A McCain spokesman explained that the reason he didn't vote on the later version was that even a sh*tslinger like McCain couldn't say the words "timeline for defeat" with a straight face.

MediaMatters again misleadingly refers to a war-funding appropriations bill as a "troop-funding appropriatons bill."

Exactly. McCain voted against defeat (via withdrawal), not against funding the troops.

More dishonesty by MM.

Not cool at all, MM.

Shoes, what was your "exactly" directed at?

Now that's unfair Col. Expecting clarity from Shoes.

As unfair as, well, the difference between war funding and troop funding.

As unfair as, having a hurricane with a funny name, approaching your home

I think Shoes was agreeing with Victor's point that funding a war isn't funding the troops, I just wanted so see if she had another point besides pointing out what a shameless liar Cindy McCain is.

Shoes doesn't know. He is one of those robots that automatically spews out talking points with no cues required. He probably is way too young to know what " cool " really means.

Shoes, what was your "exactly" directed at?

It was directed at dishonest remarks - which are the only ones Shoes knows how to make.

Ease up on poor Shoes Colonel.

When she reads how General Petraeus now agrees with Senator Obama, her head's going to explode. 

Petraeus knows just who his boss is going to be come January, and he's making the appropriate adjustments.

shoes get off your ass,go us senate.gov and see if he voted yea,or nay, then you wont need to play your silly word games

Shoes-

If McCain was so opposed to 'defeat' in Iraq, then why didn't he vote on a later version of the appropriations bill.

He became indifferent towards U.S. success in Iraq?

Doesn't sound like the 'cool hand' we need at the tiller.

Jeez, I guess I can't tell the difference between 'war appropriations' and 'troop funding' appropriations, either.  My hair-splitter must be broken.  Obama's sensible move in the debate was to suggest to McCain that, rather than go for cheap shots that sidestep the issue, he stick to debating the real question on which they disagree, and which motivated their respective nay votes: timeline, or no.  Even someone who can tell the difference between troop appropriations and war appropriations ought to recognize that a real debate would beat this "Gosh, he wanted to abandon our poor boys on the front!" b.s. anytime.

Everyone knows that MSNBC is in the tank for Obama. ;)

Appearently Alex Witt didn't get the memo.

Great Caesar's Ghost, can't any of these clowns get it right?  Last time I looked, the so-called "reporters" were hired to give us the news (like in "accurate").  Any one of us can go on-line and find out exactly what "exactly" means.