(January 20, 2007 -- 2:35 PM EDT // link // )

NEW YORK TIMES LABELS IRAQ PLAN "CENTRIST" -- EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ABOUT IT YET!

Updated below.

Okay, here's something you have to see. This is one of the most mindless and reflexive uses of the word "centrist" I've seen by a big news org in a very long time. Check out this headline from today's New York Times:

The headline is: "Senators to Offer Centrist Proposal on Iraq." Yet here's the funny thing: There's no way the reporters or editors who worked on this piece could know whether this plan is "centrist" or not -- because they don't yet know any details about the proposal! As the piece itself says, "aides to the three senators declined to elaborate on the proposal." So how did the paper know that this proposal will be centrist? Because two of the Senators working on it -- Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Ben Nelson -- are allegedly "centrists."

Making this whole framing all the more absurd, here's what the Times has to say about this new proposal and the political context in which it's being created:

Senator John W. Warner of Virginia is drafting a proposal on Iraq policy with two Senate centrists in an effort to provide an outlet for lawmakers uneasy with President Bush’s troop buildup but unwilling to back a toughly worded resolution opposing the new strategy.

The flurry of Iraq resolutions, coming from the political left, right and middle, raised the prospect of muddling the outcome of what Democratic leaders had hoped to keep a simple yes-or-no vote on Mr. Bush’s plan.

This is just writing on autopilot. The clear implication here is that the "toughly worded" resolution -- that is, the bipartisan Reid-Levin initiative, which condemns escalation as counter to our national interest -- represents a resolution of the "left" (presumably along with the anti-escalation initiative recently introduced by Ted Kennedy). Meanwhile, the position of the "middle" belongs to those who are "unwilling to back a toughly worded resolution" against escalation, the Times has decided.

Yet polls show not just that very large majorities oppose escalation, but more to the point, that more of those opposed to escalation are against it "strongly" than aren't. Here, for instance, is one poll finding that of the 68% against escalation, nearly three-fourths oppose it strongly. Here's another poll finding that virtually all of the 60% against escalation are "strongly" opposed to it.

Yet the "toughly worded" resolution is the position of the "left," and anything just to the "right" of that automatically gets designated as "centrist." This perfectly illustrates just how devoid of meaning and divorced from public opinion the use of the word "centrist" has become. Indeed, it perfectly captures the extent to which the tidy left-center-right spectrum has devolved into little more than a figment of the big news orgs' collective imagination.

**************************************

Update: A few commenters below have argued that the headline meant that these Senators intended to introduce a "centrist" resolution. Even if that were the case -- and I'm not at all sure that it is -- it wouldn't make the paper's use of the word any less absurd or mindless. First off, we have no idea what they intended, because they didn't divulge any real details about the proposal. More to the point, even if they had said that they intended to offer a "centrist" proposal, so what? It nonetheless isn't going to actually be "centrist" in any meaningful sense, at least as it relates to public opinion. And that's the real point here: The big news orgs shouldn't be playing the game of letting so-called Washington "centrists" define what that word means.

The larger problem here -- and this larger problem is why it might be worth obsessing a bit over headlines like this one -- is that use of the word by self-described centrists and by the big news orgs no longer has any connection to what the public thinks. It has come to mean little more than, "legitimate because it reflects the center of Washington elite opinion." If the headline was meant as these commenters think it was, it would reflect this problem more strongly, not less.

(January 19, 2007 -- 1:49 PM EDT // link // )

MORE EVIDENCE THAT JOHN SOLOMON'S STORY ON JOHN EDWARDS' HOUSE SALE IS QUESTIONABLE.

Over at TPM Josh has flagged a questionable Washington Post story by John Solomon that tries to suggest that there was something untoward about John Edwards' sale of his Georgetown home last month.

Now I've got some more evidence showing that the story may be more questionable than it first appeared. It turns out that one key player in the story doesn't have any problem with what Edwards did, and what's more, it appears that Solomon may not have even contacted this key player at all before publishing.

One of the key points Solomon makes in his story is that the sale should raise eyebrows because the people who bought Edwards' home are at legal loggerheads with two unions whose support Edwards is trying to secure for his Presidential bid. The buyers, the story reports, are Paul and Terry Klaassen, the "wealthy founders of the nation's largest assisted-living housing chain for seniors."

Of these buyers, Solomon writes:

They are also the focus of legal complaints by some of the same labor unions whose support Edwards has been assiduously courting for his presidential bid.

The story points to two unions who are fighting with the couple over money their pension funds lost investing in the couple's company: the Service Employees International Union, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

So do these unions have a problem with Edwards' sale? An official at the first union -- SEIU -- is quoted by Solomon way at the end of the story saying he couldn't comment on Edwards' action. According to the story, this union official said "he was unaware of the Edwards home deal and would reserve judgment on it." No official from the second union, the UFCW, is quoted.

