No doubt, history will not be kind to George W Bush. And to be sure, Bush is already returning the favor. Apparently stunned by the Russian assault on Georgia, President Bush forgot his invasion of "sovereign" Iraq and declared, "Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century". As it turns out, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice and Mitt Romney all failed the same test on 21st century history.

While unwilling to acknowledge that he had misread Vladimir Putin's soul back in 2001, President Bush on August 11th issued a tough statement about Moscow's massive retaliation against Tbilisi:

"It now appears that an effort may be underway to depose Russia's duly elected government. Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century."

While Bush misspoke in describing "Russia's duly elected government," his point about a nation threatening a democracy was a none-too-thinly veiled effort to distinguish Moscow's invasion of Georgia from his own in Iraq.

For her part, Secretary of State Condi Rice didn't even bother with that feeble distinction. Rice, who in a replay of her pre-9/11 failure apparently missed the memo "Putin Determined to Strike in Georgia," also selectively edited the Iraq war out of the 21st century. On August 18th, she said:

"But I just want to emphasize again, Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used, that will make it - that - when it wishes to deliver a message, and that's its military power. That's not the way to deal in the 21st century."

Bush's would-be successor John McCain, too, got it wrong. On August 13th, McCain as part of his effort to capitalize on the Georgia crisis pronounced:

"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."

That's McCain's selective amnesia would extend to the Iraq war is unsurprising. He wasn't merely wrong at almost every turn in the run-up to and the occupation of Iraq, he also happened to be one the war's biggest cheerleaders. Quick to cite the September 2001 anthrax attacks as a potential pretext to attack Saddam, in January 2002 McCain simply exhorted Americans, "next up, Baghdad!"

Then there's Mitt Romney. Rumored to top John McCain's list of potential running mates, Romney told right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that Russia's assault on Georgia should cost it the 2014 Olympic Games:

"Well, Hugh, my own view is as the Caucuses are a hot spot, and as Russians have shown their willingness to act militarily against a sovereign nation, that the International Olympic Committee ought to revisit locating the Games elsewhere."

(Romney's willingness to parrot John McCain's talking points as part of his transparent effort to join the ticket borders on the comic. When Romney endorsed the Arizona Senator in February, he signaled his desire to follow John McCain follow Osama Bin Laden to the "gates of hell.")

With the leading lights of the Republican Party having failed 21st Century History 101, the task was left to the ever-excreable Dick Morris to explain it away on Fox News. Appearing on Hannity and Colmes, Morris comically argued that the American invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq came at the request of a democratically-elected government in Baghdad. Attacking Barack Obama's self-evident message to the Russians that "it helps if we are leading by example," Morris argued:

"Where he's wrong is that we went into Iraq at the invitation of the government, not as an invasion."

"We're in Iraq as the result of a democracy asking for us to come in there. It's not an invasion."

And so it goes. The best and brightest of the GOP fundamentally misrepresent recent history, yet theirs is labeled the party of national security. And John McCain, the man who repeatedly failed the commander-in-chief test on Iraq, gets glowing grades from the media just the same.

The announcement today that the United States will deploy up to 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan is just the latest signal of the Pentagon's seeming support for Barack Obama's strategy to fight Al Qaeda in the region. Following by just weeks Obama's latest call to send at least two more brigades of American troops there, the request by U.S. commanders again confirmed Obama's assertion, one denied by John McCain, that Iraq represents a "zero sum game" for scarce American military resources.

That request by General David McKiernan, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, comes on the heels of Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen's agreement with Senator Obama that the situation along the Pakistan frontier is "precarious and urgent." The need is urgent indeed: in July, 9 American troops were killed in an insurgent raid that overran a U.S. border outpost; yesterday, 10 French soldiers were killed in a Taliban attack. In response, General McKiernan hopes to bolster the 101st Airborne Division with up to three brigades.

But as U.S. News reported this morning, the challenge for McKiernan and his staff is finding the needed troops. While their ask has been approved, a defense official noted, "Now that means we just need to figure out a way to get them there." As McKiernan himself made clear, the only "way" is to get the troops from Iraq:

Finding those particular troops to supplement the 101st, however, depends on conditions and troop levels in Iraq, adds McKiernan, who took over the NATO command in June. "That's really a zero-sum decision."

In early July, Admiral Mullen admitted as much. On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen told reporters that the United States could only deploy more forces there by first drawing down from Iraq:

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."

And on that point, Barack Obama and John McCain part company. From almost the inception of his campaign, Obama has argued that the diversion of U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq meant that "the people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice." In a June speech, Obama highlighted McCain's denial of this inescapable point:

"We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

McCain's denial - and disagreement with the Pentagon - over the trade-offs in sending more U.S. forces to the Afghan-Pakistan frontier doesn't end there. While McCain reversed course and mimicked Obama's call for more troops in Afghanistan, he fudged as to whether they should come from the United States or its NATO allies. Cornered on the question of where he intends to come up with the needed reinforcements, McCain feebly responded:

"We need to work that out. We need to have greater participation on the part of our NATO allies, as I said in my opening remarks today, and we need a lot more help."

Still, McCain's confused and contradictory statements didn't stop him from calling for "surge for Afghanistan" on July 15. (As Steve Benen rightly noted, a "surge" is now John McCain's prescription for all ills, foreign and domestic.) But as General McKiernan reiterated today, the United States doesn't need a surge in the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but a long-term commitment:

He disputes the notion that the three brigades on the way represent a troop "surge" for Afghanistan, predicting the need for an extended involvement of a larger force. "I've certainly said that we need more security capabilities," he says. "But I would not use the term 'surge,' because I think we need a sustained presence."

At every turn, the Pentagon has backed Barack Obama's approach to defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions. While John McCain in February ridiculed Barack Obama's call for unilateral American strikes against Al Qaeda targets within Pakistan, the Bush administration and the Pentagon soon adopted Obama's thinking. (Just today, an apparent U.S. missile strike killed 18 militants in South Waziristan.)

