Obsidian Wings

I Can Has Reading Skillz?

by hilzoy

Via Sadly No and Atrios, a sad illustration of the costs of social promotion: one Jake Tapper. Tapper ought to be failing his second grade Language Arts class for the thirty-fourth consecutive year, but thanks to the soft bigotry of low expectations, he ended up as ABC's Senior National Correspondent instead. If he had gotten out of school without the ability to do basic math and had ended up as a NASA engineer, his ignorance would harm people in direct and obvious ways. The fact that he's a journalist without basic reading comprehension skills means that the damage he can do is less obvious than a rocket flaming out in mid-descent. But it does not make that damage less real.

Here's the passage Mr. Tapper took it upon himself to interpret:

"“Everybody knows that global warming is real,” Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, “but we cannot solve it alone.”

“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.

“But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work."

This is not an unusual way to frame a point: (a) here's a problem; (b) some might say that we should do Dumb Response X in response; (c) but in fact, we should do Smart Response Y. How dumb do you have to be to imagine that when someone says this, they are in fact advocating Dumb Response X? Answer: As dumb as Jake Tapper. Here's his take on it:

"Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”? I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan. So there was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps he mis-spoke. Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort…I’m not quite certain."

Wow: a novel interpretive principle. Let's try it on some other texts. Here, for instance, is Barack Obama:

"I know it is tempting - after another presidency by a man named George Bush - to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th Century. There are those will tell us that our Party should nominate someone who is more practiced in the art of pursuing power; that's it's not yet our turn or our time. There was also a time when Caroline Kennedy's father was counseled by a former President to “be patient,” and to step aside for “someone with greater experience.” But John F. Kennedy responded by saying, “The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership.”"

In this speech, Barack Obama somewhat surprisingly comes out in favor of "turning back the clock" and "building a bridge back to the 20th Century". Yet he goes on to say that "the world is changing". Likewise, first he says that "it's not yet our turn", but then he says that "it is time for a new generation of leadership." There is a contradiction here. Or perhaps he misspoke. I'm not quite certain.

Here comes another glaring contradiction. this time from the President himself:

"Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty, or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Others believe that America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians would no longer threaten us. Today I'm going to address these arguments. I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the fact we'll be successful."

So here, by Tapper Rules of Interpretation™, we have the President making the following claims: Liberty has no universal appeal; the Middle East is not ready for liberty; America's presence there, is destabilizing; if we just left, our enemies would no longer threaten us; and yet, despite all this, "helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people."

Pretty strange that no one picked up on the fact that Bush disavowed so many of his basic beliefs in this speech, and then contradicted himself just a few lines later. Or, well, whatever.

Interpreting texts a la Tapper is kind of fun, once you get the hang of it. And when anyone calls you on it, you can just pout and say: Wow, I hardly know how to take this. All I'm trying to do is to understand...

Feel free to leave your own examples of the Tapper Rules™ in action in comments.

The Undead

by publius

Being a Mitt Man, I'm still too depressed to write about Florida. And though I don't really like quoting Steve Sailer, this seems spot on (via Corner):

So, are all the neocons who got jobs in the Giuliani campaign, like N. Podhoretz, Frum, Rubin, going to jump ship and join the McCain campaign? A lot of them supported McCain back in 2000. And will they be greeted with open arms by the McCain campaign, or will they be told they're losers -- as shown by the Giuliani steamroller -- and should stay away. My guess is the former, mostly because neocons are harder to kill than Rasputin. No matter how often everything they touch turns to ashes, they, personally, pop right back up with nice new sinecures in influential institutions.

John Edwards Is Out

by hilzoy

What most of you already know:

"John Edwards will end his presidential bid today, a source close to his campaign confirmed, effectively narrowing the Democratic field to two contenders less than a week before the Super Tuesday round of primaries.

The former North Carolina senator is scheduled to speak in New Orleans this afternoon, an appearance originally billed as an anti-poverty speech but now expected to serve as the platform for ending a White House run that has been five years in the making. (...)

Edwards launched his campaign a year ago, also in New Orleans, where the slow rebuilding following Hurricane Katrina formed a fitting symbol for the issues around which he built his campaign. He focused on issues of poverty and economic inequality, couched in language of the "two Americas.""

He fought the good fight. I wish him and Elizabeth well.

***

Meanwhile: so long, Rudy, and thanks for all the ferrets. America dodged a bullet today.

More Tales From A Post-Feminist Era

by hilzoy

The always delightful Ben Domenech of RedState has written a farewell speech he wishes Fred Thompson had given. Check out Thompson's descriptions of his rivals:

"Rudy Giuliani? Slick cheater. Mike Huckabee? Jesus freak. John McCain? Crazy. Mitt Romney? Woman."

No comment required.

