Okay, honestly? That's a pretty good comeback. Total horseshit, policywise, but as comebacks go, pretty solid.

McCain cowered on Bush's torture program.

He kisses up to the same fundamentalists that raked him over the coals in 2000.

The man has no integrity.

Anyone notice how his press release here quibbles with an extra "c" but completely fails to address the actual point Obama raised about the heavily armored market stroll in Baghdad?

Agreed. Flack is the word, not flak. The Senator from HotTemperLand reacts by rote. It is time to call McCain's credibility into question. This guy sucked up to the Decider and is first and foremost a political opportunist. Barack should not back off.

thanks (I think)...if anyone'll bring it out, it's mccain...

If Obama comes back with a statement saying that "flack" is right because that's all McCain is, I promise to vote for him for everything forever.

By the way, Senator McCain, 'flack' is a variant spelling of 'flak'.

American Heritage dictionary.

McCain should know all about being a "flak."

Is McCain referring to the same military leaders who told him it was safe to take a stroll in that Baghdad market unaccompanied by ground and air support, or is he just making stuff up yet again?

Add Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania house district 8) to the list of Iraq War Vets who voted AGAINST the capitulation bill. I'm very proud to be from his district and to have worked so hard to get him elected by just 1,500 votes.

PEACE

I know Edwards means well, but ultimately, I think he is doing more harm then good--long term. We are at a point where Dems can change the military vote for at least a generation but not with a presidential candidate from among our current "top tier". Richardson perhaps. But definitely with Wes Clark. Clark would also be the best to start making inroads in the south.

Yeah, I'm a little biased.

Reminds me of McCain's recent appearance on the Daily Show where he constantly interrupted Jon Stewart to tell him "you're entitled to your opinion, but I have the facts because I talk to soldiers all the time."

Here's a hint, Senator -- if the "facts" you hear prove that you're right and reality proves that you're wrong, maybe it's because the only people who talk to you are the ones that agree with you.

It's actually a relatively poor comback on the Senator's part. This phrase "my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed…" says it all.

Look, as a former US Army officer with five years of active Vietnam era experience and ten additional years in the active reserve components, I do not understand why McCain always gets a pass, effectively annointed as a war hero. I will grant you that he suffered greatly as a prisoner of war, though his present behavior suggests he has forgotten the importance of the laws of military warfare. Let's put his confinement aside for a moment, and consider the roll he played in Vietnam.

McCain was a Naval aviator, flying sorties from a carrier. Despite the danger posed by surface-to-air missiles, McCain was largely an 'observer' of the war from his standoff position on the seas and in the air, as contrasted with the role played by most members of the Army and Marine Corps, who were actively engaged on the ground. It's time to stop pretending that the Navy and Air Force, save their special operations personnel, are engaged to the same degree as ground troops are. And, it is this critical disconnect that leads officers of these branches to devalue the role played by combatant ground commanders, their staffs and the members of their maneuver elements, and to make such egregious but common claims that air and naval power alone can contain and defeat an enemy.

While each branch has its role and its missions, air and naval forces are roughly the equivalent of Army support personnel. Engagements are won and lost primarily on the ground by combat and combat support elements, not by the service support and other elements critical to sustaining an engagement.

Senator McCain harbors a deep and unexpressed disdain for ground force components, as do many—if not most—officers of the Air Force and Navy. It is ridiculous to conflate his 'service' with that of combatants on the ground, and tiresome to see him express his support for ground combatant commanders. He has a made a career of disregarding the critical role played on the ground, and has demonstrated respect only for General Petraeus because he, like the President to whom he now so often yields, agrees with the approach recommended by Petraeus.

Equally tiresome is the endless trotting out of this linkage: "…because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security" with our engagement in Iraq. This effort in Iraq is doomed to fail and was so doomed by those who have either never served, or served in a standoff role, unexposed largely to the dangers or the deleterious affects of combat. Senator McCain speaks with no greater authority in these matters than does Mayor Giuliani, Governor Romney, Senators Clinton and Obama, or President Bush. It's time to stop giving this tired old self-proclaimed 'war horse' a pass each time he makes one of these ridiculous statements.

We will pay a horrible, long-term price for this disaster we call the Iraq war, but the sooner we disengage from the occupation of Iraq, the smaller that price will be. Each effort to extend our engagement is another step toward failure.

Well, at least it's only a matter of time before McCain blows his top and calls Obama an uppity n-word while the tape is running.

(And this isn't the first time that McCain has tried to slap Obama down and show him his place.)