Earlier this week, the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy released their annual "Terrorism Index." Their survey of 100 bipartisan foreign policy analysts found that 51% believe Pakistan will be the next Al Qaeda stronghold; exactly zero said "Iraq." 80% said the U.S. had not dedicated enough resources to Afghanistan, while 69% called for redeploying the majority of American troops from Iraq over the next 18 months.

All of which sounds like it could have come from Barack Obama. Or, as was made clear again today, from the Pentagon.

One of the most enduring moments of the 9/11 Commission hearings came when Condoleezza Rice casually recalled the now infamous August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief (PDB). "I believe," she said, "the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" Now almost exactly seven years later, Secretary of State Rice seems to have missed the warning signs once again. Having sent mixed messages to Tbilisi in July and on vacation as Russian armor poured into the country, Condi Rice ignored the alarm, "Putin determined to strike in Georgia."

The latest failings of George W. Bush's putative Russian expert were detailed by the New York Times this morning. In early July, Condi Rice traveled to Georgia to show support for President Saakashvili in the face of Russian violations of his nation's air space. But while Rice offered "defiant" public support for Georgia amid the growing tensions with Moscow, behind the scenes she was cautioning Saakashvili against precipitous military action in South Ossetia. As the Times described:

During a private dinner on July 9, Ms. Rice's aides say, she warned President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia not to get into a military conflict with Russia that Georgia could not win. "She told him, in no uncertain terms, that he had to put a non-use of force pledge on the table," according to a senior administration official who accompanied Ms. Rice to the Georgian capital.

But publicly, Ms. Rice struck a different tone, one of defiant support for Georgia in the face of Russian pressure. "I'm going to visit a friend and I don't expect much comment about the United States going to visit a friend," she told reporters just before arriving in Tbilisi, even as Russian jets were conducting intimidating maneuvers over South Ossetia.

But when the conflict exploded last week, Rice was missing in action. In a haunting echo of Bush's prolonged August 2001 getaway to his Crawford ranch, Secretary of State Rice was on vacation as Russian forces pounded Georgia. As AFP reported on Monday, days after the start of hostilities:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also been noticeably absent on the diplomatic scene, having failed to interrupt her holidays to fly to Tbilisi in support of the Georgian government.

Instead senior State Department official, Matthew Bryza, who oversees the Caucasus region was sent, two days later than planned, to join a joint EU-US mediation effort to win a ceasefire.

Rice's absence did not go unnoticed either in Washington or in the press. Despite claims by the State Department that Rice made more than 90 calls regarding the crisis over the weekend, yesterday the Los Angeles Times simply asked, "where's Condoleezza Rice?" The Wall Street Journal theorized that Rice "seemed so preoccupied with Iraq, Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict that she didn't have time to fashion an effective response to Russia's muscle-flexing on its borders." For his part, even John McCain highlighted Rice's inaction, stating "the Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe."

Better late than never, President Bush announced today that he is dispatching Secretary Rice to the region, including visits to France, Russia and Georgia. But as the Bush administration contemplates its response to the ongoing Putin/Medvedev assault on Georgia, in Tbilisi President Saakashvili warned of dire consequences for the United States:

"America is losing the whole region, and this is the region of eastern and central Europe."

That region is supposed to be the area of greatest expertise for the ersatz Soviet guru Condoleezza Rice. But as she showed in assessing the threats posed to U.S. national security by Al Qaeda in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and now Russia in 2008, Condoleezza Rice apparently doesn't know a "grave and gathering danger" when she sees one.

UPDATE: You know things are bad when President Bush postpones his annual Crawford vacation.

That the Republican water carrier and New York Times columnist David Brooks would blast Barack Obama's Berlin speech was utterly predictable. (Kevin Drum even predicted the title of the piece, "Playing Innocent Abroad.") To be sure, by slandering Obama's call to "remake the world" with epithets including "saccharine," "treacle," and "Disney," Brooks did not disappoint. Of course, even less surprising is that back in 2005, David Brooks had only glowing praise for President Bush's democratization agenda and its audacious vision to "imagine new worlds."

On Friday, Brooks wasted little time in excoriating Obama for his optimistic call for a new internationalism in which American global leadership restored could help tackle the challenges of terrorism, sectarian strife, economic prosperity and climate change:

"Obama speeches almost always have the same narrative arc. Some problem threatens. The odds are against the forces of righteousness. But then people of good faith unite and walls come tumbling down. Obama used the word "walls" 16 times in the Berlin speech, and in 11 of those cases, he was talking about walls coming down...

...But substantively, optimism without reality isn't eloquence. It's just Disney."

Ironically, Brooks opened by noting that "radical optimism is America's contribution to the world" and that "Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush preached their own gospels of world democracy." Ironic, because when the optimistic preacher in 2005 was President Bush, David Brooks was all for it.

During his February 2005 State of the Union address, Bush declared that the mission of the United States was nothing less than to end tyranny and dictatorship worldwide:

"The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom...And we've declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

That Republican's radical vision was one David Brooks could get behind. Joining giddy conservatives like Rich Lowry and Charles Krauthammer in premature celebration of the Bush Doctrine, Brooks lauded the Bush agenda for bringing what then seemed like a wave of democracy around the world.

In February 26, 2005 column (titled "Why Not Here?"), Brooks' assessment was a mirror image of today's Obama diatribe. Looking to the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, pro-democracy protests in the Palestinian territories and elections in Iraq, Brooks proclaimed that all across the Middle East - and the world - people were asking "why not here?"

Amazingly, Brooks then cited Ronald Reagan's own 1987 Berlin speech as invoking the world of possibility the visionary George W. Bush had imagined:

It's amazing in retrospect to think of how much psychological resistance there is to asking this breakthrough question: Why not here? We are all stuck in our traditions and have trouble imagining the world beyond. As Claus Christian Malzahn reminded us in Der Spiegel online this week, German politicians ridiculed Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in 1987. They "couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany."

But if there is one soft-power gift America does possess, it is this tendency to imagine new worlds. As Malzahn goes on to note, "In a country of immigrants like the United States, one actually pushes for change…We Europeans always want to have the world from yesterday, whereas the Americans strive for the world of tomorrow."

Apparently, the mere act of changing the speaker's name - and party affiliation - produces a 180-degree turn from David Brooks.