The good news

I've haven't been a big fan of McCain since his atrocious anti-First Amendment campaign finance law.  But the good news about his win in Florida, and the almost certainty of his nomination for Republican candidate, is that the Republican candidate is decidedly anti-torture. 

Yikes, I wish that had never even been a question. 

Otherwise, open thread.

--Sebastian

Tales From A Post-Racial, Post-Feminist Era ...

by hilzoy

A week ago, CNN ran a story that was more than usually fatuous, even for them. The headline: "Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C." Their description of this choice:

"Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days.

For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?"

The women in the piece don't seem to see things this way at all. They are interested in whether or not to count Hillary Clinton's time as first lady as "experience", and in, um, you know, issues:

"They rank health care, education and the economy in order of importance."

But did CNN choose to highlight these issues? No: for them, the main storyline was black women being torn between voting their race and voting their gender, despite the fact that no actual South Carolina voter interviewed in the article suggested that she might decide how to vote on those grounds.

When I read this story, it infuriated me. I didn't post on it because I couldn't come up with a sufficiently withering response. Luckily, CNN's readers and viewers did:

"Within minutes of posting a story on CNN's homepage called "Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in South Carolina," readers reacted quickly and angrily. (...)

An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"

Tiffany urged CNN to "pull this racist crap off" the Web site and to stop calling Hillary the "top female candidate."

"Stop calling Barack the "Black" candidate," she wrote. (...)

Matt e-mailed, "The article itself shows black women have brains and actually choose candidates based on issues and not just gender or race, but CNN doesn't seem to give them that credit."

Others responding to the story wrote that they want CNN and other media to focus on the substance of the candidates' accomplishments and stances on issues, rather than their appearance.

"Since Edwards no longer officially exists, as a white male I face the same choice - either I vote my race (Clinton) or my gender (Obama). Or I could just pick the candidate based on who I think would be best," wrote Michael."

To which I can only say: Tiffany, Michael: word.

Meanwhile, look what got published in the Independent, on the East End of Long Island:

The accompanying article purports to be by YoMama bin Barack (whose wife is named AliBama, ha ha ha). It includes such gems as these:

"The truth is, I don't know many black people, but my advisers have drafted a strategy to reel in the black vote:

1)Call everyone 'Brother.' Blacks, I am told, do this even if most of their real brothers are in jail.

2) Talk Jive. Brothers want to hear jive. During my speech I told the crowd, 'We be, you know, sick of whitey supressin' and congestin' so, you know, we won't denigrate or sophisticate but emulate and populate, you know, the system is, like, broken, y'all!' (...)

So you see, there is my strategy. I get the black vote, I get the white vote, and then I go after the female vote by attacking that bitch Hillary for being the Nasty Witch From Hell. (...)

Ultimately, if she gets too close, one of my New york advisors has advised me to 'Bitch slap that ho.' White women, I am told, like that."

This was apparently written by the Independent's editor. It has since been pulled from the website and replaced with an apology that says, in part:

"The Independent, a multicultural employer with a 13-year history of diversity, apologizes for this lapse of judgment."

Sorry, but no. A lapse in judgment is what happens when a normally decent person does something unaccountably stupid. It's easiest to explain something as the result of a lapse in judgment when it meets two conditions. First, it should be something that doesn't require much thought: thus, for instance, blurting out something stupid at a party can be due to a lapse in judgment, but planning and executing an elaborate bank robbery cannot. Second, it should not deviate too far from the sorts of things that ordinary decent people might do. Thus, saying something inconsiderate might be due to a lapse in judgment, but raping a child, however impulsively, cannot.

No one just blurts out whole articles. Even truly idiotic articles, like this one, take time and thought. Moreover, this just isn't the sort of thing an ordinary decent person would come close to writing. So: sorry, Rick Murphy. You'll have to find a different excuse. Or, better yet, just fess up: this wasn't just a lapse in judgment. No one who had any judgment to start with would have written this and thought it was funny. It's just plain racist stupidity.

I agree with Pam (from whom I got this story): we can start calling this a post-racial election when neither this kind of tripe nor race-baiting by more prominent figures plays any part in it. And that goes for calling it "post-feminist" too.

Data Point: Habeas Corpus

by hilzoy

In comments to an earlier thread, Katherine posted a link to a statement by a group called Habeas Lawyers for Obama. Excerpt:

"We are at a critical point in the Presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantanamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama. (...)

Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration's efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us. Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

The reason I post this is not to make any comparison between Obama and any other candidate for President. I have no idea what proportion of habeas lawyers involved with the Guantanamo cases have signed this, though Katherine says it's a non-negligible, though also non-unanimous, proportion of them. But for all this post tells me, and for all I know, every Senator in the race could have done as much, and I do not mean to imply otherwise.

