Who has the better judgement, the man who advocated a Surge that had a minor role in saving Iraq from being an even bigger disaster or the man who said we shouldn't embark on that disastrous war to start with?
Matt Duss writes: "The good news is we have Al Qaeda on the ropes in Iraq. The bad news is we allowed Iraq to become a sanctuary (and recruiting poster and training ground and sectarian killing field) to start with, by invading Iraq."
McCain helped create the war in Iraq and, like many another war-booster, predicted it would be a cakewalk. He wants us to ignore his terrible judgement of 2001-2003 and is careful to only talk about 2007 onwards as if the rest happened in a different dimension. Now that better COIN tactics and a lotof help from folks who used to shoot at US troops have reduced violence but done nothing to usher in a new era of Iraqi reconciliation, he wants us to ignore all that and credit a small increase in troop numbers which he happened to support for "victory".
The mainstream media seem willing to do just that, but that's no reason why he and they should get a free ride.
