McCain's Iraq Fantasia

All the more reason why we as Democrats have to all get aboard the Obama train and not allow McCain to leave us in Iraq fighting this illegal war for another day.

Old Man McCain is losing it.

He lost it long ago, and is about to lose it again! Obama will defeat McCain worse than RayGun did to Mondale in 84!

Insane in the McCain!
McCain in the Brain!

Florida, he definitely lost it. He lost it the moment he started pandering to the neocons and the far-right of the GOP. Such comments, like his and I'm paraphrasing: we'll be in Iraq for the next 100 years; are simply his ploy to inherit Bush' mantle. Which says all I care to know about him.

Having been in the military and his own experience in Vietnam, one would think he'd have the sense to speak out on what's really necessary. Hell if he is the GOP candidate he could really push the dialogue towards a more centrist perspective, just by suggesting that it is important withdraw sooner rather than later.

But nope, he's stuck on the Bush station: all war, all the time, for as long as we need to be there.

It is curious that the as-good-as-crowned Republican nominee still feels a need to court the knee-jerkiest wingnuts in his party. There is genuine, intelligent discussion and debate that could be happening now between the left and the right about how to move forward. The "surrender" bogeyman just doesn't cut it. What next, the "Al Qaeda Domino Effect"?

I think you grossly overestimate McCain when you say he "knows better. He knows the complexities of the world, and the region."

This is the man who offered, off the record, his solution to Iraq as telling the leaders of the Sunnis and the Shi'ites to "cut the bullsh*t".

In any case, here's McCain on Monday:
The war for all intents and purposes [will be over], although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years, but it'll be handled by the Iraqis not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/25/700518.aspx

I genuinely believe the man doesn't know what he's talking about. He believes in "toughness". A blinkered, stupid and inflexible view of the world and it's problems. He's a dangerous man, worse than Bush, worse than Cheney, precisely because he believes his own nonsense.

YMM - exactly, you would think someone who had actually been in that war that we lost would know what a lost war looks like and would act accordingly, but then again he is a republican and not prone to acting with anything resembling rationality.

Tell us again about the Anbar Awakening, Chutzpah Joe. Tell us about the part where we pay the insurgents to stop shooting at us and give them guns. You are not a silly dreamer like John McCain. You are here to share the GOOD NEWS about the Iraq War.

You need to give McCain some chutzpah lessons, Chutzpah Joe. He needs to tell bigger lies so that he can keep the war going. Torture, unlimited wiretaps, and endless war. That's the McCain vision, and all it needs is bigger lies to sell it. You can help him, Chutzpah Joe. Our plutocracy needs you in this difficult time.

McCain's hyperbole and name calling is more like Joe Lieberman everyday.
I'm not sure that "sadness" is the proper reaction to someone who you go on to state is telling lies. Is that not what he "knows better" means?

And always remember when McCain says "my friends" duck.
An attack or an untruth is sure to follow.

"As McCain should know better than anyone, it is extremely dishonorable for politicians to play bloody-shirt games when the nation is at war."

Thanks for taking an honest stand, Joe.

But why aren't the entire news media and all your colleagues calling him on it?

Well said, Joe.

Are you therefore now calling for a responsible, carefully executed phased withdrawal of our forces and logistics to be completed (pending circumstances) by the end of next year?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188858/posts

Obama should just run a 30 second ad with this image starting next month--music to go with it?

"Ride of the Valkyries"

Perhaps they can even lead with some of the 2000 smears by Rove. Yes, a man of greatness.

Indeed. The UNITED STATES couldn't take over Iraq, let alone AQI. Once the US leaves, AQI will have no support (not that they have much now).

Good post, Mr. Klein. Thanks for the update.

Wow Joe Klein is making too much sense in this post. However, he is treading dangerously close to terrorist sympathizer land where the dirty internet hippies and 75% of the nation is, according to Saint Helen of McCain.

Thanks for being the first Swamplander to actually call out McCain on his delusions, by the way.

Echo all the comments. Didn't think you were capable of honest reporting that isn't age-biased (towards the old candidate). Way to go Joe!

My friends, my friends: It's hard to say which might happen first: Senator McCain will have to eat his words, and his candidacy, if horrific violence returns to Iraq; or get the boot as Lobbyist-Gate reveals more confirmations as to his duplicity; or simply croak from old age and the stress of campaigning.

I hope it's not the latter, as I'm looking forward to Senator Cool Cat Obama opening up a can of Whupass on the good but misguided Senator McCain during the general campaign.

