began early Tuesday.

In Baghdad, at least nine Iraqi civilians were killed and 42 were wounded in mortar attacks, police said. The Mahdi Army, loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, opened fire on civilians in downtown Baghdad and clashed with Iraqi security forces in Kadhemiya in north Baghdad.

In Baghdad’s Shiite Sadr City neighborhood, clashes between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi security forces supported by U.S. forces left at least 20 dead and 115 were injured. By early afternoon, people took to the streets in protest of the Iraqi government.

Mortar rounds crashed into the heavily fortified Green Zone for the third straight day, injuring three U.S. government employees, all U.S. citizens, said U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Yesterday I reported that the self-imposed cease-fire by Moqtada Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army was unraveling, sparking violence in the heart of Iraq:

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr’s Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr’s followers that they’ll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra

Well, now the violence has spread as the Mahdi Army clashed with Iraqi security forces both inside and outside the capitol city:

Iraqi security forces battled the Mehdi Army militia in Basra on Tuesday in a drive to win control of the southern oil city, but violence appeared to be spreading to Baghdad and other cities.

[...]

In a statement read out by a senior aide on Tuesday, [Moqtada Al-]Sadr called on Iraqis to stage sit-ins all over Iraq and said he would declare a “civil revolt” if attacks by U.S. and Iraqi security forces continued. He also threatened a “third step”, but said it was to early to announce what it would be.

[...]

Pro-Sadr students forced Mustansiriya University in Baghdad to close on Tuesday. Members of Sadr’s movement said the protest would spread to other towns and cities from Wednesday.

Police sources said Sadr supporters seized control of five districts in the southern town of Kut on Tuesday after clashes between gunmen and police.

[...]

Police said fighting erupted in several Sadr City neighbourhoods between Mehdi Army fighters and the Badr Organisation, the armed wing of a rival Shi’ite faction.

Baghdad’s Green Zone, the government and diplomatic compound, was hit by several salvoes of rockets during the day. U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover said they had been fired from Sadr City.

The Guardian also has a video up of the violence erupting across Iraq.

What does this mean for American troops? Well, it’s nothing less than a disaster.

Violence has abated in Iraq in recent months, which Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain have attributed to the 2007 troop surge. Remember that the surge began in January 2007 and take a look at the American troop casualties between then and now:

When the surge began, there were slightly more than 80 troop deaths per month. During the spring, after the surge began, there was a huge spike in violence that began in April, peaked in May and decreased until July. In July and August American troop deaths went back to where they were when the surge began–a little over 80 per month. It was only after August that American troop deaths began to taper off, leading to the the relatively-low levels they’re at now.

What happened in August that was unusual? Well, the Mahdi Army began their voluntary cease-fire, which continued right up until yesterday. Now, I’m not saying the surge had no effect, or that the Mahdi Army is the sole cause of American casualties in Iraq. But Al-Sadr’s militia were responsible for a lot of anti-American violence, and it’s undeniable that the recent reduction in casualties is somewhat attributable to their ceasefire.

This is just one more reason showing why the surge hasn’t–and couldn’t–work. Iraq isn’t a military problem. Unless we’re willing to pour hundreds of thousands more soldiers into Iraq, there’s no way we can quell the violence ourselves.

John McCain and the Republicans think Iraq can be solved through bullets. They’re wrong. Iraq needs a political solution–it needs to bring everyone, including Moqtada Al-Sadr, to the table and come up with a comprehensive political plan for their country’s future. Unless we can get the various factions to agree to stop fighting, they never will. This is what we Democrats have been saying for years, and it’s exactly why the GOP can no longer be trusted with our national security.

The Republicans and John McCain gambled on the surge, and lost. How will they spin this most recent setback in the war? How will they pretend that their failed policies didn’t lead to this increase in violence? What idiotic plan or justification will they come up with now to continue putting our troops in danger? And when will they realize that Iraq’s problems can only be solved at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield?

UPDATE: Basra is an oil-rich city, and there’s word that the Mahdi Army is threatening to set fire to the oil fields:

An official in Sadr’s Basra office, speaking on condition of anonymity said, “The Sadr current [movement] is threatening to set fire to the oil wells in Basra if the Iraqi military continues its security plan.”

UPDATE II: More recent developments in the fighting:

Two rockets landed on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s compound, but did not explode, an Iraqi government security official said

[...]

Al-Sadr’s headquarters in Najaf also ordered field commanders with his Mahdi Army militia to go on maximum alert and prepare “to strike the occupiers” _ a term used to describe U.S. forces _ and their Iraqi allies, a militia officer said.

[...]

