follow-up link from an earlier posting: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/08/the_weak_link_b…

You are not running for president Star. Also, a man trying to push foreign policy and war issues, as his strength can’t make mistakes like that without huge questions being asked. Either these gaffes are mistakes or they are attempts at changing facts and history to fit his agenda. Either is disturbing. And the mistakes are much worse than just calling the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia. He has either changed history for convenience or doesn’t understand key factors of what’s happening in Iraq when last week he said the Surge made the Anbar Awakening possible. When the Anbar Awakening not only happened before the Surge, it happened before the CONCEPTION of the Surge. There’s the Sunni, Shia confusion and the confusion about which countries border which in the Middle East. If this is supposed to be his strength, God help us with his weaknesses.

Confused? Perhaps…
Taking a look at McCain’s war judgement:
July, 2008 Couric: You have said, quote, “I know how to win wars.” Which war, Sen. McCain, are you referring to?
McCain: Bosnia. Kosovo. First Gulf War. The conflict in Iraq. To name a few. I’ve been engaged in every single one of them, and in a decision making process as one of the senior members of the Armed Services Committee. And engaged in the debates on the floor of the United States Senate. And involved in the Armed Services Committee.
Bosnia June 7, 1993 Senator Bob McCain (R., Ariz.) - a former Vietnam POW and consistent Cold War hawk - is allied with Senator John Glenn (D., Ohio) in opposition to U.S. involvement….Today some of the most conservative leaders in the U.S. Senate oppose American involvement in Bosnia. Trent Lott, Thad Cochran, and John McCain are all Bosnia doves.
And in Kosovo ~ from The American Conservative
We were, McCain warned, in danger of “losing” to the Serbian army—with its outdated equipment and complete lack of an air force—if we failed to launch air strikes that were “massive, strategic and sustained.” Furthermore, “no infrastructure targets should have been off limits”—factories, water plants, hospitals, schools, markets, whatever. Yes, “we all grieve over civilian casualties as well as our own losses,” but “they are unavoidable.”
The conflict lasted little more than 11 weeks, and, contra McCain, the U.S. was never in danger of losing. A “massive” bombing campaign would have accomplished little aside from inflicting untold suffering on innocent civilians and incurring the everlasting enmity of the Serbian people—and of decent people everywhere.
and of course there is his assessment of going to war in Iraq
“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]
“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]
“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

help me, women and men of 60 and over. does mccain make sense? beyond a presidential threshold? i rest my case.

Elizabeth B, Well said, and in addition McCain seems to have adopted the Bush administration’s tactic of saying things louder and more vehemently if anyone questions their facts or suppositions. And then if we still question, the tactic is to call the person unpatriotic or of being soft on terrorism. When McCain answers questions I sometimes catch a barely concealed contempt, bordering on anger, that how dare anyone question him. Not a good prescription to move the country forward in this day and age.

Actually the entire quote involved called her a trollop for her make-up and the c word—I agree with all of your post Elizabeth.