One man's fantasia is another's honest answer. When McCain talks about surrendering Iraq to Al-Qaeda, he doesn't necessarily mean that Al-Qaeda will control the state. Terrorists don't need to control a state to recruit in it. You'll notice that even the Taliban didn't control all of Afghanistan before 9/11. They just had enough of it to provide a training ground for Bin Laden's suicide bombers.

What McCain meant, and what I believe you're missing, is that if Iraq becomes a "failed state", and we leave before the country becomes stable and resilient in the face of attacks, the country will become fertile ground for recruiters. Al-Qaeda will be able to recruit at mosques in Anbar like the Marines do in strip malls all across America. Make no mistake- pure numbers DO NOT translate into victory in Iraq. No matter how many Sheiks seem to hate Al-Qaeda at the moment, they can and will switch sides if it seems like the pendulum is swinging the other way. Anti-American terrorist groups, funded by Saudi and Iranian oil money(possibly not Iran, depending on what goes on in the Shi'ite struggle for power, they may decide not to arm the anti-American Sunni groups) from Hamas to Al-Qaeda to who-knows-what will probably be able to take on the Awakening councils (tainted with collaborationism in the wake of the American withdrawal- keep in mind Saddam wasn't that unpopular in Sunni Iraq. also, once we leave I highly doubt we're going to still pay the councils money to buy arms and ammunition) and at the very least create wide-spread disorder and chaos in Sunni lands. It is in that disorder and chaos, just as in Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out, just as in Lebanon after the Israelis pulled out, that skilled, experienced, and fanatical anti-American jihadists are born.

Even if a Shi'ite dictatorship is established (unlikely, far more likely if we pull out on Obama's or Hillary's schedule is a war between the Hakim and Sadr families that leaves neither in control and spreading chaos everywhere, practically inviting in Iran), they will not have full control of the Sunni territories. If you can imagine how much trouble American soldiers- disciplined, motivated, by and large respectful of Sunni customs, and possessing a huge technological edge- had before the Awakening gathered steam, multiply that by a thousand and you'll get the hell Shi'ite and Kurdish forces will have in the Sunni triangle.

Of course, in the news recently is Turkey's invasion of northern Iraq. All that's keeping them from rolling south to Kirkuk is the threat of US intervention(keep in mind, the only reason Kirkuk isn't part of Turkey is because Winston Churchill decided to keep all the oil with Iraq- a nation that basically consisted of lines in the sand. Many Turks consider Kirkuk and those oil fields to be rightfully Turkish territory). If the Kurds are overrun by Turkey once we leave, and a full-scale guerrilla war breaks out, then the two most pro-American, secular peoples in the Middle East will be at each other's throats, instead of cooperating against Islamic fundamentalists. In that war, if we fail to support either side, we automatically lose their support. We may even drive the Kurds, oppressed by the slightly more secular Turks, into the arms of Islamic fundamentalist preachers resulting in a new ethnic group that hates America and it's betrayal of Kurdistan.

Thus, for a variety of reasons, if we leave, Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorism. All sorts of groups will find refuge there, just as in Lebanon in the 80s. A generation of Iraqis will grow up knowing only that the US invaded, and then abandoned them. John McCain was right to declare that leaving Iraq would be a surrender to Al-Qaeda.

And another thing, when John McCain meant a hundred year presence in Iraq, he didn't mean a war. Keep in mind, it's been 63 years since WW2 ended, and we're still in Okinawa, Japan and in Ramstein, Germany. After the Philippines Insurrection (a response to blatant US imperialism when we annexed the Philippines, it was put down in 1902 after two years of horrific warfare) we stayed in the country till 1946 as rulers, and the military stayed in the country till a Volcano destroyed their installations in the 1980s. That's an 80-year presence in a foreign nation. That's the kind of presence McCain was referring to in Iraq. A few Air Force bases, a small Army installation positioned to protect the Southern oil fields from Iranian attack, and a Navy base off of Basra would discourage anyone from trying to topple the Iraqi government which will probably remain relatively weak for decades to come.

Thus, perhaps we ought to at least consider that McCain is being honest when he talks of victory and defeat in Iraq. Victory for him means a stable Iraq, not necessarily democratic, that will cooperate with the US in hunting down jihadists of all stripes. Defeat obviously means a chaotic environment ruled by someone who either can't or won't make an effort in hunting down anti-Western fundamentalists. Neither Obama nor Hillary explain just what they see happening during the American withdrawal. Do they see genocide? Do they see an Iranian invasion? Do they see a partition? How about we start asking tough questions of Obama and Hillary. It is now clear that the invasion was, as Obama says, a strategic boondoggle of the highest order. But, would withdrawing from the country, giving no thought to just what will happen once our brave men and women desperately fighting to maintain order are gone be an even worse error? McCain's answer, for good or ill, has never wavered- never call retreat, and hold to the last man. Hillary's answer? Obama's answer? Get out. But then what? Have they even given it any thought, or are they going to be as irresponsible as Bush, getting out without any thought about the aftermath? Time to ask questions.

Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ. Thanks for finally coming out with "it is extremely dishonorable for politicians to play bloody-shirt games when the nation is at war" after we've had bloody shirts shoved down our throats for six fracking years.

I mean, I suppose I'll second all the commenters praising Joe for finally coming around, but it could have come four thousand dead Americans, a million dead Iraqis and a trillion dollars ago.

Japan and Germany you say Mr. GOP?

How about 700 bases in total around the world?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

But hey, as long as you're cool being an empire and letting whatever taxes you might pay go into the coffers of the MIC, expelling our treasure and blood for an elite, well, sheeot, by all means, keep it up brother. Fill up the SUV, turn on your reality TV and "never surrender" buddy.

Do tell us, Joe, what did McCain "learn" from his experiences in Vietnam?

That war is hell? Oh, but it's a hell that makes a hero out of you, so it's more good than bad. That we should take care not to drain ourselves on pointless insurgency quagmires? Hardly; McCain ascribes to the Vietnam dolchstosslegende. He's as convinced as Kristol and Rush that if only we'd stuck it out and not listened to Jane Fonda, we'd have won Southeast Asia in another Friedman or two.

His reputation as a maverick is based, in part, on the fact that whereas Republicans support military actions by GOP presidents, and decry those by Democratic presidents as "Democrat wars" or "wagging the dog", Saint McCain has never met a war he didn't like. War is always the first solution, the right solution, the solution that keeps on giving. It's not that idiot wars have been tried and found wanting, it's always that they haven't been tried often enough or long enough.

He is honest in the sense that he loves war, not because it's ideologically correct on the Right, but for its own sake.

Thus, to his everlasting credit, he didn't swallow the right wing's POW conspiracy theory garbage. But otherwise, he's never departed from the motto "Dulce et decorum est pro patria bloodyshirtum wavi."

Al Kunta, er, Queda was in Iraq BEFORE we invaded in 2003.

That's a FACT.

That re-writers Obama, Time, and the rest of the loon left fail to acknowledge that fact?

Not shocking.

These are the dregs of the Blame America 1st stalwarts, hell bent on losing Iraq on the mighty shores of the Soggy Bottom metro stop, not unlike their heroes of the sick 60's did from M Street and Dewey Canyon XIII.

The career Kos Klowns may buy the same old Kerry-esque isolationist pandering Deaniac crapola.

That's no reason that actual Americans should.

So John McCain is running on two issues: 1. His foreign policy judgement and 2. the fact that he is Straight Talking John McCain.

Now on issue one, we learn that John McCain is either lying or clueless. What does that say about issue number two, in that case?

I have a couple million Brooklyn Bridges (the original! not copies!) to sell the media & the 19% who believe St John is being honest & "serious".

"How about we start asking tough questions of Obama and Hillary."

Indeed.

The more I read from Klein, the more I'm convinced we're doing EXACTLY the right thing by helping Iraq.

As McCain should know better than anyone, it is extremely dishonorable for politicians to play bloody-shirt games when the nation is at war.

I forgive you for giving McCain that much credit.
But I know that he's counting on the ignorance of his potential voters and his freindships within the press corps to sheild him from the accusation that he's a shameless liar.

Quoting Wikipedia:

Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to the Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in October 2004

This clearly states that AQI didn't exist until 19 months AFTER the invasion.

Recent reports (appearing here) put the current membership of the group at less than 3000.

I'm delighted that you are willing to call BS on such things and I hope that you will continue to provide sufficient background so that people will be able to detect when their chains are being yanked.

Logged in to say great post, although I'd debate McCain being very knowledgeable on the region and current state of affairs in Iraq, especially considering that his information seems to come from from White House/neocon cronies and the MSM.

Good for you, Mr. Klein. Pointing out that John Sidney McCain is full of bullsh!t. You're the first on Swampland to do so.

The sadness here is that McCain knows better.

For you sadness, for me, outrage. Knows better, huh? That makes him a cynical, soulless bastard trading in the blood of our finest men and women for his own political gain. Don't forget that.