The image of tearing down walls wasn't the only historical device Obama deployed in Berlin on Thursday. He repeatedly harkened back to the 1948 American airlift which saved the city and busted the Soviet blockade. Obama's was not merely a metaphor for a reinvigorated trans-Atlantic partnership, but a call for renewed American global leadership. Alas, David Brooks is comfortable only when American dictates, not when America leads.

Back in 2005, Brooks concluded his piece by exhibiting the same symptoms of conservative hubris which have backfired so tragically for the United States. Just months before Russia's authoritarian swing, carnage in Lebanon and the Hamas triumph in Palestine, Brooks insisted Bush deserved accolades for prompting the cry of "why not here?":

"But this is clearly the question the United States is destined to provoke. For the final thing that we've learned from the papers this week is how thoroughly the Bush agenda is dominating the globe. When Bush meets with Putin, democratization is the center of discussion. When politicians gather in Ramallah, democratization is a central theme. When there's an atrocity in Beirut, the possibility of freedom leaps to people's minds."

But that was then and this is now. Barack Obama speaks of a "new dawn in the Middle East" or all of Europe choosing "its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday," And that, according to David Brooks is "Disney."

Just one month after he took to the floor of the House to appropriate the memory of the late Tim Russert to push for offshore drilling, California Rep. Darrell Issa is at again. Rushing to defend former Attorney General John Ashcroft over charges that the Bush administration's practice of waterboarding detainees was tantamount to torture, Issa told the House Judiciary Committee that "we treated our hospital patients at times worse than al Qaeda."

Coming from the man who reduced the 9/11 attacks in New York to a plane crash, Issa's exchange with Ashcroft should come as no surprise:

ISSA: It is sort of amazing that as a member of the permanent Select Intelligence Committee, I've never heard any allegation of any detainee being denied food or water for a week. It's clear that we treated our hospital patients at times worse than al Qaeda.

ASCHROFT: What's more, they were poking needles into me all the time time.

Of course, Issa had guaranteed himself a particularly hot seat in Dante's inner circle long before Thursday's monstrosity about enhanced interrogation techniques. From attacking the families of dead Blackwater contractors and accusing Valerie Plame of perjury to playing a vital role in purging a U.S. attorney and committing myriad other outrages, the Darrell Issa Hall of Shame was already quite full.

While a terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland would be a tragedy for the American people, it would apparently be viewed as a blessing by the campaign of John McCain. On the same day that USA Today reported that terrorism is the only issue on which Americans clearly prefer John McCain to Barack Obama, McCain senior strategist Charlie Black admitted of another terror strike here, "certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

As it turns out, John McCain and his surrogates not only believe that what's good for Al Qaeda is good for Republican prospects in the fall. They also argue the flip-side of the terror card: merely the specter of an Obama presidency would help achieve the GOP's second goal, an attack on Iran. Call it John McCain's "Bring 'Em On" strategy.

On Monday, John McCain claimed to reject and Charlie Black claimed to apologize for Black's invitation of an Al Qaeda attack. Sadly, McCain has a proven track record of extolling the virtues of terror threats as a tonic for Republican electoral misfortunes.

McCain said as much in the run-up to the 2004 election. Referring to a recently released tape from the still at-large Osama Bin Laden, McCain in October 2004 saw the upside for President Bush's prospects:

"I think it's very helpful to President Bush. It focuses America's attention on the war on terrorism. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect."

In December 2007, McCain also saw the carnage and chaos in Pakistan as a potential boon to his own White House hopes. When it came to highlighting his much-hyped national security cred, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was all good. While her murder and the tumult it produced was "an unfortunate event," to again quote Charlie Black, "it helped us." As CNN's Dana Bash noted Monday, McCain concurred with Black's assessment that Bhutto's killing "reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief:"

BASH: I was actually with Sen. McCain the very day that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated...He really did understand from that moment that this was something that he thought could help him in the race at that point to be the Republican nominee. In fact, at that event that very day I asked Sen. McCain if he thought it would help his political campaign and he said pretty much "Yes." So it's not a secret that back then that Sen. McCain and his campaign thought it would help.

But even failing the arrival of the wished-for Al Qaeda Kicker for McCain, his neo-conservatives allies still have another terror card up their sleeves. Just the likelihood of Barack Obama's election, they warn, will certainly lead to the bombing of Iran before the year is out, either by President Bush or by Israel.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, Bill Kristol told host Chris Wallace that rather than allow a change of course towards Tehran by Obama, President Bush might well "launch a military strike" before or after the election:

WALLACE: So, you're suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama's going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

KRISTOL: I don't know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can't - it's hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.

Meanwhile, former UN ambassador and McCain hardliner John Bolton contended the same day that if George W. Bush didn't attack Israel before the start of an Obama presidency, the Israelis would:

"I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I don't think they will do anything before our election because they don't want to affect it. And they'td have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush's term in office or wait for his successor."

(As if on cue, it was revealed that Israel conducted a massive aerial exercise in the Mediterranean earlier this month, featuring over 100 F-16 and F-15 planes in what many saw as a simulated assault on the Iranian nuclear complex at Natanz.)

Ironically, John McCain released an ad just three weeks ago designed to distance himself from George W. Bush by proclaiming, "only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war." But while tweaking Bush's foolish belligerence as exemplified by statements like "dead or alive," "bring 'em on," "I'm a little envious" and "kick ass," McCain only served to highlight his own. McCain, after all, joked that he would "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and claimed he would follow Osama Bin Laden to "the gates of hell." McCain, too, announced that he is the "worst nightmare" of Hamas and Al Qaeda.

But should they attack the United States between now and November, as McCain suggested in 2004, "I think it's very helpful."

In the wake of the Supreme Court's restoration of habeas corpus rights in its Boumediene decision Friday, John McCain and his allies on the right have predictably forecast an American bloodbath at the hands of terrorists unleashed from Guantanamo. While Justice Antonin Scalia claimed the ruling would "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," Newt Gingrich contended the Supreme Court "could cost us a city." As for McCain, he simply regurgitated a soon-to-be familiar GOP talking point, "30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again."

