Dear Mr. Dickerson;

I try to read all of your blogs and sometimes agree, sometimes disagree. Today, for the first time, I am appalled.

Today Senator McCain accused Senator Obama of being willing "to lose a war in order to win a political campaign." He also either lied about or revealed his ignorance on CBS over the timing of the "surge" and the "Sunni Awakening." And on the evening of this day you praise McCain for his smart attacks on the surge.

This is a day of shame in American politics.

I do not recall ever hearing a candidate for President accuse his opponent of wanting to "lose" an American war. How can this charge, repeated everywhere McCain went today, be interpreted as anything less than a charge of treasonous intent. Treason may be defined as:

• A violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

If Obama were actually trying to lose a war to gain the Presidency, would this not be a violation of allegiance to America and/or a conscious and purposeful act to aid our enemies?

McCain's basis for this charge is that Obama didn't support his so-called surge. Even if he and you were correct that a surge of a measley 20,000 troops which are now gone has been "sucessful" in changing the game in Iraq-- was that a justification for accusing Obama of "wanting" to lose the war for personal gain? It was vulgar, coarse, reprehensible, and abusive campaigning by McCain. It was far beneath contempt.

Yet you merely say he was attacking "too much and too indiscriminately." Wake up! We have a candidate either unraveling mentally or willing to say absolutely anything to smear his opponent.

You have also repeated with zero analysis that the surge is responsible for the calming of violence in Iraq. Today, the lie was put to that McCain claim by his demonstration of his and apparently your lack of understanding of what really happened in Iraq over the past year and a half.

Anyone watching the situation closely knows that whatever benefit some extra troop support provided, it was the Sunni Awakening and the fortuitous stand down by al-Sadr that had the most impact. There is no reason to believe that these impacts would be much different with or without the surge.

Today, in an interview with Katie Couric, McCain flat out stated that he believed the surge preceded and actually caused the Sunni Awakening in Anbar Province, something General Petraeus has personally debunked. The Awakening was well under way long before a single surging troop arrived in Iraq.

In light of this, what does your article say?

• On Iraq, McCain pressed Obama over his opposition to the troop surge—the strategy that has reduced violence in Iraq and led to modest political gains for the al-Maliki government. This was smart. The topic is on McCain's issue turf, potentially puts his opponent at odds with the American generals who executed the surge, and makes Obama look like a hidebound pol who won't absorb new facts that contradict his predetermined conclusions.

I don't mistrust your motives, Mr. Dickerson, but after this article I must question your judgment. These are not words I expect from a respected journalist on a day when a new low has been achieved in American politics. These are McCain talking points.

If what you meant to say is that a fabrication is "smart" so long as it works, you should have just said that rather than praising McCain's shameful gaffe attack and pitiful gaffe. Unfortunately, however, it sounds like you have downed the whole pitcher of kool-aid on this one.

McCain will take the low road from here on.

McCain lost to Karl Rove in 2000 and has become Karl Rove in 2008.

For what it's worth, John, I don;t think more than .005% of the population has any idea who John Dickerson is. Frankly, I think most of the country is unable to see that John McCain is wholly unable to discuss anything outside of war.

There are so many domestic problems McCain refuses to discuss that I believe he's doomed in November. Obama discusses America AND its foriegn policy, outside of constantly beating war drums. McCain is unable to converse on the same level.

The debates should point out this, the greatest of McCain's flaws.

KevDurden & middleview;

I have had a gnawing thought on several occasions that McCain has become unstable. His joking and gaffes aside, there just seems to be something off-kilter about him. It is hard to believe that even Rove would send him out to say the things he is saying.

Is it too paranoid to think he has undergone such stress this year, and wants the presidency so much, that he is flashing back and reliving his haunted history?

In the past I have worried that I was being biased against him because of his age, but the constant, stubborn ranting reminds me of Nixon in his last throes.

John

Nixon was a lot younger than McCain is when Nixon was doing his ranting in 1971-74.

I see McCain's biggest problem as the cluster of inconsistencies in his positions: he is reliably right wing on some issues, and totally cross wise with his base on others (e.g. global warming). That collection of mixed messages means he doesn't come through clearly to the voters. Is he Bush III or isn't he. I suspect that because they can't tell, voters will decide against him and in favor of what they know is change from the past eight years.

I also think Obama can get in trouble over the surge issue. He had it right, from a message point of view, a couple of weeks ago, when he said it was working and therefore we can get out. I think he could have made that point stick. Instead, he has chosen to broaden out to all the things we could have done with the money, etc. Good points in their way, but they leave a blurred message. And he's really on logically soft ground to say that security is better, but I'm still against the surge. He doesn't have to come out and admit that it worked (as to some extent, esp. in Baghdad, it did); he just has to say, security-is-better should mean we can start withdrawing and by the way the Iraqis agree with me.

that I'm not the only one who found McCain's comments nauseating. He's fallen a long way in eight years.