The sadness here is that McCain knows better. He knows the complexities of the world, and the region.

Since when?

He said that invading Iraq would be a walk in the park and we would be greeted as liberators, but that wasn't true. He said always said that victory is just around the corner and his homerism has constantly contradicted David Petraeus, who is himself an optimist. He said that al Qaeda was working with Saddam Hussein, but that was just a lie. John McCain has not been right about the Middle East for the past ten years.

There was another Republican candidate that Joe Klein SWORE was just pandering to conservatives but was really a moderate at heart. The name of the man he claimed to secretly know better than anyone?

George W. Bush.

John McCain has been running on a campaign of not being able to tell "those Arabs" apart. He supports both the current surge plan of arming Sunni militas and his plan of disarming Sunni militas. What "complexity!"

Pops McCain needs to call it quits and head to the retirement home. He's just an old Bush clone who sputters on about "surrender" and "good versus evil." It's good to see all that time in the Washington has informed your world view, Senator.

Joke knows that McCain knows better because Pete Hoekstra told him so!

SouthParkRepublican, you talk about hard questions, so I'll ask you one: Why haven't you enlisted? Here's another one: Can a nation, whose populace is no longer willing to fight the wars it's leaders start, win those wars? How many tours are you willing to watch these men and women serve before you, and I assume the millions of Republicans who feel the same as you, start stepping forward?

Obviously, we'll have a clear enough choice:

- Obama's pandering populism and head-in-the-sand socialist sycophancy that only a Putinholic could love.

+ McCain's foreign policy based on experience, reality, and our collective futures, and those of our children.

We tried the Feel Good 90's approach to terror containment.

We got 9-11 as a DIRECT result (where DOD spending was the lowest % of GDP in 40 YEARS during the storied Clixon administration).

But if you want another Rwanda, or Somalia, or Sudan, or Zimbabwe in Iraq?

Then by all means, vote Obama.

PS: The Surge IS working. Even old Sargent Smurfa (D - IR) has admitted THAT fact.

If the Iraq surge was designed to get more Americans killed in 2007 than any other year, then the surge is working.

If you want someone who can't tell "those Arabs" apart, John McCain is your man.

SouthParkRepublican:

Congratulations on not mentioning the word OIL once in your long, smooth rationalization for maintaining "stability" in Iraq. It is the stability that allows us to suck the oil out of that country that we seek. Your conspicuous dishonesty in this matter is characteristic of the politicians you support.

SouthParkRepublican probably wants to insure that a Democrat would never be elected again by having them get elected and then break their promise to get the hell out of there and let those people have their country back.

QUESTION HILLARY, you are like, Hillarious, man!

What is it about rabid Republicans that insists all discussions must begin, middle and end with grade-school name calling?

QUESTION...DEMAGOGUERY.

QUESTION...ROVIAN DIRTY TRICKS.

QUESTION beating the crap out of a sovereign nation for eight years, sundering the Constitution in the process, then going on rants ...oh heck, why bother.

Joe, would you please go down the hall and have a serious conversation with Jay Newton-Small about John Lewis and who he is and why he's deserving of respect and not the twerpy smart-ass ridicule she just dumped on him here?

Please?

QH:

What does DoD spending as a percentage of GDP have to do with the rising threat of international terrorism? Isn't the whole point of terrorism the pursuit of political goals by murder, sabotage and subsequent terror? What does spending more or less on the development of Ohio-class subs or F-22A's have to do with deterring terrorism?

You're not really suggesting that 9/11 happened because we downscaled from detente-era superpower duopoly containment force architecture, right? That would mean you know absolutely nothing about military procurement, with which you have indicated previously a familiarity.

That was just hyperbole, right?

Joe, good points, but you are missing the larger point here:

Despite what McCain says about never surrendering to Al Qaeda, he can be accurately deemed a surrender monkey on Al Qaeda.

John McCain tacitly condoned the strategy of surrendering in Tora Bora when we had Bin Laden cornered. He and Bush should have supported the troops and let them do their jobs instead of outsourcing the job to a a bunch of rag tag weekend warrior Afghanis.

He supported leaving Afghanistan to go chase windmill WMD's of a country whose dictator hated Bin Laden and was keeping the far worse Iran in check.

He thinks that if we have Bin Laden in our sites and Musharraf is hedging that we should send Musharraf flowers and ask, "Pretty , please, can we go after the guy who killed 3000 Americans?" We sent in a drone recently to get the number 3 Al Qaeda guy without Musharraf's permission. With foreign policy views like that, let me tell you, it ain't going to be Sanford or Pawlenty on the ticket....I think it's going to be Jane Fonda.

