Great job guys.

McCain is currently speaking before a GI Hall in Denver and ignoring anything that happened before the surge. He's basically accusing Obama of being a traitor who hates the military (that's not hyperbole):

http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/good-to-see-john-mccain-ignore-critics/

Outstanding work, Greg.

Including the Pinnochio nose, and the helpful green checks and red Xes.

This highlights what a dreadful job traditional media has done on covering the McCain flip flops. He freaking contradicted himself between April and July of this year alone!

I echo the previous sentiments, great work fellas - we have to mercilessly expose Senator "Foreign Policy"..

Jed Lewison of The Jed Report put together a video highlighting this very topic. It's pretty damning, seeing McCain's own words used against him over and over again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieHwOm4ljA

(It's over nine minutes long, so you might want to grab a snack before you sit down to watch it)

Excellent work. It's this sort of thing that I'll miss most about Russert's work on Meet The Press:
"But senator, in january 2004 on fox news you said the exact opposite of what you're saying now. hold on, here's the video..."

Wow did you guys see the video of Mccain blowing off a WSJ reporter...not good for ole man yellin at cloud

I enjoyed it too...could you add a white flag by each comment to represent Obama's views?...(sorry, I couldn't help it).

I am wondering why there is no cover on the following

- Press conference in Paris: Obama's best performance to date, he is getting better by the day
- No cover on the latest polls: Rasmussen +5 gallup +6, new mexico +5
What is happening today?

To add a bit of levity to the thread,,,,,,,, in this university town, a group of some sort is selling bumper stickers, "GOT SURGE ?",,,,, in the left hand corner is a pic of McCain with a dollop of raw egg running down his forehead.

Hey Josh Marshall- you need to give Greg Sargent a raise.

That was a lot of work, Greg- and it's awesome!

Thanks

This comprehensive timeline does seem to generally back up McSame's assertion that he's always wanted more troops. But he doesn't seem to have ever criticized the way the war had been run otherwise. Just wants more troops. More troops. More troops.

Excellent! Thank you, bookmarked for future usage!

Great stuff. Now is the time to send this to anyone who is considering voting for McCain. E-mail, print, copies, whatever. This essential information must be known. The stakes are too high to let this pass.

After eight years of Bush, change is a risk worth taking.

"...why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?"

Good question Mr. McCain, good question.

Am I missing something here or what?

But it looks like 8/24/03, NBC, "Meet the Press" he called for more troops.

Unfortunately, Big Tim would never do that to a Republican. He let Cheney lie right to his face.

I have to disagree.

McCain has always supported the war and always wanted more troops. I think he couldn't be too critical of Bush if he wanted the nomination, but he was consistenly critical on troop levels.

What I'd really like to see are commnets on his longterm vision for Iraq- a bastion of American interests, a pro-American goverment, regime change, etc.

Nicely done guys, and clearly demonstrates a remarkably high level of schizophrenia, befitting of none other than a Republican candidate for office.

TPM should ask us for our e-mail addresses, and send us these kinds of PERFECT and CLEAR analyses to our inboxes. We can then make 'em viral by forwarding to our friends. This is one of the best things I've seen you guys put together. Very clear visuals and a simple list that is hard to ignore. BRILLIANT.

Just like to add my thanks to the others, Greg.

I thought the following quote was kind of significant, since according to McCain's recent "clarification," the Surge started with the Anbar Awakening several months earlier...

1/14/07, New York Times Mr. McCain embarked on a high-profile television tour announcing his support for Mr. Bush's move. In an interview, he said he would have preferred that the White House send in even more troops, and noted that he had pressed this position on the White House, unsuccessfully until now, for more than two years.

From 4/14/04:
"Secretary Rumsfeld said, 'Well, our commanders on the ground haven't asked for them.' It's not up to the commanders on the ground. It's up to the leadership of the country to make these decisions. That's why we elect them and have civilian supremacy."

So, why is Senator Obama wrong when he says he will give the military a new mission - to start a responsible withdrawal - despite what General Petraeus says? Seems to me like Bush and McCain have passed the buck and essentially handed over US foreign policy to the "commanders on the ground."

I don't understand how you decide X's and checks for 04, 05, and 06. "We need more troops" gets an X and "Stay the course" gets a check.

In this time period he seems to consistently advocate the idea of "We need to stay (the course) in Iraq and clean up the mess we've created (which requires more troops)." I guess I just don't see the self-contradiction in this series of statements that others may see.

That being said, when McCain claims that he invented the surge which led to the Anbar Awakening which led to political reconciliation, by all means, give him a Pinnochio nose.

Well done, brother.

Thanks for the post Greg, but help me out here if you would. Can you or someone else clarify why McCain would be considered to be lying (as implied by his resemblance to Pinocchio) in the 1/14/07 reference about pushing for more troops for more than two years? The timeline shows McCain pushing for more troops than provided as early as 11/5/03. What am I missing?

Even when Obama was 30 points behind Hillary, I was in full support of him---and my support level is still there.

But I am missing something here. Obama's claim that the surge was not the only factor which has led to the talk of a timeline for the US getting out by Maliki, is complicated to assert.

This timeline gives a simplistic (and misleading) narrative to John McCain: "I always said we needed more troops, they sent more troops, things are better, I was right." Not as easy to sell as I will cut your taxes and root out waste to balance the budget---but.....I do not see the reason for rejoicing.

Sorry.

So to summarize:

The only issue where John McCain has been critical of the administration on the Iraq war was troop levels. He has never criticized de-Bathification, corruption and inefficiency in the reconstruction process or the lies that were used to help sell the war.

The first time he called for more troops was August 2003. This is 5 months after the invasion, after the looting of Iraq's National Museum and Iraq's nuclear facilities, and after the insurgency was well underway.

The first time his criticism was directed and Bush and the administration, as opposed to Donald Rumsfeld, was May 2006.

Earlier, when Rumsfeld had defended not sending more troops by saying the commanders hadn't asked for them, McCain stated "It's not up to the commanders on the ground. It's up to the leadership of the country to make these decisions." However, at several points in the narrative, he claimed the support of officers he had spoken to in Iraq to back his call for more troops.

More recently he has used the statements of current commanders to back up claims that Barrack Obama's troop withdrawal proposals are "dangerous".

I have been observing Obama all week and I can honestly invision Obama as President. I have always hoped that Obama would be president but I now see Obama as a president.

Obama has carried himself with class this whole week. McCain, on the other hand, over the week looked grumpier and less presidential.

McCain needs to drop his "grumpy old man" act and focus on positive policies.

Hopefully Obama will from now until election day focus on the ECONOMY, ECONOMY, ECONOMY since in my eyes Obama has passed the "commander-in-chief" threshold.

Of course it has to be based ON CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND.

Another reason that McCain must be stopped.
He gives circumlocution a bad name.