Well, I've just gotten in touch with an official from that second union, and guess what: The official told me that UFCW doesn't see anything whatsoever wrong with what Edwards did. What's more, the official said that Solomon didn't even contact the union at all for comment on the story.

The official is Jill Cashen, a spokesperson for the UFCW. "John Solomon from the Washington Post did not contact us about his story about the sale of Edwards' home in Georgetown," Cashen told me. Nor was the person who oversees the union's pension funds -- which are at the center of the battle between the union and the couple -- ever contacted by Solomon, Cashen added.

What does the union -- which endorsed Kerry-Edwards in 2004 but didn't back Edwards in the primary -- think of what Edwards did? "Our position is that if someone has their house on the market, and they sell it to someone who wants to buy it, we don't believe that's really a relevant story," Cashen said. "He has every right to sell his house on the free market to whomever can afford it."

When I asked her if Edwards should really be doing business with a company at loggerheads with the union whose support he wants, Cashen said: "He sold his home to them. It isn't like he's creating an ongoing business relationship with them."

I think this is pretty surprising. In his story Solomon is using the fact that these unions are at odds with the buyer of Edwards' home in order to suggest that there was something untoward about what Edwards did. Yet he didn't even contact one of the unions to see if they had a problem with the sale. That's striking.

What's more, we now know officially that the union doesn't have a problem with it at all. So will Solomon do a follow-up story on this fact tomorrow?

This latest Solomon effort is even more striking when you consider Solomon's questionable history of going after Dems -- which is detailed at length here at TPMmuckraker -- not to mention the fact that now one of his Post colleagues has revealed that he thinks today's Edwards story is thin at best.

I've just emailed Solomon for comment. No word back yet.

To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

(January 19, 2007 -- 9:45 AM EDT // link // )

MEMO TO MEDIA: THE PARTY THAT'S IN DISARRAY OVER IRAQ IS THE GOP.

I wanted to make one more point about this whole question of whether Democratic disunity is hampering the party's ability to block President Bush's war policies.

For days now the media has been obsessively insinuating that those squabbling Dems are just too consumed with upstaging each other to be able to help solve the Iraq problem. For instance, as noted below, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank devoted two columns in a row to lampooning this alleged disunity, to the point where he even misrepresented quotes and withheld key info in order to tell the story this way. And Milbank wasn't at all the only reporter frolicking around in this fashion. MSNBC, the Times Caucus blog and others also went mad trying to prove -- the facts be damned -- that Hillary Clinton canceled her Iraq press conference because she was concerned about being upstaged by Barack Obama's entry into the Presidential race.

Yet while all those stories were being told, here's what was happening on the GOP side of the aisle, according to Roll Call:

GOP Struggles for War Unity

Even as a bipartisan group of Senators unveiled a nonbinding resolution Wednesday opposing President Bush’s plan to boost troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 soldiers, Republican leaders were fighting a losing battle to maintain a unified front in support of the White House and were hunkering down for what could be a months-long political storm over the Iraq War.

The tensions among Congressional Republicans spilled into the public Wednesday during a press conference by Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Joseph Biden (D-Del.) to unveil the bipartisan “surge” resolution. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) endorsed the resolution later in the day.

But as the lawmakers were detailing the proposal, the office of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) sent out a blistering press release accusing the sponsors of playing politics with the Iraq issue and questioning the seriousness of proposing a nonbinding resolution.

Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, bristled at the charges. “To somehow come to the conclusion that it’s a ‘lack of seriousness,’ I’m a little befuddled by the Senator from Texas,” Hagel said, adding that those who “question the motivation of someone who challenges the president ... need a little more schooling on this business.”...

Despite lobbying from President Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials, GOP leadership aides said their party is too fractured on Iraq for a unified position...“At some point twisting arms has the opposite effect. You don’t want to go around pissing off the [Ohio Republican Sen. George] Voinoviches of the world,” the aide said.

In other words, the GOP is in complete disarray over Iraq, in such a way that's creating lots of very good political theater. And this disarray is the direct result of the fact that Republicans are furiously positioning themselves because of reelection pressures and other political reasons. So when will we see oh-so-knowing "sketches" in The Washington Post of these silly, squabbling, politically-posturing Republicans? When will we hear speculation and joke-cracking about them from cable's talking heads? When will we get barbed insinuations about them from Times "bloggers"? When? When? When?

Chumps.

(January 18, 2007 -- 10:18 AM EDT // link // )

DANA MILBANK OMITS KEY FACT, MISCHARACTERIZES QUOTES TO MAKE CASE THAT MULTIPLYING DEM BILLS AGAINST ESCALATION ARE...GOOD FOR BUSH.

Okay, so we have a new feature for you here at The Horse's Mouth: The Peter Pan Press Award for the most outstanding examples of childish, silly, we'll-never-grow-up political coverage. And today's winner is...The Washington Post's Dana Milbank!

Milbank wins for his column today, because it omits a key fact and mischaracterizes quotes in order to make the startling case that the proliferation of Democratic bills against escalation is...good for President Bush. As noted here below, Milbank's effort yesterday was pretty eye-opening, but today's is even more unsightly.

