Gosh, where would we all be without NY Times columnist David Brooks to tell us what is and isn't important? After all, John McCain's statement that he was right about Iraq was predicated on the notion that the surge was successful and that troop levels are back to pre-surge numbers. The fact that he is wrong about that (both the actual troop numbers and the definition of success, come to that) is of little matter to Brooks when considering his fitness as Commander-in-Chief. Why focus on little niggling details like actual troop numbers? You nitpickers.
Contrary to Brooks’s claim that “no one’s going to care” about McCain’s reading of troop levels in Iraq, the issue is critically important. As Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) noted, “If you don’t know the number of troops it’s very difficult to make a judgment on if they are over-extended.”
Brooks claimed that McCain has a “pretty strong case” that he has been “right” about Iraq. But McCain’s gaffes are the latest in a series of ignorant comments about Iraq that raise questions about a candidate who has staked his campaign on the war.
And yet, McSame is supposed to have more credibility on Iraq than Obama, why? Could it be because the talking heads that have been wrong time and time again--and I'm looking at you, Bobo--keep telling us that a grasp of facts isn't all that important?