We should honor John Mccain's prior service and give him the benefits of the doubt that he may possibly believe his odd priorities are good for America.

But let there be no mistake. John McCain's policies give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda.

QH,

When the Bush folks came in in early 2001, they decided to reject Richard Clarke's advice that Al Qaeda was a big deal and decided that they were going to focus instead on missle defense.

In August 2001, Bush took the longest vacation in presidential history despite intelligence saying that Al Qaeda was planning an attack.

Bottom line, the Bush people's changing the focus from anti-terrorism to missle defense in early 2001 might have contributed to 9/11 not being prevented.

...and one more thing, Joe:

The sadness here is that McCain knows better.

What indicates to you that McCain does know better?

What has this man ever said publicly that would confirm your (sad) hypothesis that he's simply pandering to people in his party more comfortable with familiar delusions?

What knowledge has Senator McCain ever displayed about the region or this conflict that has jumped out at you and said "I'd better trust him on this one..."?

Why would you say with any confidence at all that the Senator "knows better" about which way is up in that part of the world right now? Did his Baghdad market trip convince you that he really knows what's going on?

This isn't a sock at you, Joe. I'd really like to know why it is that you think that McCain "knows better" than to say that, if we leave, Al-Qaeda will then "take over Iraq"? Isn't it possible or even likely that he really believes this stuff?

"Obama counterpunches elegantly."

Damn straight he did. Obama is not at all intimidated by McCain and it's refreshing to see. Makes me anxious to move out of the primary phase and into the general so that we can get on with the real debate in earnest. Did you hear me Hillary?

I brutally murdered my entire family, then sodomized the dog in the front yard.

But I knew better.

Hey, I know that works in court, too.

Sheesh. Will the fawning never end?

You would think that a group who abandoned the real war on terror, letting the perpetrators get away, and then on false pretenses attacked a country that had no relation to 9/11, would gain a tiny bit of humility over the course of the unfolding disaster. But not our Republicans, and certainly not John McCain. No they still pretend they are the experts. They wrap themselves in the flag and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being traitors to America or terrorist sympathizers. To cement their place in history as the most vain dunderheads to ever grace the stage, they still refuse to compromise, even 1 tiny inch, and McCain is the most demonic in the refusal.

John McCain is either way in over his head or he is the one who really hates America. He thinks it is a good idea for America to have their hands tied behind their back when it comes to Iraq. He prefers to negotiate from a position of weakness, rather than a position of strength, and he is more than willing to sacrifice blood and treasure in the standoff. I really don't know why he is considered an expert in foreign affairs other than the fact that he has anointed himself that designation and I have no idea why he is still considered a moderate when he refuses to negotiate.

A surge is not a surge until it's over. Until then, it's an escalation.

McCain prodded Bush to escalate this war in order to save face. After a year of escalation he admits that we can't leave without losing Iraq.

Nor can we sustain the escalation with our present military strength.

Which means McCain either has to call for a draft or admit that his escalation failed.

If you really want to be useful, Joe, you might point that out before McCain's electoral strategy pays off and we're saddled with more unnecessary casualties.

The sadness here is that I think you already know that.

Mr. Klein leaves us with two choices: 1) John McCain is a pandering liar or 2) John McCain has no idea what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Given the complexities of the issue, and Mr. McCain's past statements on Iraq, the latter would certainly seem to be the most likely. Therefore, it's interesting that Mr. Klein assumes the former is true.

Of course, we can't rule out that both are true.

No, Joe, the sadness is that this 25 year Senator, who should know a great deal about what is on the ground DOESN'T HAVE A FRICKIN' CLUE.

He's got sound bites.

And he's got press suckup capability.

But he is not, and never has been, a substantive player in the foreign policy realm. He's no Lugar, no Hagel. (Sticking to Republicans.)

He's a frickin' hack, and because he gives you stupid people access, he gets lauded. It's appalling.

But it is how it works.

he's a shameless liar.

Yeah. Say it Paul.

It's unfrickin' believable that they keep giving this guy a pass.

One reason I'm happy about Obama's progress is that he is not gonna cede national security and "patriotism" ground to this frickin' lying sack of horse pucky.

Tim Russert, yes, but that's a different problem.

Admiral Obama will most certainly lead us to victory in Pakistan and Detroit, based on his keen understanding of military science...

1. Thinks Pensacola probably tastes a lot like Pepsi, only with half the calories.

2. Overheard recent House armed services committee discussion about Fort Lewis, immediately started humming "Heart of Rock & Roll".