Lawmakers from al-Sadr’s movement announced in a Baghdad press conference that a general strike campaign _ which began in selected neighborhoods of the capital and included the closure of businesses and schools _ was being expanded nationwide.

Three police officers were kidnapped from a checkpoint in eastern Baghdad, a police official said on condition on anonymity because he wasn’t supposed to release the information.

Stores and schools also were closed in several other predominantly Shiite neighborhoods in the capital, and armed Mahdi Army members were seen patrolling the streets in some Shiite neighborhoods of the capital.

In Basra, Iraqi soldiers and police battled Mahdi fighters for control of key neighborhoods in Iraq’s second-largest city, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad.

[...]

In Baghdad, suspected Mahdi Army gunmen exchanged gunfire with security guards of the rival Shiite Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council in Sadr City, police said.

Yesterday, John McCain said:

“We’re succeeding. I don’t care what anybody says. I’ve seen the facts on the ground,”

I wonder if he still feels that way…

Disturbing news tonight out of Iraq:

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr’s Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr’s followers that they’ll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra

While a lot of Republicans–like George W. Bush and John McCain–have been lauding the surge for bringing violence levels in Iraq down somewhat, the voluntary ceasefire by Moqtada Al-Sadr and his militia have played a massive role in reducing Iraq’s violence.

If this ceasefire falls apart, the Madhi militia–now with several months of rest, recuperation and rearmament under their belts–will resume their assaults on American forces, which will lead to another spike in violence.

Al-Sadr and his militia would be very difficult to put down by force; this is why, as we Democrats have been saying for years, Iraq needs a political solution. Throwing more soldiers into the mix hasn’t gotten us anywhere closer to a sustainable Iraq, despite what McCain and Bush tell us.

This is why we need a Democratic President come January 2009, so we can sit down and end this war quickly and intelligently.

Today marked the 4,000th American troop death in Iraq.

4,000 faces. 4,000 names. 4,000 families torn apart. 4,000 brave Americans who will never come home. 4,000 too many.

The 4,000th American soldier to die in Iraq lost his/her life in an IED attack in southern Baghdad, all because of George Bush and John McCain’s mistake.

They were wrong on Iraq then:

At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order and install a new government.

Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2 trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the American occupation continues.

[...]

On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be “weeks rather than months. There’s always the possibility of complications that you can’t anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops.” Cheney also predicted the fight would “go relatively quickly, but we can’t count on that.” That same day on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney said, “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not “put up such a struggle,” and that even “significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside.” Asked if Americans are prepared for a “long, costly and bloody battle,” Cheney replied: “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.” Cheney has spoken that way for months.

[Emphasis Added]

They’re wrong on Iraq now:

At a news conference, McCain said Iran has been supporting the Sunni group al Qaeda in Iraq, until he was corrected by a colleague. U.S. officials believe Iran has been backing Shi’ite extremists in Iraq, not a Sunni group like al Qaeda.

None of these people–Bush, Cheney, McCain–know anything about foreign policy. If the past few years have taught us nothing else, they taught us that Republicans don’t know the first thing about keeping America safe.

Today, John McCain accepted the endorsement of George W. Bush at the White House.

Though a lot of political stuff goes on in the White House, I think it’s wrong for the people’s house to be used for such blatant political purposes, serving as a campaign stop by a current Presidential candidate.

Joe Sudbay agrees:

I just don’t remember such a blatant political campaign event being held there. They’re treating McCain like he’s a head of state instead of the head of the GOP. It’s just one more way for Bush to show his contempt for the White House.

It was the Republicans who made such a big deal during the 90s when the Clintons used the White House for political events. Janet Reno almost had to appoint an independent counsel to shut them up. But, now, under Bush, it’s okay.

One thing is clear. With McCain as the nominee, it’s business as usual for the GOP. The event is a symbol that a McCain White House would be the same as the Bush White House.

It’s clear that Bush and McCain are two of the same–there’s nothing they won’t politicize, and no extent they won’t go to in order to score political points.

In his speech, Bush said his endorsement of McCain came because the Arizona Senator won’t change any of his policies; in essence, McCain will give us Bush’s third term.

Think Progress has more:

BUSH: And the good news about our candidate there will be a new president, a man of character and courage, but he’s not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy. He understands this is a dangerous world.

I’m sure Bush’s support will drive the small percent of the country that still supports him to vote for McCain; too bad it will repulse the 70-80% of the country who disapprove of Bush and are looking for a much-needed change.