Unfortunately for McCain and his Republican echo chamber, recent investigations from the McClatchy papers and Seton Hall University professor Mark Denbeaux suggest those figure for Gitmo recidivists, like so much else Bush administration propaganda, is apparently much exaggerated.

In July 2007, the Pentagon released a study by a terrorism study center at West Point to refute earlier findings from Denbeaux and his colleagues. As the New York Times noted:

It paints a chilling portrait of the detainees, asserting that publicly available information indicates that 73 percent of them were a "demonstrated threat" to American or coalition forces. In all, it says, 95 percent were at the least a "potential threat," including detainees who had played a supporting role in terrorist groups or had expressed a commitment to pursuing violent jihadist goals. The study is based on information from detainees' hearings in 2004 and 2005.

And in what would become the foundation for John McCain's sound bite Friday, the report dug through the data from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) to conclude, as Pentagon spokesman Jeffrey Gorden put it:

"In fact, our reports indicate that at least 30 former Guantanamo detainees have taken part in anti-coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention," he said. "Some have been killed in combat in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

But during a December 11, 2007 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Denbeaux presented an analysis of the same data to reach a starkly different conclusion. The Seton Hall professor and detainee lawyer contended:

Just as the Government's claims that the Guantanamo detainees "were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces," do not comport with the Department of Defense's own data, neither do its claims that former detainees have "returned to the fight." The Department of Defense has publicly insisted that at least thirty (30) former Guantanamo detainees have "returned" to the battlefield, where they have been re-captured or killed. To date, however, the Department has described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists, and has identified only seven (7) of these individuals by name. More strikingly, data provided by the Department of Defense reveals that:

- at least eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals identified alleged by the Government to have "returned to the fight" are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies;

- ten (10) of the individuals have neither been re-captured nor killed by anyone;

- and of the five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, two (2) of the individuals' names do not appear on the list of individuals who have at any time been detained at Guantanamo, and the remaining three (3) include one (1) individual who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantanamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.

No doubt, Denbeaux's role as a defense attorney for detainees held by the United States in Cuba means his analysis will (and should) draw extra scrutiny. But in its devastating three-part probe into the American detainee system, McClatchy largely confirmed Denbeaux's assessment:

A study published by a professor at the Seton Hall School of Law found that 45 percent of 516 Guantanamo detainees examined had committed hostile acts against the United States or its allies, and that only 8 percent of them had been al Qaida fighters. The study drew on unclassified Department of Defense transcripts and documents from military tribunals at Guantanamo...

...So who got it right?

It's not possible to say definitively. However, a McClatchy investigation came to conclusions similar to the Seton Hall study, and West Point's statistical breakdown, under close examination, helps explain how Guantanamo's cellblocks became filled with innocents and low-level Taliban grunts.

There is no question that some number of those held at Guantanamo Bay are indeed the "worst of the worst" (as the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and associates makes clear). But the Pentagon's 2007 study was a political document (as the Times reported, "Colonel Felter acknowledged, however, that military officials had indicated they wanted to contest the Seton Hall report"). And no doubt, we haven't heard the last of those 30 terror recidivists from John McCain and his friends.

UPDATE: Denbeaux and his Seton Hall colleagues on June 17th issued a new report in response to Scalia's Boumediene dissent. Pointing out that the DoD itself abandoned the "30 released detainees" claim, Denbeaix et al term the Scalia/McCain/Yoo talking point an "urban legend."

On the stump in New Jersey today, John McCain launched a thundering two-pronged assault on yesterday's Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus rights for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Again raising the specter of "unaccountable judges," McCain picked up on his earlier, right-wing handbook assault against so-called judicial activism. Then turning to fear-mongering, McCain proclaimed "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" will lead to more attacks against the American people. But lost in McCain's red-faced response is his effort to whitewash his own past role in undermining both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

Expanding on his predictable response Thursday, John McCain today went full-throttle in hopes of making the Bush administration's detainee program a campaign issue. And to be sure, McCain stressed his own role in crafting the Military Commissions Act and Detainee Treatment Act rebuked by the Supreme Court yesterday:

"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have.

And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material."

Unfortunately for McCain, his reading of recent American history doesn't comport with the facts. In 2005 and 2006, John McCain was complicit in both undermining the Geneva Conventions and in yielding to President Bush's regime of torture.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's June 2006 Hamdan decision striking down the military tribunal system then in place, President Bush and his Congressional allies rushed to enact the Military Commissions Act in advance of the fall mid-term elections. Giving President Bush alone the ability by executive order to interpret the Geneva Conventions, the MCA not only denied detainees access to federal courts, but declared:

"No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights."

As Cliff Schecter details in his book The Real McCain, Mr. Straight Talk offered anything but in lauding what Congress had done in the Military Commissions Act. On September 28, 2006, McCain declared Geneva had been preserved after all:

"Simply put, this legislation ensures that we respect our obligations under Geneva, recognizes the President's constitutional authority to interpret treaties, and brings accountability and transparency to the process of interpretation by ensuring that the executive's interpretation is made public. The legislation would also guarantee that Congress and the judicial branch will retain their traditional roles of oversight and review with respect to the President's interpretation of non-grave breaches of Common Article 3."

It's no wonder the Washington Post took McCain to task in the fall of 2006 for his Orwellian double-speak:

In short, it's hard to credit the statement by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday that "there's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved." In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent.

As it turns out, John McCain similarly gave his tacit assent to President Bush regime of torture the previous year. After all, it was President Bush's December 30, 2005 signing statement on McCain's amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act that made waterboarding and other acts of torture the continuing policy of the United States.

Bush, of course, had opposed John McCain's torture bill throughout the fall of 2005. But when the House and Senate passed McCain's amendment to the defense authorization bill by veto proof margins, Bush held a December 15 press conference with McCain, announcing his support for the language explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

As the Boston Globe reported, that supposed compromise lasted just as long as it took for President Bush to issue his signing statement two weeks later on December 30. When it comes to what constitutes "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees," the President proclaimed that he indeed would be the decider.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

Stabbed in the back by Bush, John McCain nevertheless went along for the ride. With his "no" vote this February on the Senate bill to ban waterboarding by the CIA, McCain revealed that in his never-ending quest to appease his party's conservative base, no humiliation at the hands of George Bush is too great.

