This article in The Washington Post, which actually does a good job of chronicling McCain's wildly fluctuating positions, still shows how strong the resistance is to deviating from the established campaign narrative about John McCain. What's most disconcerting is the way it suggests that McCain has secretly been for a conditional withdrawal from Iraq all along.
The article explains that when delivering his "attack lines," namely that Obama's plan would force U.S. troops to "retreat under fire," McCain is awkward (according to
aides, he's "no Bush" -- how happy was the campaign to see
that quote in the final copy?) but left to "freewheel" on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, he offers a complete reversal of the policy he's been advocating for more than a year. The indefinite occupation that had been the centerpiece of McCain's Iraq policy, we are now meant to believe, was now the product of conniving Washington aides (whom McCain himself chose to help run his campaign, but bears no responsibility for).
Indeed, the entire article rests on the (as far as I can tell completely unfounded) premise that McCain's aides are keeping him from saying what he really wants to say -- which just happens to be whatever you want to hear.
You may also like
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)