What's absolutely hilarious about this post is the miniscule hair-splitting in light of widespread skull-crushing.

A "measly" 20,000 troops' strategic involvement at the peak of a conflict was simply the icing on the cake for, according to you, a grand movement which... blah blah... nevermind. It's too ridiculous to reiterate. And far too incoherent a theory to phrase with brevity, according to your scholarliness. But then again, always humor the retarded and drunk, the saying goes...

...If you really believe a contingent of Iraqis had "awakened" many months ago (as opposed to that nasty Sunni hibernation) and that they have been ready since before the surge to take over critical military operations, you may want to have a word with their own generals (the guys whose jobs depend on keeping their citizenry alive) who estimate a fairly lengthy wait for a U.S. farewell party. Something on the order of two and a half years from now. At the soonest.

When diehard relativist dupes start quoting Petraeus as if his word was holy scripture, one knows it's a bad day for the high "O"racle.

Obama displayed an inadequate understanding of foreign affairs, both at the time of the surge, and currently (his latest Mideast photo op, in which he's muted the free press), yet somehow, somewhere, a game of semantics is being used as a time-machine to distance him from his obvious ignorance.

McCain said that Obama would be willing to lose a war to win an election. A delightful, criticism-free field trip to Iraq doesn't make up for the fact that Obama's rhetoric on war and foreign affairs is dangerous and fancy-free, designed to win votes and nothing more. Or was the meaning of the sentence lost upon you?

For the record, paraphrasing a public figure (nyuk, that "treason" label oughta doit) is transparent for the rest of us who benefit from access to the internet.

'I do not recall ever hearing a candidate for President accuse his opponent of wanting to "lose" an American war.'

that is how low the dems have become. they root against america.

barry's trip to iraq is nauseating. it's like watching a cub scout go to summer camp to earn merit badges.

on this trip he will earn his first merit badge by learning how to tell military time. pop tall barry! muster on deck! it's 0615.

I didn't pick up an accusation of treason in McCain's words. Did McCain say Obama wanted America to lose this war? No. He said that Obama's politics would result in America losing strategically in Iraq.

On the other hand, you just need to come out and assert your opinion that McCain is unfit because of PTSD. I think that's going to be the Dems' smear this year (like they're playing by gentlemens' rules, ha!).

From what I've read of the man, I'm sure his first years back were terrible and tragically it cost him his first marriage. There's no cure; you live with PTSD for the rest of your life. But, for him to be in his position for this long he's managed it incredibly well. Try telling me that Barack or anyone else doesn't have dark crud in their memories.

He divorced his first wife and left his kids because she was horribly hurt in a car accident and was no longer the babe she once was before he was captured. He then left her to chase money, a trophy wife and his career. Like many other GOP saints, this one ain't.

I think you are right that the surge itself should not be Obama's focus.

McCain looks argumentative and silly as he says "I was for it and it worked and you were against it and therefore you are anti-American".

Obama can simply say "Look, as much as you'd like to claim credit for the work of those on the ground in Iraq, there have been a number of strategies going back to 2005 that have resulted in a downturn in violence...."

We started recruiting and paying for the awakening council miltias in 2005.....depending on who's numbers you use we are paying about $300 per month for around 30,000 (probably former Al Qaeda) Sunni militiamen.

The surge did not take troop levels any higher than they had been before. You can claim all you like that the additional troops accomplished great things, but in fact cannot prove it. The actual reduction in violence happened when Al-Sadr declared a truce. He and the Mehdi army have not been disarmed. If he decides the truce is over, then what General Thaddeus?

You think PTSD drove him to cheating on his wife with a rich babe?

Gentleman's rules don't require that people turn the other way when the candidate can't seem to maintain a train of thought, can't control his temper, can't answer simple questions, can't remember the name of the country his speech is about, keeps bringing up the names of countries that no longer exist and sees borders between countries that aren't next to each other.

McCain did say that Obama didn't care if America lost a war as long as he won the election.....that sounds like treason to me.

john adkisson:

KevDurden & middleview;

I have had a gnawing thought on several occasions that McCain has become unstable. His joking and gaffes aside, there just seems to be something off-kilter about him. It is hard to believe that even Rove would send him out to say the things he is saying.

Is it too paranoid to think he has undergone such stress this year, and wants the presidency so much, that he is flashing back and reliving his haunted history?

In the past I have worried that I was being biased against him because of his age, but the constant, stubborn ranting reminds me of Nixon in his last throes.

John

All aboard the moonbat express.