Predictably, John McCain kowtowed to the White House in just his latest affirmation of a de facto Bush third term. As the Washington Post noted:

But McCain sided with the Bush administration yesterday on the waterboarding ban passed by the Senate, saying in a statement that the measure goes too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said current laws already forbid waterboarding, and he urged the administration to declare it illegal.

"Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation" of laws and treaties, McCain said.

And so it goes. John McCain endorsed the eradication of Geneva protections he today claimed to have preserved. McCain today insisted that "I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners" despite his acquiescence in President Bush's program to do exactly that. And yet it was John McCain who today attacked the Justices of the Supreme Court for being "unaccountable."

The Los Angeles Times reports today that Republican nominee John McCain has begun a quiet retreat from the centerpiece of his foreign policy vision, a so-called "League of Democracies." First unveiled in May 2007 and a highlight of his March 26 national security address, McCain despite his past angry criticism of America's European allies envisioned a league of democracies which could "act with great influence and power, both economically and militarily." Unfortunately for McCain, what thrills his neoconservative backers is what worries America's friends: the true purpose of his proposal is to "kill the UN."

In multiple speeches and in his November 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, McCain outlined a vision of the world's 100 democracies as like"-minded nations working together in the cause of peace." The organization, which would not include Russia, could act "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval." As the LA Times noted, McCain's League "could use military force as well as economic and diplomatic pressure" in Iran, Darfur and other global hot spots.

Despite Senator McCain's insistence that "this League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations," his hawkish neocon supporters haven't been shy about proclaiming otherwise. Last May, the Weekly Standard reported that many in the conservative blogosphere felt McCain's proposal didn't go far enough in defenestrating either the UN or America's supposedly feckless allies. But on March 27, Charles Krauthammer was positively ecstatic about McCain's League as representing a death blow to the United Nations:

"What I like about it, it's got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it's all about listening and joining with allies, all the kind of stuff you'd hear a John Kerry say, except that the idea here, which McCain can't say, but I can, is to essentially kill the U.N."

Which is precisely what so concerns foreign policy realists here at home and America's friends abroad. Despite McCain's claims to the contrary, the LA Times reports that "European officials were cautious." On senior EU official said McCain's league, with its confrontational stance towards Russia (whom McCain would expel from the G-8), "can appear as something divisive." Ford and Bush 41 national security adviser Brent Scowcroft wrote "that it was a 'bad idea' to create a new bloc in global affairs that would divide the world 'between the good and the evil.'" (The Desert Beacon has a thorough round up of other reactions.)

So this past week, John McCain began the walk back from the edge of the foreign policy abyss. While still mouthing his platitudes and catch phrases about his League (as recently as yesterday on ABC's This Week), McCain has started - quietly - to defang his proposal:

Now, however, McCain says the group would not use military force, and would be an informal organization in which democratic nations come together in different groupings, depending on their concerns.

"It does not envision military action," McCain told reporters in Dallas on April 11. He said it would "not be a formal organization; it would be a coalition of nations that shifts sometimes depending on what their priorities are."

That dramatic turnaround, however, is just one of the ironies for a man who prides himself on supposed straight talk. The very democracies McCain sees as the core of his League are the same nations he repeatedly ridiculed in the past.

Last May, for example, McCain announced that "to be a good leader, America must be a good ally," adding, "We Americans must be willing to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies." But in the run-up to and in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, John McCain had only scorn for France, Germany and the other nations of what Donald Rumsfeld deemed "Old Europe:"

"The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer: France and Germany do not speak for Europe...most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values. We thank this European majority for standing with us." (February 11, 2003)

"Compare our great power allies in the Cold War with those with whom we act today in dealing with Iraq. France has unashamedly pursued a concerted policy to dismantle the UN sanctions regime, placing its commercial interests above international law, world peace and the political ideals of Western civilization. Remember them? Liberte, egalite, fraternite." (February 13, 2003)

"They remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it...Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt made a very serious mistake when they decided to give France a veto in the Security Council when the United Nations was organized." (February 18, 2003)

While John McCain's dual retreats from his past France-bashing and League of Democracies concept may create confusion about his future foreign policy and attitude towards the United Nations, one man provides a pretty good indication of where McCain's true feelings lay. John Bolton (who famously quipped that if the UN building lost its top 10 floors, "it wouldn't make a bit of difference") praised McCain for his past support. "He thought I was the type of ambassador that ought to represent the United States at the United Nations."

Two new reports released Thursday offer a devastating assessment of President Bush's leadership as commander-in-chief. First, the GAO concluded that "al-Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan's border area." Then just hours later, a study from the National Defense University proclaimed the Iraq war "a major debacle" whose outcome was "in doubt." Together, they paint a damning portrait of Bush's failures in the global war on terror.

Of the $10.5 billion in aid provided to Pakistan since then, about $5.8 billion has been identified specifically for efforts along the border, mostly to reimburse Pakistan for military operations, according to GAO. Federal officials told the GAO that some 120,000 military and paramilitary forces have been deployed by Pakistan and hundreds of suspected al-Qaeda operatives have been killed or captured.

Last July, President Bush in the wake of the NIE admitted the failure of his no safe havens policy, one almost wholly dependent on General Pervez Musharraf to execute. During his July 21, 2007 radio address, Bush acknowledged:

"One of the most troubling [points in the NIE] is its assessment that al Qaeda has managed to establish a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. Last September, President Musharraf of Pakistan reached an agreement that gave tribal leaders more responsibility for policing their own areas. Unfortunately, tribal leaders were unwilling and unable to go after al Qaeda or the Taliban."

Prospects for Al Qaeda's regeneration may have improved further in the wake of elections that saw Musharraf's allies defeated in parliament. The government of new Prime Minister Gilani has announced it will seek negotiations with militants near the Afghanistan border. (That announcement brought a worried Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte to Islamabad, where he announced, "I don't see how you can talk with those kind of people.") No doubt, the U.S. will have to exercise great care with the newly elected government there even as it steps up unilateral strikes within Pakistani territory.