I post this because one of the things I always want to know, about legislation that matters to me, is who was really willing to work behind the scenes on the right side, and this is often hard to find out. It's easy to figure out who voted for a bill, who gave speeches on its behalf, and whether those speeches were any good. But I also want to know who did more than that, and that information is not easy to find, at least for those of us who don't work on the Hill or know people who do.

No one I know personally has signed this petition. But there are signatories whose work on these issues I know, and whom I trust. If they say that Obama was willing to go to the mats for this one, I believe them. As I said, for all I know, every other Senator running for President could have done as much. But it matters to me to know that Obama did.

Give Me A Break

by hilzoy

When I first saw this press release from NOW-NY, I was sufficiently worried that it might be a joke that I called NOW-NY to ask. It was after 4:30, though, and I haven't heard back. Ben Smith from Politico claims to have confirmed its authenticity, though. Here it is, in all its glory:

"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us.”"

Wow. Leave aside the part about the "greatest betrayal" -- surely someone, somewhere in the history of the fight for women's rights must have done something worse than supporting a male candidate who is fully committed to feminism. As a feminist, I find it infuriating that NOW-NY, or any other organization, would presume to say that not supporting their favored candidate is a betrayal of feminism, at least in this case.

In some situations, I could see their point. If, for instance, Ted Kennedy had come down in favor of some candidate who had sworn to appoint only right-wing judges to the Supreme Court, or to oppose any federal funding for any abortion, or something, fine. Where the issues are clear and the candidates have massive differences on feminist issues, I don't have a problem with feminist groups deciding that supporting a given candidate is not what feminists do. But that's not the situation we're in.

Clinton and Obama have gotten solid 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood (Obama also gets 100 from the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association for 2005-6, while Clinton gets 93; she was 100 through 2004, however.) Both Clinton and Obama were with NOW 100% of the time in 2006; in 2005, NOW gave Obama a 91 and Clinton a 96. I was somewhat surprised to find that Obama did slightly better than Clinton on the Children's Defense Fund's ratings: Clinton has a perfect score until 2006, when she got a 90; Obama has consistent 100s.

And it's not just ratings. Consider Obama's statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe, which I noticed largely because of comments by Redstocking. After talking about the importance of Roe, and his own record on choice, Obama writes:

""When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

"Moreover, I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies. In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate, I've worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis’ bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color. As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.

"But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality. It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there’s affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it’s not enough to protect the gains of the past – we have to build a future that’s filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.""

It's nutty to suggest that no feminist in good standing can support a candidate with that kind of record. I'm glad that national NOW has responded differently, and that feminist bloggers are reacting to NOW-NY's press release with derision. Slamming people when they support one feminist candidate over another is not what feminism is about.

***

Side note: Over at RedState, Erick does for the "Uglification and Derision" school of sexism what NOW-NY does for feminism:

"As the Clintons and their supporters continue their destruction of the Democratic Party, we see the latest salvo fired from the thighs of ugly nags.

From the nether regions that see no men, New York's National Association of Gals is out bashing Teddy Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton. (...)

Maybe if Janet Reno will endorse Hillary, Since Janet Reno endorsed Hillary that should negate this one man's physical battery against womankind."

It must be cool to be able to fire press releases from between one's thighs. I had heard vague reports of ping pong balls, but press releases are new to me. One reason to read Erick: how else would I find out about things like this?

***

UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, there's more. Specifically, the last press release from NOW-NY, about one of the debates, called "Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President".

There are things I might call a psychological gang-bang. Nothing that has happened to Hillary Clinton in any debate is among them, any more than the criticism Obama has taken from other campaigns is a psychological lynching.

We Live To Fight Another Day

by hilzoy

Today, the Republicans failed to sustain a cloture motion on the bill to amend FISA while providing retroactive immunity to telecoms. Four Democrats voted in favor of cloture, and one Republican (Arlen Specter) voted against. This means that debate has to continue, and the bill cannot yet come to a vote. Immediately afterwards, the Republicans blocked cloture on a bill that would have extended the existing law for a month. This means that the amendments to FISA that the Congress rushed through last August (note: not FISA itself!) will expire on Friday.

Moreover, Bush has said that if the Congress passes a one-month extension of the bill, he will veto it. Glenn Greenwald:

"This veto threat is one of the President's most brazen acts ever, so nakedly exposing the fun and games he routinely plays with National Security Threats. After sending Mike McConnell out last August to warn that we will all die without the PAA, Bush now says that he would rather let it expire than give Congress another 30 days. He just comes right out and announces, then, that he will leave us all vulnerable to a Terrorist Attack unless he not only gets everything he wants from Congress -- all his new warrantless eavesdropping powers made permanent plus full immunity for his lawbreaking telecom partners -- but also gets it exactly when he wants it (i.e., now -- not 30 days from now)."

