Contrary to claims, McCain never demanded Rumsfeld's head..

[kentuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02rich.html?ref=opinion

<snip>
That’s why Mr. McCain was already on the defensive in his early skirmishes with Mr. Obama last week, after Mr. Obama dared point out that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the American invasion. Mr. McCain was reduced to arguing that such annoying little details are out of bounds because they belong to “the past.”

You can’t blame Mr. McCain for trying. His role back then in enabling the fiasco was far more active than Mrs. Clinton’s, and it’s far more visible on videotape. He didn’t just vote to authorize the war; in response to a question from Tim Russert in September 2002, he lent his military credibility to the administration’s undermanned war plan. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, challenged that strategy in a February 2003 Senate hearing by calling for “several hundred thousand soldiers,” Mr. McCain did not speak up in support. That month he went on “Hannity & Colmes” to say that the war “will be brief,” that post-Saddam Iraq is “going to be paid for by the Iraqis,” and that America will “send a message” from Syria to Saudi Arabia that “democracy can take hold in the Middle East.”

The one part of his Iraq past that Mr. McCain does want us to recall now is his subsequent criticism of the war’s execution. But contrary to his current claims, he never publicly demanded Mr. Rumsfeld’s head. And when Mr. McCain did call for more troops in Iraq, he was again in sync with Democrats like Joe Biden, with whom he made that case on “Meet the Press” in August 2003.

Rather than dwell on this ancient history, Mr. McCain said last week, we should talk about “what we are going to do now.” But his answer to “what we are going to do now” in Iraq is merely more of what he did then.

[spanone]

1. K&R

[KharmaTrain]

2. He "alluded" to it...

Of course our corporate media will avoiding doing the research...and most of the proof is sitting right in their own archives.

Grandpa is gonna try to play both sides here on Iraq...and it's a deck of cards destined to fail as events change on the ground, which then will force him to re-invent his position. For someone who claims such "foreign policy" and "military" experience, McLame's record has been attrocious...and our job is to keep bringing it up and forcing him to either admit to his past lies or force him to specify what he sees as our military's future.

I remember McLame criticizing the military, but I don't recall him calling out Rummy by name...if anything I remember him all but ready to kiss Rummy's ass in one of his rare Senate apperances. But then Grandpa's game is hoping short term memory trumps all...let the lie and rumor get out there first and downplay things when the truth finally catches up.