A discussion concerning "winning the war" can only be held when someone can explain to ALL Americans what winning is......And according to McCain and his boys, someone has to surrender before the troops can come home. I ask..WHO IS GOING TO SIGN THE SURRENDER PAPERS???  We win when we leave the occupied country of Iraq to care for itself...

McCain had been pretty adamant that he had 'no confidence' in Rumsfeld and had been encouraging President Bush to look at developing the surge.  The difference between 'no confidence' and firing is pretty insignificant and Media Matters (for very little) is looking to make this more than the molehill it really is.  Besides, he always insisted that matters of the shape of the cabinet belongs to the president alone.

From the link MMFA provided:

"A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers. 'He always said that's the president's prerogative.'"

Why does McCain continue to lie about everything?

There's a HUGE difference between saying you have no confidence in someone and asking for him to be fired.  More importantly, the same people who are willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt by saying there's practically no difference between saying "no confidence" and "fire" are the same ones who parse every single comment Bill or Hillary Clinton make and look for hidden meanings.  Why the double standard?

In addition, saying you have no confidence in Rumsfeld when his departure is already imminent is like 1974, when prominent Republicans including George H.W. Bush were informed that President Nixon planned to resign, enabling them to all send CYA letters to Nixon asking him to resign.  It's pretty easy (and Republican) to take the face saving way out.

Again, not a ringing endorsement of Rumsfeld by McCain..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-14-mccain_x.htm

Yeah, that McCain is such a maverick. He started dumping on Rumsfeld only after all the other heavy hitters quit him. What leadership, to blow off the man who's policies you trumpeted over and over again until it turned out he was wrong, thus making you look bad for supporting him. Yeah, that maverick, always focused on...

image.

i will say that brokaw did let both sides talk, and he interrupted very little. i watched this and schmidt was spinning fairly tales.  to listen to him, it was mccain who was jim dandy to the rescue on the bailout.  supposedly mccain flew in, got all the sides together and then left, knowing everything was ok.  except it took mccain a full day to get back to washington after his breathless announcement, he only spent a limited time on capitol hill, and his main goal was a photo-op.  he's all show. this from an associated press story by charles babington and julie davis:

"frank, a gruff and ruffled democrat from massachusetts, demanded to know which of two competing financial plans republican presidential candidate john mccain supported.  with bush, congress' leaders,  and mccain's democratic opponent, barack obama, watching intently, mccain declined to say, according to those present."

schmidt's comments on iraq were of the usual true believer quality that got us into this mess.  victory, failure, all the buzz words that can't change the fact that we can never ever leave unless we tell the iraqis we are going, and they need to govern their own country.  it was supposed to be the end of the world if we left vietnam too.  sort of brings to mind this song:

          "some folks are born with star-spangled eyes,

they'll send you down to war, and when you ask them how much we should give,

        the only answer is more, more, more..."

creedence clearwater revival, "fortunate son", talking about vietnam, and nothing's changed.

       

I don't think McCain knows the difference between firing and resignation. During the debate he said he asked for the SEC Chairman to resign when in fact, and it is on tape , he said he would fire the chairman. McCain mind works in misterious ways.

That's why his fave undies is named "depends". It just "depends" what songbird wants to believe today...

What was the purpose of the surge?

How can McCain ridiculoulsy, and falsely,  claim 'thank god the surge has worked' repeatedly when American troops are still in Iraq?

Gen Shinseki got relieved of command for saying more troops are needed to confront Iraq and pres Bush did not believe him. The " surge ' would have never been needed and it is similar in idea as ten cop cars showing up for a fender bender. All the speeders would move to another side of town, just as the insurgents went to Afghanistan and created a situation there. Why McCain is pounding his fist on the podium when speaking of the surge is beyong me. He looks more like krutshev when doing his fist pounding antics.

Brokaw is as biased as they come, him and that old guy at CBS.

And the narro-minded Brokaw never misses an opportunity to push his propaganda poll, as if to suggest that Americans make their decision on one criterion.

These mainstream media BUSINESS people are a disgrace to so-called 'freedom of de-press'; because Americans are ill served by their obvious bias.

These main stream media BUSINESS propagandists are primarily responsible for promoting the bush propaganda that led to the destruction of tens of thousands of American lives, limbs, mental health and trillions of dollars, along with the 'shock and awe' and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi women, children, old people, etc!

And if left alone, the Brokaws of the mainstream media BUSINESS will AGAIN allow McCain to continue the assault that he and the wild bush is now waging on America in all areas.

Obama was so right on Friday, listening to McCain, he makes it sound like the war started in 2007. McCain wants everyone to believe this criminal war is a success and we must continue to kill innocent Iraqis. This image that McCain wanted to fire Rumsfeld continues that myth.

I may be stating the obvious, but McCain appears to be living in a time warp...or multiple time warps. One thing that has become clear to me is that McCain still has some unresolved issues about the Viet Nam war that will perhaps intrude upon his decision making with respect to not only the Iraq war but any future potential conflicts. It is not comforting...

I get that from McCain too. His unresolved issues about Vietnam filter every position he takes. It's like he's trying to right all of the "wrongs" done to the poor US during the Vietnam War.

From listening to him, i get the sense that he feels we lost the war when in fact we did no such thing. We, as a nation, decided that we would not allow our sons to continue to die for something that no one in the country believed in anymore.

Another example of how McCain is the consumate politician, playing with words to allow deniability and wiggle room. Yes, it is true he was at one point critical of Donald Rumsfeld's prosecution of the Iraq war. But he left Rumsfled's termination as Secretary of Defense to the discretion of the President. So, later, he could argue it either way. Not much clarity from the alleged straight talker, IMO... 

There can be no winning of the "War in In Iraq".  The Lives that have been lost, (Negligible to Repubs), the money spent (wrecking our economy) have mde any victory a Phyrric one at best. 

I really se no good reason to put troops and money into Afghanistan, either. Somebody make that case for me, please.  After all, according tto the FBI there is no credible evidence to convict OsamaBin LAden.