Though McCain is often compared to Bob Dole–an aged, long-serving Senator with no good ideas running against a talented, visionary, charismatic candidate–I think another accurate comparison is to Hubert Humphrey, who lost to Richard Nixon in the 1968 election. Smintheus at Daily Kos has more:

John McCain increasingly is looking like the hapless Hubert H. Humphrey of 1968. Captive to his own partisan support for a disastrous war; too timid to stake out an agenda for change; passively permitting an unpopular president to embrace him as heir; squandering what little was left of his good repute in shabby political maneuvering. It’s Humphrey all over again. McCain is busy tying a dead weight around his shoulders that he imagines is the mantle of the presidency. The endorsement today by Bush went a long way toward sealing his fate.

McCain is tying himself to the conservative movement, despite the fact that it’s in swift decline; in other words, he’s a rat climbing aboard a sinking ship. Either he’s tremendously out of touch with the American people and thinks Bush-style conservatism is still popular, or he’s a true believer in Bushism, indifferent to whether or not he wins in November as long as he gets the approval of the conservatives.

I think this headline from Wonkette says it best:

George W. Bush Dances On The Grave Of McCain’s Campaign

Today was the last time we’ll ever see John McCain; from here on out, the Republican nominee is John McBush, determined to keep America exactly as it has been since January, 2001.

Shameful, pathetic and disturbing.

Today, Barack Obama is being attacked by the right-wing noise machine. His latest dreamt-up offense? Not wearing an American flag lapel pin, which apparently makes him unpatriotic.

Of course, anyone with $2 in their pocket can wear an American flag pin, regardless of what they believe. In fact, how many politicians have worn that pin while tearing down nearly everything this great country stands for?

Patriotism isn’t defined by what we wear–it’s defined by what we do. And through his actions, Barack Obama has shown us what true patriotism is:

Patriotism is standing up for our Constitutional rights against a corrupt, power-hungry White House.

Patriotism is bringing our troops home and making sure they’re taken care of when they get here.

Patriotism is standing up for America’s working class, giving them living wage and a good standard of living.

Patriotism is making sure Americans have access to health care regardless of their income.

Patriotism is standing up to polluters to preserve this beautiful country for future generations.

Patriotism is securing our borders while helping immigrants become citizens.

Patriotism is fighting for clean, open government that’s held accountable to the people.

Patriotism is helping Americans keep their homes by standing up to predatory lenders.

Patriotism is standing up to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorist groups.

Patriotism isn’t wearing a $1.75 American flag lapel pin made on a Chinese assembly line.

So, Barack Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin. But you know what? Neither does Mitt Romney. Or John McCain. Or Mike Huckabee. Or John Boehner. Or Mitch McConnell. Or RNC Chair Mike Duncan. And neither did Newt Gingrich. Or Tom DeLay. Or Bill Frist. Or even Ronald Reagan, for that matter.

So let’s put this half-baked smear to bed once and for all, because America deserves better than right-wing gutter politics.

Image from The Washington Post

Here’s today’s front-page, above-the-fold story on The Washington Times:

Military fears ‘unknown quantity’

Members of Washington’s military and defense establishment are expressing trepidation about Sen. Barack Obama, as the Illinois senator comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination and leads in national polls to become commander in chief.

Oh, really?

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war.

Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the four branches of the military and National Guard, according to a study released Thursday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

[Emphasis Added]

The Washington Times won’t let the facts get in the way of a good smear–despite the fact that Barack Obama is getting more donations from soldiers than anyone else running for President (including John McCain), they cherry-pick a few key quotes to come up with a completely bogus story.

Get ready for more smears like this as the election wears on.  The Obama campaign better be prepared for baseless, underhanded attacks like this.

There are just 8 days left until VOTR Day, when Vermont, Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas go to the polls and–in all likelihood–decide the Democratic nominee.

On the Democratic side, it’s do-or-die for Hillary Clinton. Her campaign–through surrogates like James Carville and Bill Clinton–has said that winning TX and OH are crucial to her campaign. If she doesn’t walk away with both states under her belt, there will be tremendous pressure on Clinton to step aside and allow Obama to start campaigning as the nominee.

To that extent, things aren’t looking good for Clinton. Pollster shows Obama moving up in both OH and TX; though Clinton is still up by 10 points in the Buckeye State, her lead has been cut down significantly in recent days. In Texas, Clinton’s lead has been cut down to nothing; she and Obama are now tied.

ARG has Obama leading by 8% in TX, but losing by 10% on OH. PPP has Clinton leading Obama by 4% in Ohio, while CNN has Obama leading Clinton by 4% in Texas.

No matter how you cut it, things are too close for comfort for Hillary Clinton. If Obama continues building momentum at the rate he has, he’ll almost certainly walk away with Texas and, quite possibly, Ohio. Clinton is going to have to act now to stop his momentum, and I’m not sure if the strategy they’re adopting–going extremely negative–will reverse their fortunes.