The study by the Pentagon's premier military education institute is all the more damaging given its author, Joseph Collins. Collins served as a senior DoD official working under Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfwitz. And his assessment of the Iraq war's impact, based in part on interviews with other former senior officials, was brutally frank. Written last fall, the study ("Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath") concluded:

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.

"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.

The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.

Taken together, the two reports provide bookends for the foreign policy of the Bush administration. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America's mortal enemy Al Qaeda remains unsubdued, safely ensconced in a safe haven President Bush has allowed to fester. Meanwhile, the conflict in Iraq has left U.S. forces overstretched, Iranian influence paramount and American prestige worldwide in tatters. No doubt, America is less safe thanks to the tenure of George W. Bush. To be sure, that constitutes a failing report card.

UPDATE: In a follow-up interview, Joseph Collins clarified that his "occasional paper" was in fact neither an NDU nor a Pentagon document. He notes that his paper "was mainly about the period 2002-04" and that:

"This study examines how the United States chose to go to war in Iraq, how its decision-making process functioned, and what can be done to improve that process. The central finding of this study is that U.S. efforts in Iraq were hobbled by a set of faulty assumptions, a flawed planning effort, and a continuing inability to create security conditions in Iraq that could have fostered meaningful advances in stabilization, reconstruction, and governance."

During his remarks, McCain used the press shield issue to woo a press corps whose hearts he had long since won over. Citing the "disgrace of Abu Ghraib," revelations which "made it much harder to protect the American people from harm," McCain announced that he had "narrowly decided" to support the shield legislation:

"I respect those of my colleagues who have decided not to; appreciate very much the concerns that have informed their position, and encourage further negotiations to address those concerns. But if the vote were held today, I would vote yes. By so doing, I and others, on behalf of the people we represent, are willing to invest in the press a very solemn trust that in the use of confidential sources you will not do more harm than good whether it comes to the security of the nation or the reputation of good people. "

But McCain also made no bones that the harm he feared was damage to the Bush White House and its Republican allies. Before he pronounced his fealty to protecting confidential sources, he also made it clear he supported President Bush, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and their right-wing amen corner in wanting to punish the New York Times over its 2005 revelation of illegal NSA domestic surveillance.

"I take a very, very dim view of stories that disclose classified information that unnecessarily threatens or makes it more difficult to protect the physical security of Americans. I think that has happened before, rarely, but it has happened. I think the New York Times' decision to disclose surveillance programs to monitor the conversations of people who wish to do us harm came too close to crossing that line. And I understand completely why the government charged with defending our security would want to discourage that from happening and hold the people who disclosed that damaging information accountable for their action."

As it turns out, McCain today sounds little different than Bush and the conservative commentariat. After the December 16, 2005 revelations about the NSA program by New York Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, President Bush raged three days later about what he deemed "a shameful act" that is "helping the enemy". Claiming he himself didn't order an investigation, Bush added "the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation" At a subsequent press conference that same day, Alberto Gonzales suggested the retribution that was to come:

"As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, as the President indicated, this is really hurting national security, this has really hurt our country, and we are concerned that a very valuable tool has been compromised. As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, we'll just have to wait and see."

Americans didn't have to wait long. In August 2007, a team of FBI agents raided the home of Thomas M. Tamm, a veteran prosecutor and former official of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) within DOJ.

The Bush administration's amen corner among the conservative chattering classes was not content to rest with a witch-hunt for the NSA whistle-blowers. They wanted revenge against the New York Times itself.

In 2006 testimony before Congress and again in an August 2007 rant, Commentary editor Gabriel Schoenfeld urged prosecution of Lichtblau, Risen and the paper:

"With the investigation making progress, the possibility remains that even if the New York Times is not indicted, its reporters - James Risen and Eric Lichtblau - might be called before the grand jury and asked to confirm under oath that Tamm, or some other suspect, was their source. That is what happened to a whole battalion of journalists in the investigation of Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame fiasco.

If Risen and Lichtblau promised their source confidentiality, they might choose not to testify. That would potentially place them, like Judith Miller in the Libby investigation, in contempt of court and even land them in prison."

In his new book, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice, Times reporter Eric Lichtblau details deceitful stonewalling and the threats of retribution that followed show a Bush administration determined to conceal its criminality at any cost. He describes Bush White House desperate to kill the story at any cost, all while using fear-mongering language that foreshadowed John McCain's today:

For more than an hour, we told Bush's aides what we knew about the wiretapping program, and they in turn told us why it would do grave harm to national security to let anyone else in on the secret. Consider the financial damage to the phone carriers that took part in the program, one official implored. If the terrorists knew about the wiretapping program, it would be rendered useless and would have to be shut down immediately, another official urged: "It's all the marbles." The risk to national security was incalculable, the White House VIPs said, their voices stern, their faces drawn. "The enemy," one official warned, "is inside the gates." The cliches did their work; the message was unmistakable: If the New York Times went ahead and published this story, we would share the blame for the next terrorist attack.

For his part, Eric Lichtblau concludes that the New York Times' decision to proceed with the NSA domestic surveillance story was undoubtedly the right one:

"More than two years later, the Times' decision to publish the story - a decision that was once so controversial - has been largely overshadowed by all the other political and legal clamor surrounding President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program: the dozens of civil lawsuits; the ongoing government investigations; the raging congressional debate; and the still-unresolved question, which Congress will take up again next week, of whether phone companies should be given legal immunity for their cooperation in the program."

As with the debate over detainee torture and the Scooter Libby (a leaker of national security information whom McCain ironically called a " dedicated servant" who was "singled out unfairly"), John McCain wants to have it both ways. He wants the press to see him as independent, as the maverick, all while kowtowing the Bush administration position. And for now, his pandering to the press seems to be working.

As I wrote in February, the End Times pastor is at the bleeding edge of a Christian Zionist movement seeking to confrontation with Iran in order to accelerate the Second Coming of Christ and the final battle in Israel. In addition to its prodigious fundraising and public relations efforts on behalf of the hard right in Israel, ince the 1990's, Hagee and his group CUFI (Christians United for Israel) has tried without success to breed the "red heifer," the "perfect calf that will signal the Second Coming."

