I think he's insulting us, my friends.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/08/mccain_every_sensible_observer_favors_escalationMcCain: Every "Sensible" Observer Favors Giving Escalation A Chance
By Greg Sargent | bio
The rollout of John McCain's "new" political strategy of aggressively arguing for pressing ahead in Iraq begins today with a McCain-authored Op-ed piece in this morning's Washington Post.
There's plenty to dig into in this piece, but I just wanted to highlight one thing. In the article McCain repeats many of his standard formulations about the hidden good news in Iraq and the alleged refusal of the press to report on it. He concludes:
There is no guarantee that we will succeed, but we must try. As every sensible observer has concluded, the consequences of failure in Iraq are so grave and so threatening for the region, and to the security of the United States, that to refuse to give Petraeus's plan a chance to succeed would constitute a tragic failure of American resolve. I hope those who cite the Iraq Study Group's conclusions note that James Baker wrote on this page last week that we must have bipartisan support for giving the new strategy time to succeed.
Never mind that many of the observers McCain surely thinks of as sensible, such as Colin Powell, the Joint Chiefs, some military commanders, and plenty of Republicans in Congress, opposed escalation completely at the outset -- and hence presumably don't think it can work, even if given a chance.
More to the point, the whole question about whether we should support giving escalation "a chance" is a big fat ruse. It's nothing but code for backing the continuation of the current policy indefinitely, with no set deadline at which we'll decide whether it's succeeded or failed, and no set of meaningful standards by which such a judgment could even be made. Is this really the course of action favored by "every sensible observer" in the United States? Who are the people McCain thinks of as "sensible observers," anyway?
Also check out McCain's assertion that James Baker wrote in the Washington Post a few days ago that escalation should be given a chance. But Baker actually argued in his piece for the implementation of the Iraq Study Group's prescriptions. While the ISG did say it could abide a short-term surge, the ISG also explicitly opposed an "open-ended" troop commitment and also called on the administration to do a bunch of other things it isn't doing now. So it's very hard indeed to read Baker's piece as support for the current strategy, which again is open-ended -- unless, of course, you're determined to read it that way.
Anyway, there's plenty here to dig into. Have fun.