Originally Posted By: the G-man
The New York Times: "Senator John McCain has staked his candidacy on the promise that U.S. troops can stabilize Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son."

It must kill the far left Michael Moore types that, not only can't they call McCain a "chickenhawk," but his son is serving in the military right now.


With McCain, his service or his sons service is admirable but it really is not the issue. what seems to be the main issue, apart from his continuing on with Bush's war is that every statement he makes, seems to reinforce the fact that far from being the foreign policy "expert" that his campaign touts him as, he really doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on there.

McCain really doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about Iraq. Well, he either really doesn't or he's really confused. Not sure which is worse.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) repeated the false claim that Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire in Basra last week, which he pointed to as proof that Sadr didn’t “think he was winning” the battle in Basra. He also said that the Iraqi army performed “pretty well”:

The GOP nominee doesn't understand what happened over the past couple weeks. McCain thinks 1) al Sadr asked for the recent ceasefire; and 2) the Iraqi military is functioning "functioning very effectively." Wrong and wrong:

In fact, it was members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government who brokered the ceasefire, to which Sadr agreed. Experts agree that Sadr’s influence was strengthened — rather than diminished — by the Basra battle.

Finally, the New York Times reported Friday that at least 1,000 Iraqi national soldiers deserted or refused to fight in Basra.

Like Bush, McCain just says things that aren't true. Part of it may be deliberate, but part may just be befuddlement.