Now, just weeks after John McCain traveled to Israel, Hagee and his allies are throwing another faith-based monkey wrench into the peace process in the Middle East. As the AP reported:

Hagee and his group, Christians United for Israel, joined keynote speaker Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Israel's hard-line opposition Likud Party, at a rally in support of Jerusalem remaining united and under Jewish control.

"Turning part or all of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians would be tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban," Hagee told an audience filled with Americans who waved Israeli flags and cheered...

...Hagee said his group was giving $6 million to 16 Israeli causes. Recipients include the Magen David Adom rescue service and a conference center in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Ariel.

For a Bush administration desperately hoping to manufacture a peace agreement by year's end between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Hagee's latest venture comes as unwelcome news. As far back as 2002, President Bush insisted "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop." Speaking in Jordan on March 31 during her latest swing through the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated Bush's firm opposition to new settlement activity in the West Bank, even as the Israeli government announced plans to build hundreds of new homes in the occupied West Bank:

Asked, however, about Israel continuing to approve construction of new housing in contested territory, Rice criticized the close U.S. ally.

"Settlement activity should stop - expansion should stop," Rice said.

That position is shared by all three of the remaining presidential candidates, including John McCain. As the Israeli paper Haaretz reported last week:

At the end of the day it is hard to find differences in the promises being made by the candidates that have survived in the race - Clinton, McCain and Obama - regarding the peace process. All of them want involvement, all are opposed to Hamas, all are in favor of a Palestinian state and against Palestinian terrorism, all are in favor of security for Israel and against the settlement construction.

All of which means that John McCain hasn't seen the last of his John Hagee problem. A featured speaker at CUFI's July 2007 conference in Washington, McCain said of Hagee February 2008 endorsement:

"All I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."

As we get closer to election day in November, we'll see if John McCain still feels the same way.

(For more background, see "McCain, Hagee and Armageddon as Foreign Policy.")

UPDATE: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met today in an attempt to advance the Annapolis peace process. As the AP noted, the settlement issue dominated the talks, with Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat claiming, "The settlement activities occupied a large part of the negotiations."

Of course, McCain's confusion over fact and fiction in Iraq is fast becoming legendary. Back in 2003, McCain predicted a" rapid" victory for the U.S. in Iraq and proclaimed that American troops would be "welcomed as liberators." Four times in one month he confused friend and foe in mistakenly proclaiming an alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran. On Monday and again today, McCain declared Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr the loser in last week's Basra fighting, despite the incontrovertible fact that Iraqi lawmakers traveled to Iran to seek a cease-fire between Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Maliki government.

But nowhere is McCain's confusion more on display than in his repeated (and misguided) comparisons of Iraq to South Korea and his commitment to keep American troops there for 100 years.

Here, McCain traveling down the well-trod path of President Bush. Last June, then White House press secretary Tony Snow described Bush's "over the horizon support role" for the United States in Iraq as comparable to the American presence in Japan, Germany or South Korea:

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability."

The analogy, of course, is laughable. Germany and Japan unconditionally surrendered to Allied forces in World War II and were occupied by U.S. troops after those nations' total devastation. Each subsequently became allies in the Cold War, and featured a large - and perpetual - American military presence as part of strategy to contain the Soviet Union. In South Korea as well, U.S. troops provide a guarantee against the external threat posed by the North. There, American troops serve as a trip-wire intended to trigger a massive U.S. response in the face of any aggression by Pyongyang.

In none of those places is the U.S. an occupying power, propping up a government against domestic threats or trying to limit a civil war. In Iraq, the United States is part referee trying to prevent the death spiral of sectarian conflict among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and part enabler, backing both the Shiite dominated Maliki in government in Baghdad and independent Sunni security councils opposed to it. While the fight against must Al Qaeda continue, the U.S. with its other installations around the Persian Gulf does not need permanent, forward operating bases in Iraq.

And yet John McCain mimics the Bush administration's shockingly erroneous Korea model. In June, McCain echoed the White House, proclaiming, "We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds." Despite claiming in November that he rejected the Korea analogy, by January 2008, McCain said "it would be fine" with him if the American forces remained in Iraq for "a hundred years:"

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years - (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that... (cut off)

McCAIN: We've been in South Korea...we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me.

As David Corn reported, McCain was only too happy to extend the American timeline in Iraq to "a thousand years" or "a million years." One month later, McCain nonchalantly claimed, "The U.S. could have a military presence anywhere in the world for a long period of time." Facing criticism for those comments, McCain on February 28th just dug the hole deeper:

"No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties...But the key to it is American casualties, America's most precious asset, and that is American blood."

Sadly for McCain's failed analogies, Americans support a perpetual U.S. military presence in Germany, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere because they see it as vital to American national security. With its forward presence, the United States is protecting close allies from external threats and containing common foes. In none of those places is the United States propping up a host government against wide swaths of its own people, citizens engaged in sectarian conflict against their own government and each other.

At the end of the day, John McCain's defense of his centuries-long commitment to Iraq isn't merely dishonest; it's painfully ironic. After all, in January 2003, McCain confidently predicted of the American invasion, "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."

But you'd never know from the reporting of McCain's excellent European adventure. Time described a "love-fest" with Sarkozy and McCain's "mix of quips, conviction, and clear interest in international affairs" that journalists "largely impressed."

It was, however, John McCain himself who hinted at his true feelings regarding his French hosts. In essence, McCain implied, relations with the United States would improve solely due to the deference to the U.S. properly restored by President Sarkozy:

"I think relations with France will continue to improve no matter who is president of the United States because this president is committed to greater cooperation and values our friendship."

That is a revealing comment indeed coming from John McCain. After all, McCain's bitter words toward France regarding the U.S. invasion of Iraq showed the last thing he valued was friendship with Paris.

As President Bush prepared to pull the trigger on the Iraq war in February 2003, John McCain was at the forefront of those browbeating the Chirac government for France's refusal to back the U.S. at the United Nations. On February 11, 2003, McCain co-sponsored a Senate resolution praising 18 European nations backing U.S. enforcement of UN demands for Saddam's disarmament. In his press release, McCain echoed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in thundering at the France and Germany of "old Europe:"

"The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer: France and Germany do not speak for Europe...most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values. We thank this European majority for standing with us."