3. During first eight months of initial Senate term he kept referring to DOD HQ as the "Pentangle".

4. Still can't find Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, or Pakistan on John Kerry's waterproofed map of Greater Cambodia.

5. Thinks a flag officer is an elevated school crossing guard in select East Coast suburbs.

6. Saw war hero John McCain on CNN talking from the Fort Bragg O-Club, automatically assumed chat location had something to do with Oprah.

7. General Powell asked him to visit the Gitmo BX some time. He said "Great, I love those cool California dirt bikes."

8. Demands our troops withdraw now from Philadelphia, NOLA, and Compton, since the civil wars there are most certainly lost, and those people really don't want us there anyway.

9. Never visited Pearl Harbor while in Hawaii, since he already owned enough Miki Moto and Maui Wowee.

10. Thinks Hitler, Stalin, Ho, and Castro were just misunderstood, and a lot of sensitive smiling would have made things all better at Yalta, Hanoi, Buchenwald, and the Bay of Pigs.

11. Whenever he's scheduled to meet someone about the 1st Cav, brings a tooth brush and a tube of Crest.

12. Told in no uncertain terms by Joe Biden that "NTC" stands for Nightly Talent Club. Believed it. Later blamed the evil Reagan years.

13. Convinced the Apollo space mission was named after a theater in Harlem, and has half a moon walk to prove it.

14. Believes the venerable Old Guard is comprised of Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez, and Jane Fonda, plus Ted Kennedy's liver.

15. Just another half-baked, half-imported also-ran at the 2008 Senate Democrat Party Spelin Bee.

I wish his Lordship, Klein of the ThirtyEightYearsOfExperience, would deign to read the rantings of plebs. The more I think about it, McCain has never once, to my memory, said anything that suggests that he "understands the complexities of the region" and the Iraq War. He talks about "the enemy", with no indication he comprehends the factions and tribes and conflicts among the Iraqi people; his relentless calls for "victory", never defined, suggests he thinks Iraq is like Vichy France, we just have to drive the occupiers out.

I suspect would embrace driving the foreigners out of Iraq as a strategy for "victory" with no trace of irony.

The NYT included this paragraph in their story:

An insurgent group operating in Iraq, called Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, is actually a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign led. The extent of its links to Osama bin Laden’s network is not clear. Some leaders of the group have sworn allegiance to Mr. bin Laden, but the precise links and extent of affiliation are unknown, and it was created after the American invasion.

Now if only we could get them to lead with THAT paragraph the next one would write itself as in "John McCain used potential supporters ignorance over this basic fact in order to level a baseless charge against Barack Obama, thus opening himself to charges of either stupidity or dishonesty or both."

The never-ending Iraq debacle, in which the U.S. launched an unprovoked military invasion on the basis of baldfaced WMD whoppers, and has resulted in 30,000+ U.S. troop casualties, including nearly 3900 deaths, together with the displacement of countless thousands of refugees, was one of the biggest boneheaded strategic blunders in U.S. history and the shameful legacy of torture, a worldwide gulag and extraordinary rendition has squandered/destroyed America's hard-earned reputation.

It is utterly sickening that Senator McCain would continue to lie and lie and lie about it.

I am impressed that Mr. Klein-Hoekstra has finally somewhat abandoned his fluffing role of Senator McCain. I would be more impressed if Klein-Hoekstra actually called for an end to the war and if he didn't feel the need to to include the blather about Senator McCain knowing better, Which he doesn't.

Well, when President Obama is President he will get us out of Iraq and then open up dialogue with al-quida and then there can finally be peace when he helps them see the hope that there is in a future without George Bush.

Watching Obama hammer McCain and the Republicans on their various foreign policy strawmen is going to be glorious to behold.

I also bet Obama is going to do the same thing to this flag pin/patriotism BS that he did to the false hopes/reality check meme from the Clintons. Inspiration for another great history lesson delivered via a speech. I can't wait to hear it :).

I'm so exited.

p.s. Hillary, please, just go away.

T4T!!

CAMPAIGN SLOGANS 2008, UPDATE # 14:

We'll re-visit Wilsonian diplomatic successes Nepal, Tibet, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Santa Fe, and Philadelphia, after these latest leftist mis-calculations and blatant over-reaching in the meddling media voter marketplace...