Clinton is giving a major policy address tonight at George Washington University in Washington, DC–hopefully for her, she’ll unveil a new strategy for her flagging campaign. As for Obama, the ground he’s made up since Super Tuesday has been impressive–he has weathered extremely negative attacks and sharp criticisms, and he has always come out on top. Right now, Obama is leading nationally, showing that his campaign has a bright future ahead of them.

On the Republican side, John McCain hasn’t even won the nomination and he’s already in serious trouble.

The Vicki Iseman/Lobbygate scandal has shown McCain’s uncomfortably close relationship to special interests, and that his top campaign advisers are corporate lobbyists. The FEC fracas has demolished his image as a campaign finance reformer; his potentially-illegal attempt to weasel out of public financing rules could land his campaign in court.

As the McCain campaign takes hit after hit in the court of public opinion, there’s talk that Mitt Romney may re-ignite his suspended Presidential campaign. I don’t consider it a very likely scenario–Romney has already endorsed McCain, and he’s clearly hoping to use his 300 delegates to become the Vice Presidential candidate.

If Romney chooses to jump back in, his best bet would be to win at the convention, winning over McCain’s pledged delegates by capitalizing off of their buyer’s remorse in the wake of these scandals.

Nonetheless, it seems like a news cycle doesn’t go by without McCain shooting himself in the foot. Witness his latest statement on Iraq:

My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis.

Of course, we’ve heard this kind of happy talk before–not just from George Bush and Dick Cheney, but from McCain himself:

I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks. [MSNBC, 1/28/03]

It’s clear that the end is very much in sight. … It won’t be long. It, it’ll be a fairly short period of time. [ABC, 4/9/03]

We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months. [Meet The Press, 11/12/06]

And does it really matter how close to “victory” we are if we’re going to be in Iraq for–as McCain said–10,000 years?

John McCain: worse than Bush’s third term.

Still, the race is still extremely fluid, and a lot can change in the coming days. Make sure to check back for developments in this very contentious primary season.

UPDATE: Here’s the article from GW’s student newspaper covering Clinton’s remarks in DC today.

Cross-Posted At Daily Kos

The media loves John McCain. They love portraying him as a maverick, as a straight-talker who never panders.

Now, it’s standard for candidates to play themselves up using positive labels and positive rhetoric, but this is one of the few times the media has bought the spin hook, line and sinker.

Too bad for our political press–and John McCain–that reality has a well-known liberal bias. When you scratch the surface of the gilded facade McCain has erected around himself, you’ll find a long history of flip-flopping, pandering and confusing rhetoric.

Remember, John McCain campaigned for George W. Bush in 2004, despite the fact that Bush’s dirty tricks denied McCain the GOP nomination in 2000. McCain knew he would need to win the approval of the GOP establishment if he was ever going to have a shot at being President, so he turned around and embraced the same people who smeared him so horribly before. That’s not being a maverick–it’s selling out.

Think Progress brings us some more of McCain’s pandering:

– Pander On Tax Cuts: In 2001, McCain was one of just two GOP senators to vote against Bush’s destructive tax cuts. Now, however, McCain makes a point of touting his support for making Bush’s tax cuts permanent.

– Pander On Stimulus: For the past few months, McCain has been declaring that passing an economic stimulus package is at the very top of his agenda. Yet when the Senate voted earlier this month on a generous bill providing increased assistance to seniors and veterans, McCain skipped the vote. The bill fell just one vote short of passage, a victory for the far right.

– Pander To Karl Rove: In the 2000 presidential campaign, Karl Rove launched vicious smear tactics against McCain on behalf of Bush’s campaign. Recently, however, McCain has embraced the right-wing political operative. He said that he has “always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics” and specifically refused to condemn Rove’s partisan smears.

In addition, check out this Think Progress piece on yesterday’s vote to ban waterboarding:

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding

Not only that, but McCain’s baffling justification is far from straight talk:

The bill yesterday would have restricted the CIA to the Army’s rules for interrogating detainees. McCain believes that the CIA should have a freer hand. That includes the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

[...] At the same time, he stresses that the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act, the bill he himself sponsored, prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and treatment that “shocks the conscience.” He hasn’t said which [techniques] meet that description. But he trusts that the Justice Department and CIA will arrive at a “good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible.”

Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave a taste of what that “good faith” interpretation is when he testified before Congress. What “shocks the conscience” depends on the circumstances, he said. Waterboarding might very well be OK, he argued, if the situation were dire enough.