McCain's venom towards the French was on full display two days later during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. On February 13, 2003, McCain warned of "new threats to civilization [which] again defy our imagination in scale and potency" portrayed Iraq as "threat of the first order." He proclaimed that "the United States does not have reliable allies to implement a policy to contain Iraq" and pointed the finger squarely at France:

"Compare our great power allies in the Cold War with those with whom we act today in dealing with Iraq.

France has unashamedly pursued a concerted policy to dismantle the UN sanctions regime, placing its commercial interests above international law, world peace and the political ideals of Western civilization. Remember them? Liberte, egalite, fraternite."

Just days later on February 18, 2003, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline program showed a furious McCain foaming at the mouth over France:

Here's how influential Senator John McCain sees the French.

JOHN MCCAIN, REPUBLICAN SENATOR: They remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it.

NORMAN HERMANT: Many in Washington are now saying relations with France have been a problem going all the way back to the end of World War II.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt made a very serious mistake when they decided to give France a veto in the Security Council when the United Nations was organized.

McCain's feud with the French continued even after the start of hostilities and President Bush's May 1 declaration of "mission accomplished" in Iraq. But in a cynical July 2003 keynote address to the Atlantic Partnership (which promotes "the benefits of a strong and stable Atlantic community of nations"), Senator McCain acted as if he had never uttered his seething words of condemnation. Even in papering over the schism he helped foster, McCain couldn't resist taking a potshot at France:

"France and Germany shared the goals of our campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime. We obviously disagreed over the means. Now that we have achieved our common objective of ending the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq, it's time to stop quarreling over the way we did so and move on. European nations that opposed the war must resist the tendency to say "I told you so," sit on the sidelines as the United States and our partners attempt to transform Iraq, and hope we find ourselves in a sandy quagmire that, in the eyes of some war opponents, would give us our just due...

...The United States must resist the tendency to punish our friends who did not support how we went to war, because things could have turned out differently. By the admission of Germany's leading opposition figures, who lost a close election to the current chancellor's coalition, a government in Berlin led by them would have stood with the United States in the diplomatic campaign preceding the war. France would have been isolated in its opposition, unable to claim to speak for Europe."

But that was five years ago. The United States, humbled by its humiliating fiasco in Iraq, is in no position to say "I told you so" to anyone. French President Chirac, a persistent thorn in the side of the Bush administration, is gone, replaced by the more complaint conservative cheerleader in Paris, Nicolas Sarkozy. And most importantly, John McCain is now running for the White House and needing to project a presidential image during his European tour. Which means it's time for John McCain to reverse course yet again and discover his "friendship" with France.

(Note: While the U.S. media has ignored John McCain's past frying of the French, thanks to the Campaign for America's Future, Americans are learning more about McCain's instrumental role in inadvertently helping France's Airbus win the $40 billion tanker deal at the expense of U.S.-based Boeing.)

UPDATE: ThinkProgress provides more examples of John McCain's past venting towards the French.

As I documented just two day ago, John McCain has been wrong from the start about virtually every aspect of the Iraq war. From Ahmed Chalabi and Saddam's WMD to the prospects of Americans troops being greeting as liberators and the certainty of a "rapid" U.S. victory in "three weeks," John McCain had it wrong at every turn. Today in Jordan, the Republican presidential nominee made a much fundamental - and shocking - mistake. Would-be commander-in-chief John McCain literally doesn't know who we're fighting in Iraq.

McCain's feeble grasp of the complexities on the ground was apparent during a meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah. Amazingly, McCain portrayed Sunni Al Qaeda as the ally of Shiite Iran. As the Washington Post reported, it took a worried whisper from his ersatz Democratic sidekick Joe Lieberman to save McCain from himself:

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

For a man whose candidacy is solely premised on his national security credentials, confusing friend and foe in Iraq is all the more startling. Al Qaeda, after all, is a bitter enemy of the two leading Shiite movements in Iraq (SCIRI and Muqtada Al Sadr), each of which receives material support from Iran. In a region in which "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is often accepted as a guiding principle, it would be helpful if John McCain understood that Al Qaeda is the enemy of Iran, and neither is a friend of the United States.

The mobius strip that is the Bush strategy endorsed by McCain in Iraq is almost infinitely complex. It is an extreme understatement to say that is problematic for John McCain, a man who like the man he would replace deals only in simple certainties (in March 2003, McCain said Americans troops would "absolutely, absolutely" be greeted as liberators). As I wrote late last year:

More and more, President Bush's strategy in Iraq resembles an M.C. Escher illustration. Like the hands drawing each other or the elegant depiction of stairways that cannot possibly meet, the military progress of the U.S. surge is producing an image of a future Iraq that, while glorious to behold, can never be built. The very American alliances with Sunni tribal leaders that are reducing sectarian violence and the threat from Al Qaeda also threaten to undermine the Shiite majority government in Baghdad. And the "enduring" U.S. presence announced by President Bush this week may serve only to protect the Maliki government from its domestic enemies, not its friend and American foe Iran. If anything, the surge may be making the prospect of Iraqi national reconciliation even more remote.

Given the evident misunderstanding on display in Amman today, John McCain seems wholly unable to grasp the very strategy he has sworn to perpetuate.

And yet, a new poll from CNN/Opinion Research shows the American people overwhelmingly prefer John McCain over either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton when it comes to national security issue. It is bad enough that as the American economy stands on the brink of a financial meltdown, John McCain has acknowledged "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Now, it's clear that the man who admits he doesn't know his ass from his elbow about the economy also doesn't know s**t from shinola about the realities on the ground in Iraq. As McCain himself put it back in 2005:

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

Given today's colossal gaffe, John McCain doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he is ready to be commander-in-chief on Day One.

UPDATE 1: As ThinkProgress, CNN and others have reported, this is not the first time McCain has gotten the players wrong in Iraq. On Monday, he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt:

"As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."

Sadly for McCain, the presidency does not come with a playbook.

UPDATE 2: On Wednesday, the McCain campaign yet again managed to perpetuat