I agree completely with Harry on this. McCain is not only peddling wreckless foreign policy gaffes but also treads the disingenious line opposite the popular opinion for smart withdrawal of our troops.This just shows how clueless McCain is on foreign and national security to the point of being pitiful. Is this the best the GOP can offer?

The more damaging attack is to tell America's mothers and fathers that McCain doesn't think it is very important to bring your sons and daughters home.

McCain doesn't care about whether your kids are overseas in a war zone or not.

He doesn't think it's important if daddy is home for Christmas.

He doesn't think it's important how much of our precious resources we send over there, no matter how hard things are back home.

He doesn't care about you. That's the message.

Reapeat at will.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/gen-clark-mccain-is-untes_n_106457.html

Read Wes Clark, very valid points

If you are short on time, Clark said:

the shortcomings of Sen. John McCain.

"I know he's trying to get traction by seeking to play to what he thinks is his strong suit of national security," Clark said of McCain while speaking from his office in Little Rock, Arkansas. "The truth is that, in national security terms, he's largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff. It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is."

We should get popcorn! Because McShame is a walking gaff creator. Not only does he create gaffs right and left. But when you call him on a gaff, he explodes! Thus making for more theater.

McShame. The gift that keeps on giving!

♪♪♪

Biden just hit McCain on this also!

Let's put McCain's comment in some sort of context.Once we begin to define our terms, then McCAin's comments will be seen as less of a gaffe than as a difference in perspective. The terms most in need of defining are "what are we fighting?" Then we can turn to asking "What we're fighting for?"

Example: the question put to McCain would not have been even entertained, let alone asked, in the context of some of our previous wars. When are our troops coming home from Normandy? From Aquitaine? from Jerusalem? What is the context of troop withdrawal?

If we define our presence in Iraq as an occupation, the question becomes "should we be an occupying force?" Is this what the U.S. people want?

If our presence is a quagmire, then "when do we get out?" becomes a request for a timetable for withdrawal.

If Iraq is an intercession in a civil war, the question becomes, "what are the benchmarks for Iraqi independence, self-rule and self-policing?"

Let's put it to McCain to tell us what we a re fighting in Iraq.

What's the end goal in Iraq? What's "victory?" Who's "the enemy?" The Democrats and the media should have been jumping all over Bush every time he resorted to this vapor during the last five years. McSame deserves the same.