But McCain says that waterboarding is torture. And as he says in his statement below, “It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding ’shocks the conscience.’” So he disagrees with the administration’s “good faith” interpretation. But apparently he still has faith.

Confused? It’s certainly not a position that’s easily summarized.

[Emphasis Added]

And McCain has also flip-flopped on immigration, while the media has been reluctant to report his shifting stance:

In endorsing Sen. John McCain’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, The Baltimore Sun asserted that McCain has “stood his ground” on “immigration reform.” However, while McCain now says that border security must be addressed first, he previously said that border security could not be disaggregated from other provisions in the legislation on immigration reform. Similarly, the San Antonio Express-News claimed in its endorsement of McCain that his “advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform” is among the positions that may “be attractive” to “independent voters”; but McCain has said he “would not” vote for his own comprehensive immigration reform proposals.

It’s clear that, if John McCain was ever a maverick, he isn’t one anymore.

The question is, when will the media end their bizarre hero-worship and begin to report on the facts instead of the McCain hagiography?

I wouldn’t hold my breath…

UPDATE: More from Steve Benen:

* Pander On Immigration: McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now, to make the nativist elements in his party happy, he’s against it.

* Pander to U.N. Critics: McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now, to pander to U.N. critics, he opposes it.

* Pander to Abortion-Rights Opponents: McCain used to say he would not support a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Now, to pander to his party’s base, he’s said the opposite.

* Pander to the Religious Right: McCain condemned radical TV preachers like Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance” in 2000, but once he began running for president again, he pandered to the religious right by cozying up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* Pander to Iowans: McCain was anti-ethanol before the 2008 campaign. Once on the trail in Iowa, he became pro-ethanol.

* Pander to South Carolinians: McCain was against official promotion of the Confederate flag, but in 2000, hoping to curry favor with South Carolinians, pandered shamelessly on the issue, and later conceded that his position was one of “cowardice.”

“McCain refuses to pander”? Given his record, I think he refuses to stop pandering.

[Emphasis Added]

As the campaign season wears on, I’ve started to see a lot of similarities between the campaign of John McCain 2008 and John Kerry 2004.

I don’t mean to attack Kerry, but his campaign was poorly managed and his performance as a candidate was more than lackluster.  In this case, there are definite parallels between Kerry and McCain–two campaign with extremely high expectations, with early indicators that the candidates won’t live up to those expectations.

Kerry was seen as a passionateless and boring speaker, more suited to long-winded tirades in the Senate than rousing speeches on the stump; similarly, McCain is also a passionateless speaker who fails to rouse crowds of even his most ardent supporters.

Second, Kerry was portrayed a flip-flopper, which wasn’t helped by his often-confusing rhetoric. Similarly, McCain has changed his position on a number of issues or has taken positions contrary to the rest of his party–McCain’s tack to the right is a recent trend, and he still garners a significant amount of skepticism among the Republican faithful. Take this piece from the Wall Street Journal, reported on AMERICAblog:

But Sen. McCain still confronts a problem both in the remainder of the nomination race, and, if he wins, in the fall: He is simply loathed by many fellow Republicans, often for the very bipartisanship and maverick streak that attracts independents. His biggest, and perhaps final, test comes Tuesday, when 21 states hold contests — most of them open only to Republican voters.

“So it is over. Finished. In November, we’ll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate,” conservative author and talk-radio personality Michael Graham said on a conservative blog, reacting to Sen. McCain’s third primary victory, two days ago in Florida.

In addition—much like Kerry’s perceived boringness, hesitance and flip-flopping—McCain has a lot about him that’s going to cause problems down the road, like his short temper, his irreverence, and his vehement support for the Iraq war, the surge and George W. Bush.

Similarly, the Kerry campaign was strapped for cash and lagging in the polls not long before the 2004 primaries began—he won a surprise victory over Howard Dean to take first place in Iowa. Similarly, McCain won a surprise victory in New Hampshire—widely seen as Romney territory—while his campaign was completely broke:

By last November, John McCain’s presidential campaign was broke. To survive, he offered his fundraising lists as collateral for a $3 million line of credit from a local bank. But obtaining the loan required an unusual extra step: He had to take out a special life insurance policy in case he did not survive the campaign.

[…]

“We cut a lot of staff. We cut consultants. We cut it down to a bare-bones operation,” said Carla Eudy, a senior adviser to McCain. “We lowered our overhead drastically.”

[…]

According to a week-by-week analysis of contributions and spending, the campaign was $300,000 in debt by early June. Then it slowed its spending and nearly broke even over the summer. By November, the campaign was again in debt, and it continued to lose money until McCain began drawing on the loan that month. Tha