= All We Are Saying, Give Genocide A Chance

= Slaves At Last, Slaves At Last, Thank Allah Almighty, Slaves At Last

= The Whole World IS Yawning, The Whole World IS Yawning

= We Have Nothing To Fear But Icky War (But Not So Much Rape Rooms, Or Gas Chambers, Or Kiddie Jails, Or Wood Chippers, Or Testicle Tongs, Or Dutch Ships) Itself

= Ask Not What You Can Do For Your Country, Ask What You Can Do To Sit And Wait On Your Hands And Watch Iraq (and Darfur, and Kosovo, and Lebanon, and Japan, and Memphis, and Nashville, and Watts) Burn Again

= Can't We All Just Tag Along To The Next Mass Murder?

= Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Some Real Estate Inside The Loop Just South Of The New White Sox Stadium

= Unilateral Surrender IS Hell

= Party On, Quiet Riot Doofus!

Wow, this is one strange group of comments. I'm with Stuart but don't understand the T4T.
Why McCain would think AQI could actually do anything besides kill people almost randomly in Iraq is beyond me as well. Has anybody put forth a scenario that would have AQI actually running Iraq?

Very good post, Joe. This is important stuff; please keep it up.

For the record, I agree with Jim, Foolish Literalist, who wrote: "I genuinely believe the man doesn't know what he's talking about. He believes in 'toughness.' A blinkered, stupid and inflexible view of the world" and its problems. All problems are to be solved by invading places.

I'm with Stuart but don't understand the T4T

Sorry, jose.

That "T4T" is an admonishment to the "StewieZ"/"DoubleUnderscore"/"Time4Tolerance" troll to knock it off or get banned again.

Stu,
T4T was banned? Didn't I see a comment by him yesterday?
And what makes you think that he is the same as StewieZ? I recall that T4T was a Hillary supporter.

QUESTION HILLARY writes "+ McCain's foreign policy based on experience, reality, and our collective futures, and those of our children."

LMAO! McWar is a FOOL:

"My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes"

SZ!!

This article really has no need for comment. Time while writing in the editors page says the media should report on both sides equally. However, this must not apply to Mr. Klein. From the comment so far on this site, it appears to be full of text typing people who are also the ones who do it while driving. I don't see any clear statements while show any knowledge of the subject other than repeating the line of Klein. About the level of The Family Guy. I do know most of the writers must be from the east or west coast, high in debt, paid for education by parents and never got their hand dirty working. I would invite Mr. Klein to my area for a week to talk to how things are here.

Malcolm:

I recall that T4T was a Hillary supporter.

No, no.

T4T isn't actually a Hillary supporter at all--hence my disclaimer:

"For those who do not know:
"Time4Tolerance" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement
conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager
entertainment's sake."

T4T has no problem being an Obama supporter, if that's what gets the troll-point that liberals are idiots across.

Also, the post above

stuart_zechman:

SZ!!

Posted by stuart_zechman | February 28, 2008 3:33 AM

...isn't from me.

It's because this poorly designed registration system allows users to have unique user names (the name with which you sign in), but still have the same display name as somebody else.

Right now I'm logged in under a new username called "HowToSpoof", but, as you can see, my display name is still stuart_zechman.

What's even worse is that I can always change my display name by clicking on the hyperlink embedded in that name that appears above the "Post a Comment" text box. That probably means that I can change my display name to "Malcom", and then post, if I want to.

Let's see if I'm right about that...

"The sadness here is that McCain knows better. "
He told Joe about it while they were sharing their morning croissant.

Malcolm:

Hey, this is actually stuart_zechman here, logged into a different profile called "HowToSpoof2".

OK, the designers did think of stopping us from changing our display name to another user's display name, so I can't change my new user "HowToSpoof" to use your display name, which is good.

The problem is only as I described it above.

The reason why I can use your handle "Malcom" is because I'm now logged in as "HowToSpoof2", an account whose user name is "HowToSpoof2, and whose display name is "Malcom".

This is obviously a bad system.

Stu,
I still don't see the post under the display name "Malcom." (Did you intentionally misspell my name or are you one of the legions of people who don't know how the name is correctly spelled?)

BTW, someone did this to me a few weeks ago, and posted under my name an offensive comment on a different TIME blog.

We must've cross posted, as I didn't see your last one when I posted.

I suppose you've singled me out b/c you figured out that I was the "stuart_zechman" who wrote "SZ!!" I was just pointing out that the double underscores weren't even necessary.

stuart_zechman here again:

Malcolm:

the double underscores weren't even necessary

You're totally correct, of course.

...and I was wrong.

Sorry, stuart_zechman here again.

The designers did fail to stop users from changing their display names to another user's.

