I don't think it's weird that McCain is using his disagreement with Obama on the surge, even though it is past tense now, because the argument is that it speaks to Obama's judgement. The judgement he's using now, we suspect, for his current positions.

The problem with that is that every candidate can have issues back in their past that, in retrospect, prove they were wrong--and they may even still support their incorrect assessment of the situation, such as McCain on immigration reform. McCain also made questionable decisions (especially in the eyes of conservatives) when it comes to The Gang of 14 and judicial nominations in the senate. And he was certainly wrong on Campaign Finance Reform (at least, as far as conservatives are concerned). He also didn't support Bush's tax cuts. So, looking at past judgements to see what a candidate might do in the presidency doesn't really auger that will for McCain, and perhaps he ought to pick a different strategy.

I don't understand the argument that Obama was right not to go to war.....Obama never said we shouldn't go to war because Saddam Hussein doesn't have any WMD. Obamas entire point was that Iraq was 'contained' and as long as we could continue to committ genocide against the Iraqi people, keep Saddam in charge and let the people be torture, rape rooms, and die under tyranny, that was just fine with Barack.

Barack argued we should simply keep the genocidal sanctions on Iraq until Saddam Hussein or his sons died of old age...I don't understand why this is MORE moral argument.

Getting back to your point on the Israel/palestinian conflict and dead children. If Israel is responsible for the deaths of Palestinian children because they attack Palestinian positions among civilians, wouldn't they not be as guilty if they simply blockaded the palestinians and made everyone starve to death?

How is the American blockade and genocidal sanctions on Iraq (Baracks position) any better? Except it would have led to far far more dead Iraqi children, and no free Iraqis.

And was Saddam Hussein MORE contained, the say osama Bin laden is today?? Clearly Bin Laden is far nmore contained then Saddam Hussein was yet Barack thinks we need 10,000 more American troops in Afghanistan,,why?

Sadly, it's not just McCain supporters. Brian Williams was all but trying to put words in Obama's mouth, to force him to admit the surge 'worked' when he interviewed him yesterday.

"I get why McCain doesn't want to engage with that particular debate, but not why he thinks he can get away with not engaging with it."

Really? Have you seen any indication that the media will approach this issue other than by trying to get Obama to admit a (in their narrative, a huge and unforgivable) mistake in judgment, and try to destroy his candidacy on that basis?

This is just the latest chapter, after Rev. Wright and Bittergate, in the media's attempt to find the telling incident that will allow them to conclude that he is unfit to be president.

The media has already decided that McCain would be an acceptable president, and there doesn't seem to be anything he can say or do that will shake that conviction.

I don't know why we're so eager to surrender to the right on the surge. The surge working means that bigger troop numbers allowed political reconciliation and the formation of a legitimate, accepted government - and that has not happened. US casualties are down somewhat, but Iraqi casualties are still as high as 2006. The biggest success (with respect to reducing US casualties) in the last few years was coming to terms with the Sunni tribes.
You can never tell for sure with counterfactuals - but if instead of the surge, we had sat down with the Iranians as well as the Sunnis and arranged a withdrawal of our forces I think it would have been a lot better for us, and probably no worse for the Iraqis.

Obama has to concede the surge worked, because he's calling for a surge in Afghanistan, along with raids and bombings into neighboring Pakistan without the Pakistanis consent, or knowledge.

Obama doesn't want to bring the troops home, he wants to redeploy them to widen the war in Pakistan, which he somehow believes is more important strategically the Iraq.

It would be nice if we could find one quote, from one foriegn policy expert that believes, as Barack says, the future of Afghanistan is more important strategically then Iraq...I don't see how one argues that with a straight face.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause all hell to break loose with the Pakistani population.

Pakistan is a Islamic nation of 170 million, possessing deliverable nuclear weapons and comprising some of the most militarily challenging terrain on the planet.

Not people you want to pick unnecessary fights with there Barack.

But barack apparently has some problem with Pakistan, back in 2004 while running for Senate declared:
""Indeed there are elements within Pakistan right now - if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs (Nuclear weapons) out."

You would think Barack would be a little more careful about being supportive of the curent Pakistan government, rather then itching to bomb Pakistani territory and the have to invade to destroy their Nukes if the radicals overthrow the government.

But hey, this citizen of the world is big on cowboy diplomacy.