Greenwald also has the best explanation I've found of what today's votes mean. (See especially Update IV.) Short version: the Senators voted as they did because the Republicans had blocked them from being able to consider any amendments to the bill, not because they were opposed to telecom immunity itself.

Still, every day that we postpone this is a day when we can try to build support for what ought to be the uncontroversial proposition that breaking the law is not OK just because the President says it is.

And Speaking Of Lies...

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

"“If we surrender and wave a white flag like Senator Clinton wants to do and withdraw as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos,” Mr. McCain said to reporters in Fort Myers on Saturday morning.

At a town-hall-style meeting later in Sun City Center, a retirement community, Mr. McCain reiterated his accusation.

“My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal,” Mr. McCain said.

The charge appears to be misleading. The McCain campaign pointed to remarks Mr. Romney made last year in which he said he believed that President Bush and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq should have “a series of timetables and milestones” that they discussed among themselves but did not announce publicly.

But Mr. Romney has not called for setting a date for withdrawal. Mr. Romney has said he supports the president’s current strategy, although he has said he anticipates more and more American troops moving into a support role in Iraq in the next year — similar to what Gen. David H. Petraeus outlined in his testimony before Congress last year.

“I know he’s trying desperately to change the topic from the economy and trying to get back to Iraq, but to say something that’s not accurate is simply wrong,” Mr. Romney said Saturday. “He knows better.”

But in Sun City Center, Mr. McCain said he owed no apology to Mr. Romney. Instead, he said, it was Mr. Romney who should apologize “to the young men and women who are serving in uniform.”"

And from the Washington Post:

"Gov. Romney wanted to set a date for withdrawal [from Iraq] similar to what the Democrats are seeking, which would have led to a victory by al Qaeda in my view."

--John McCain, rally in Fort Myers, Florida, Jan. 26, 2008.

What Romney actually said, according to McCain's own press release on the subject, which presents this under the heading: In April 2007, Romney Said He Supported Secret "Timetables And Milestones" For Iraq Withdrawal:

"ABC'S ROBIN ROBERTS: "Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"

ROMNEY: "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government."

ROBERTS: "So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?"

ROMNEY: "Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 4/3/07)"

Hmm. Would it be a good idea to leave, if we ever do, without even a private timetable about when or how to get our troops out? Should we just yell "Ollie-ollie-income-free" and leave the troops to scramble out as best they can? I don't think so, and I can't imagine McCain would disagree. Would it be a good idea to discuss this timetable, at least in outline, with the Iraqi government? Yes, insofar as we could do so without compromising security. The crucial question, of course, is when we should withdraw. Does Romney say anything about this in this interview? No.

I think we can gather a few points from this interview. First, as McCain said, Romney wants to withdraw from Iraq at some unspecified point in the future. Is the idea that we should do this controversial? Possibly McCain favors remaining in Iraq forever, but I don't think that's a majority view. Second, he thinks there should be a timetable for this withdrawal, whenever it happens. This just seems like common sense to me: of course you don't want to pull the troops out with no planning. Third, he thinks we should tell the Iraqi government (in broad terms) when we are planning to withdraw our troops, but we should not make this information public. Again, this seems like common sense -- speaking for myself, the only reason I favor legally mandated public deadlines is because I think they are the only way of forcing George W. Bush to withdraw troops at all. I think it's obvious that not making a timetable public would be preferable, other things equal; it's just that at present, we don't have the option of withdrawing troops without making the timetable public.

The tricky bit, I suspect, is the idea of talking to al-Maliki about "a series of timetables and milestones". This suggests that Romney's support for the al-Maliki government would not be unconditional: that the "timetables" might kick in if the "milestones" were not met. But honestly, who would object to that in the abstract? The alternative would be for our support for the al-Maliki government to be completely unconditional and unaccountable -- for there to be literally nothing the al-Maliki government had to do to deserve it.

There is nothing at all in what McCain quotes that supports the claim he made in the Fort Myers rally: that "Gov. Romney wanted to set a date for withdrawal [from Iraq] similar to what the Democrats are seeking, which would have led to a victory by al Qaeda in my view." He does not say that he wanted to set a date. Nothing about what he said is "similar" to what the Democrats have been saying. Romney's rather vague statements ought to be pretty uncontroversial. (Of course we should not support the al-Maliki government no matter what; of course we should withdraw eventually; of course we should have a "timetable" when we do.) Personally, I would criticize them on those grounds: they don't really tell us much of anything.

But they certainly don't say what John McCain says they do. And he's being dishonest when he says that they do, just as he's being dishnest when he says that Senator Clinton wants to "surrender and wave a white flag".

I used to think better of McCain.