I had thought that the "edit profile" interface was catching that invalid value, but it was actually another design flaw that stopped me: the stupid automatic reset of the "Password recovery" field.

I'm telling you, I never design and build systems this poorly. I honestly can't believe that Time-Warner or Time.com or whatever entity this is would pay money for this. They've been bilked, big time. My little firm wouldn't be caught dead doing this to a client. A customer like Time.com you would expect to have a better handle on what product they're getting for their money.

Don't laugh!

There.

you figured out that I was the "stuart_zechman" who wrote "SZ!!"

Malcolm:
Thanks for confirming this, and putting my mind at ease!

I wish I knew what you guys were talking about. I am StewieZ. Who the heck are you guys to tell me who and who I am not? I am merely a guy caught up in the excitement of the new day that dawns for all of us Americans tomorrow with President Obama.

Who are you and who is the Time 4 Tolerance? I saw a post of his or hers and that person appears to be a Hillary supporter which I am most certainly not.

If it makes you better to call a new guy in your so called "community" names or whatever, all it does it demonstrate your insular ignorance, which sadly degrades what appears to be good comments that you guys make that I agree with for the most part as a fellow Democrat.

So, in closing, whatever the hell ever.

Love,
StewieZ

Man, I must have put too much kahlua in my morning joe--my head is spinning here! Who are you people--I thought I knew you. I experienced greater feelings of clarity watching W. this a.m. while eating my granola.

It's "sad" because the press is in love with Big Daddy McCain. If this were Clinton the reaction would be "manipulative, cynical, pandering" etc. When it's McCain, we're just a bit sad; but not to worry, all will be forgiven by November!

I am making a suggestion to all readers. Before you post your personal comment. Please do not use your political parties talking points for the day. They are usually wrong or greatly distorted. As almost a 27 year veteran of the U.S. Army and still counting. I find it very unpatriotic to hear the many views that people have of what is going on in the gwot. I have served 4 tours in Iraq a total of 30 months. In no way do I support the war. Never have and never will. My current job is to train soldiers who are going into the fight. I dare someone to tell me that I do not support the troops.So before you post your comments do the hard work of checking the facts. You will find out that the people who give you your talking points are just feeding red meet to their political base.

SOLDIER4LIFE:

Whatever your political opinions or opinions regarding the war are, your service to our nation is greatly honored and appreciated by the vast majority of us, your fellow Americans.

Thank you; please let me express my profound gratitude to you for this service.

Soldier, while I appreciate the work that you do I feel sorry for you and the fact that you were forced to contribute to an illegal war that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, so I do not personally blame you, but I blame the Republicans who put you there. I support you by wanting you to come home and defend us from attacks from others and not to be used as a pawn for big oil or halliburton. When President Obama is your CINC he will treat you with the dignity and the respect you deserve and we work tirelessly to make sure that McCain is not your CINC and you spend the next 100 years in Iraq doing things you cannot support doing.

Support us in supporting you by climbing on the Obama Train to DC. Thank you!

Klein writes, “…McCain knows better. He knows the complexities of the world, and the region.”

Not unless he was lying to a national audience at the Republican Convention in 2004, where he said:

“The awful events of September 11, 2001 declared a war we were vaguely aware of, but hadn’t really comprehended how near the threat was, and how terrible were the plans of our enemies.” —JOHN MCCAIN

“No American alive today will ever forget what happened on the morning of September 11th. That day was the moment when the pendulum of history swung toward a new era. The opening chapter was tinged with great sadness and uncertainty. It shook us from our complacency in the belief that the Cold War’s end had ushered in a time of global tranquility.” —JOHN MCCAIN

Right in the footsteps of George Bush, who says he thought we were protected by oceans, until he found out differently on 9/11.

Ron Schalow; author of BS Artist

The bottom line on this disingenuous and mendacious conduct by Senator McCain is:

"The sadness here is that McCain knows better. He knows the complexities of the world, and the region. But I suspect he's overplaying his Iraq hand in order to win favor with the wingnuts in his party."

This is overplaying his hand?! This is the first salvo in a campaign against Obama in which the Republicans appear determined to make Hillary Clinton's "kitchen sink" look like a brief episode of bean bag. And McCain, despite an occasional hypocritical pass at looking honorable, is leading the charge. It's about time for American journalism to quit the charade of debating whether they have been too hard on Hillary Clinton and to start calling the Rove playbook of vicious and mendacious smear, fear, queer, win at any cost tactics just what they are -- UnAmerican, unpatriotic, sinister, malignant and despicable.