From the beginning, Sen. McCain alternately praised and criticized President Bush's execution of the war. He seemed to support the idea of the war even when WMD's weren't found and evidence emerged that the Congressional briefings had been rigged to present a more inflammatory picture than the intelligence supported. McCain's primary criticism of the war was that it wasn't being pursued vigorously enough.

Obama was not in Congress at the start so missed the briefings. From his perch in Chicago he opposed the war from the start. He argued that we needed to keep our focus on Afghanistan. Once we were in Iraq he suggested we needed to get out as soon as we could do so safely.

As the war progressed from euphoria, to Mission Accomplished, to the Falluja contractor murders, the confrontation with the Mahdi Militia, the the Sunni insurgency, the emergence of AQI, the bombing of the Golden Dome, and all out ethnic cleansing and partition in 2006, neither candidate changed his position.

When Bush suggested an escalation he dubbed the Surge in early 2007, McCain thought it was a good idea. He even suggested it might be better if even more troops that Bush called for, were sent. Bush had a problem though, there just weren't any more troops. Not only was he “doubling down,” he was going “all in.” The surge was to create a peaceful breathing space that the central Iraqi government could use to achive political objectives. At Congressional insistence 18 benchmarks were devised to measure the success of the political plan and Gen. Petraeus was to give periodic reports.

Obama criticized the surge arguing that it was expensive, unwanted by the American people and that would not achieve its political objectives. Obama suggested instead that we needed to reduce our troop presence in Iraq over a sixteen month period. He believed this would force the Iraqis to step up to their responsibilities.

On Jul 21, 2008 when Sen. Obama met with Gen Petraeus and later Prime Minister al Malaki in Iraq, he observed that the violence in Iraq had been lessened by the surge, but he suggested there were other factors in the reduced violence as well. He cited the Sunni awakening and the central government's effectiveness in keeping the shi'a militias quiet.

McCain reacted with outrage. He claimed Obama was revising history. He seemed to assert that the surge and the surge alone was responsible for the reduction in violence. He attributed the Sunni Awakening as a result of the Surge even though the Awakening predated the surge by over six months. He failed to comment on the stand down of the Shi'a militias one way or the other.

When confronted with the timing discrepancy McCain said the surge included tactics adopted in Anbar prior to the surge. He explained that these tactics were in fact part of the surge because the were “counter-insurgency tactics. “ Get it, it even sounds like surge. He went on to say that since the new tactics required more troops to be effective they were actually the reason why we needed more troops. Thus the surge actually started six months before it started. Confusing?

I'm guessing that what he meant was that the Army noticed the success of certain tactics in Anbar. They realized more troops would be needed to pursue that tactic. So the surge was proposed including both the tactics and the increased manpower. With a new Democratic Congress and the American people questioning the war, the battle to gain approval of the surge strategy was difficult. A few champions including McCain had to stand tall to get it enacted. He saw it as a necessary step for victory. Thus his tortured logic contains some validity and his overall demeanor towards Obama becomes clearer.

Both men are just rolling the dice. One believes in military power above all else. The other believes that reason will prevail once all positions are understood. As citizens we must choose which world we want to live in. McCain's world is dangerous, filled with irrational adversaries, traitors and ill informed even naive fellow travelers. He is fearful and believes that we need to stand strong and confront every risk. Obama's world contains opportunities and risks, rational adversaries with contrary points-of-view, and lots and lots of talk.

Well the press isn't having much of a problem. They are reacting to this dust up just like they've reacted to everything else. Their reactions are totally partisan. Conservative press ignores McCain's inconsistency and focuses on McCain calling Obama a traitor who would rather lose a war than lose an election. Liberal press focuses on McCain's tortured logic and asks whether he has totally lost his grip on reality. Either point of view might suggest neither of these guys should be candidates for the Presidency.