I think Obama and other people on the left are facing a losing battle by implying that the GOP doesn't "support the troops" because they support bad policy.

Are you talking truth or consequences?

Killing people is not generally considered support in my world.

I guess in the parallel universe of Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, it is different.

Which universe do you occupy?

I think Democrats are making a terrible mistake by allowing themselves to be used by the sunshine patriots.

Are the voters intelligent enough to understand the difference?

I don't know.

I only care that those I vote for do the right thing.

"Obama and other people on the left" haven't covered themselves with glory exactly.

Edwards and other liberals have in my view.

Best, Terry

You make a very valid point in referring to what is really going on (on the ground) in Iraq, it's what is desperatly lacking from the entire conversation. I think that the total disconnect that all of us here in America have with what's really going on there is what needs to be seen, otherwise none of us can really have a coherent conversation about what to do next.

Washington theatrics will always be there, it's about the only thing that our politicians actually do besides fundraising. But if there is going to be a conversation, better yet a debate, about this ongoing tragedy then we need to be aware of the facts. I do not give these guys quite enough credit to acknowledge that they are doing an intentional misdirect I think that they very likely know about as much as us. And for those who spend time online doing a little digging, they know less.

**And Mr. McCain you can save your "I was a soldier so I stay in touch", you're full of it. It sounds disturbingly similar to the obvious racist who says "I have black friends".**

While I have never served in any branch of the military, and have no intention of doing so, I do value the service of people who do. In response to your statement that Air Force and Navy personnel are not as "involved", I was under the impression that in Vietnam, the Air Force had a much higher mortality rate than those in the Army. Otherwise, in opposition to McCain getting a pass on national security as a result of his service, I think that it is tragic, and I agree with you completely

Obama doesn't want to be seen as a weak-kneed liberal. As unfair as that perception is, it's the truth. I've been talking just to personal acquaintances about Iraq for the duration of the war. When one broaches the subject of how bad conditions really are, people typically respond by entrenching themselves in some irrational position such as "but we need to fight them there..." et al.

Spell checking is a good comeback? The appeal to oneself as an authority and ad hominem attacks to dodge the issues is a good comeback?

Maybe for children. Maybe if your only option is to yell insults at your tormentors.

For an adult McCain looks like a weenie who can't take the heat without flipping out and regressing to childlike retorts.

As bad as Bush is, McCain certainly was the superior Republican candidate for 2000. But the more I see of McCain the more I see he's a hot head with some screws loose.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about McCain being a flack for the war. Now I have to wonder if the Obama campaign used the spelling deliberately. Regardless, for either meaning, the spelling is interchangeable even by military personnel.

Regardless, spell checking is always a desperate weenie response and just shows what a hot-head anger problem McCain has.

Not only does Websters, but American Heritage, and the OED recognize spelling variations of flak (the germanized term) & flack (the anglicized term).... however, there are more important issues:

McCain has been given a pass on military matters for decades as a result of his POW experience in Vietnam. To be brutally honest, that experience doesn't qualify him to speak to anything beyond that experience, i.e., POW torture. Simply because a lifeguard at the local swimming pool rescued a drowning swimmer does not qualify that lifeguard to some claim that he/she is a board certified medical doctor.

If you are looking for military expertise, you don't ask John McCain who's military experience is pretty much limited to a Vietnamese prison of war camp. You do ask someone like Senator Webb who actually knows of what they speak. You ask the generals who have been on the ground in Iraq.

Frankly, I doubt McCain doesn't know there are two variant spellings of flak/flack. Rather, his response sounds more like a bitter, petty old man who hasn't quite dealt with the realities of Vietnam much less Iraq and wants to strike out at anyone who is less messed-up. I guess, we should feel sorry for him. I don't because he is advocating a path of distruction for this nation.

And it's not even an abbreviation:

Flaktürme

Flack or Flak tower.

I'm not so sure that the scenario you describe will come to pass but the essence of what you say is true.

I've had several conversation in recent weeks about these upcoming elections and the unique situation we find ourselves in (no incumbents so it's a free-for-all). And during that conversation we noticed that a mere 15 or so years ago the very idea of a woman or an African-American running for president was simply preposterous. It was not even worth discussing and was not thought to be something that would occur in our lifetimes. It was a non-starter.

And look at us now. It's one of the few promising things that I can say has occurred in this country in my lifetime. It gives me hope that we can, as a nation, move forward. Even if it's only in baby steps. I only wish we weren't in such dire straights when it happened.