We all know how expensive gasoline is nowadays. There are several theories out there addressing what is causing the high gasoline prices, and different people have different theories. Meanwhile, Obama and McCain are sparring over who has a better energy plan. Obama's plan is no additional domestic drilling and invest all our resources on alternative energy sources. McCain's energy plan is to drill more domestically and also promote alternative energy sources. McCain used to oppose offshore drilling, but changed his position in light of the current perceived energy crisis. So liberals have accused him of flip flopping. Unlike Obama though, McCain's shift in position came from the realization that there is a different set of circumstances facing the American people nowadays. Energy plans that were sensible when gasoline was $2.00 per gallon may not exactly be sensible when the national average gas price exceeds $4.00 per gallon. Moreover, technological advances in offshore production methods have improved dramatically in the last ten years to the point that ecological concerns are negligible if not outright non-existant. Unlike Obama's flip-flop, McCain's change in position in offshore drilling was NOT a change in McCain's core value and belief system such as Obama's change about whether or not the 2nd Amendment provides individuals the right to bear arms. Or Obama's change about the public finance of election campaigns. But I digress, so going back to the energy issue, Obama's plan totally ignores the fact that 99.999% of Americans own gasoline powered vehicles. Are Americans supposed to ride bikes to work everyday? Walk? Will wind and/or solar energy power our cars?? Assuming (and that's a big assmption) that alternative energy cars totally independent of fossil fuels (unlike current hybrids in the market) are widely available within the next 3-5 years, the Obama Plan's sole focus on promoting alternative energy sources while totally ignoring fossil fuel production will force 99.999% of Americans to spend $30,000 or more on new electric or hydrogen powered cars. Most Americans don't have the money to be buying new cars, but Obama is totally ignorant of that fact. So Obama wants Americans to either buy new cars (assuming they are available) or pay $8, $9 or $10 per gallon for gasoline. Given Obama's rock star status, he might be one of the 500 celebrities that have access to purchase one of the 500 Honda hydrogen powered vehicles available in the U.S. And he can probably afford to pay $8 per gallon for gasoline too. Unfortunately, most Americans can't afford to pay $8 per gallon. And most Americans can't afford and don't even have the option to get a hydrogen powered car.

A year and a half ago, Obama was opposed to the surge of troops in Iraq when the Bush administration decided to add about 30,000+ troops to combat the mounting terrorists and insurgent attacks. Obama stated that the surge would not only fail, but that the surge would increase violence in Iraq. A year and a half later, the facts are undisputed that the violence in Iraq has decreased to the point that there are reports that some American soldiers in Iraq "itching" for action are complaining of boredom. Obama's current Iraq policy is to withdraw all American troops within 16 months. It's an artificial timetable that Obama actually opposed back in 2004 (which he conveniently forgot). However, as of today, this timetable is the backbone of Obama's current Iraq policy. The Iraqi government of Maliki was recently quoted as "supporting" Obama's timetable. And of course, the Obama campaign has utilized Maliki's statement as a "confirmation" of Obama's superbly thought out Iraq policy. Consider the irony of it all ...

If the surge had never been implemented, Obama's timetable of 16 months would have been moot, given that the war against terrorists and insurgents in Iraq would have been lost by now. If the surge had never been implemented, Maliqui's government would not be around to "support" any type of timetable for American troop withdrawal. It is even doubtful that Maliqui would be alive today if American troops were not still in Iraq. If the surge had failed as Obama predicted, Maliqui's government and Maliqui himself would not be around today. In fact, the only reason that Maliqui is even talking about American troop withdrawal from Iraq in recent days  is the very fact that the success of the surge has actually allowed Maliqui to feel secure about his position in Iraq. Maliqui's sense of security (whether real or perceived) is what allows Maliqui to talk about American troop withdrawal. The success of the surge is what provides the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. will be able to pull its troops out of Iraq -- whether in 12, 16, 24, or however many months. So the surge, which Obama was AGAINST and which McCain was for, and the success of the surge, have in a round-about way actually helped Obama's policy on Iraq. The very surge of troops Obama opposed has lent credibility to Obama's self proclaimed "foresight" about how it is perfectly feasible for the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq in 16 months. Of course prior to the conclusion that the surge has indeed succeeded in stabilizing Iraq from violence standpoint, Obama's intent/motivation to withdraw all troops within 16 months was based on his perception that the fight in Iraq was hopelessly lost. Now that the surge was succesful, Obama is spinning the facts to support his 16 month timeline for withdrawal on the basis that even Maliqui supports the 16 months timetable. Obama of course will never point out that Maliqui would not be around to support the 16 months timetable proposed by Obama IF Obama had had his way a year and a half ago, and there had never been a surge at all.

When Obama was asked today whether or not he would have supported the surge a year and a half ago, knowing everything that he knows today, Obama answered "no." Given that the success of the surge has actually lent his Iraq policy credibility, maybe one of his 300 campaign advisors ought to tell Obama that he should give credit where credit is due.