Milbank states his thesis as follows:

If anything, the competing proposals could strengthen Bush's hand. Though largely united in opposition to Bush's plan, members of Congress, carved up by the presidential ambitions of Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden and others, can't unite around an alternative.

Let's check out some of what Milbank does in order to make the case that Dems "can't unite around an alternative." First he tosses off a bunch of meaningless snark -- Joe Biden accidentally referred to Senator Levin as Senator Lugar! What a fool! Then, in reporting on Hillary Clinton's comments about the Biden-Hagel-Levin-Snowe resolution -- which declares that escalation is against our national interest -- Milbank completely misrepresents her remarks and even omits a key fact that would have gotten in the way of his effort to portray Democratic disunity. Milbank writes:

Biden's group vacated the room at 3:01 p.m. because the Clinton entourage had booked the studio. The New York senator wasted little time dismissing the Biden plan.

"I certainly will support that," she said. "But from what I've heard out of the administration thus far, I think we will eventually have to move to tougher requirements on the administration to get their attention."

But wait -- how on earth is that "dismissing" the Biden plan? Clinton said she will currently support this resolution, and added that it may "eventually" be necessary to move on to other measures. No "dismissing" at all. What's more, Milbank omits a rather critical detail: Clinton has already agreed to co-sponsor the Biden measure. From Clinton's release on the Biden bill yesterday:

I will co-sponsor the Biden-Hagel-Levin-Snowe resolution and look forward to supporting this legislation when it reaches the Senate floor.

So Clinton is "co-sponsoring" the legislation and "looks forward to supporting" it. Yet Milbank wants you to believe that Clinton was "dismissing" the legislation -- more proof that Presidential ambitions are keeping those squabbling, ambitious Dems from backing each other's measures.

Look, are Dems in perfectly unanimous agreement on what to do about Iraq? No -- nor should one expect them to be. And will Presidential ambitions lead to some dueling for attention among Dems? Of course -- and they should. This is known as debate. Have these debates produced divisions that are getting so bad that they're hobbling Dem efforts to take on Bush? There's absolutely no evidence yet that such divisions -- rather than the institutional difficulties Congress faces in confronting the President on such matters -- are the thing that's preventing Dems from blocking Bush's war policies.

If anything, the obvious conclusion from these events for now is that such dueling -- rather than helping Bush -- is leading Dems to be more aggressive as a body in opposition to Bush's war policies than they might otherwise have been. This zeal to prove otherwise -- to the point where a reporter is willing to mischaracterize quotes and omit key info -- is just deeply inane and childish. Stop it.

To visit the homepage of this blog, click here.

(January 17, 2007 -- 6:01 PM EDT // link // )

MCCAIN'S ASSAULT ON MOVEON.ORG FALLS APART RAPIDLY UNDER SCRUTINY.

Paging Wolf Blitzer: Please read this the next time you feel inclined to say that John McCain "likes straight talk."

Today MoveOn launched a TV ad slamming John McCain for his escalation plan for Iraq. As Atrios noted earlier today, the McCain campaign responded to the ad with a counter-attack on the organization.

But it turns out McCain's response (surprise!) is at best unproven and at worst completely false. It certainly doesn't constitute "straight talk." Here's what McCain said:

Danny Diaz, a McCain spokesperson, responded to MoveOn's ad by telling ABC News: "MoveOn.Org is an out-of-the-mainstream organization that has a long history of airing inflammatory material, even comparing the President to Hitler. It is not surprising that a liberal group opposed to military action after September 11th would attack Senator McCain's conservative values, as well as changing strategy and securing victory in Iraq."

Did MoveOn compare the President to Hitler, and did the group oppose military action after Sept. 11, as the McCain campaign is charging?

I emailed McCain's spokesman Diaz and asked for substantiation of these two charges. For the first one -- that MoveOn compared Bush to Hitler -- Diaz sent over a quote from a January 6, 2004 article in the Washington Post. It said that "videos" appeared on MoveOn's web site comparing Bush to Hitler as part of a contest for an anti-Bush TV ad. Here's what Diaz didn't quote but also appeared in the same article (via Nexis):

The Hitler spots were among more than 1,500 submissions; MoveOn members have selected 15 finalists. The Hitler ads "lost miserably," said Eli Pariser, the fund's campaign director. Pariser said: "Anyone in the public could submit an ad."...Voter Fund President Wes Boyd said the group's officials "deeply regret" that the ads "slipped through our screening process."

So, no reasonable person could continue to pretend that the organization itself made the Bush-Hitler comparison. One down.

What about the second charge -- that MoveOn opposed military action after Sept. 11?

Continue reading ""

(January 17, 2007 -- 9:37 AM EDT // link // )

MEDIA ALREADY SIGNALING THAT COVERAGE OF 2008 RACE WILL BE VACUOUS AND CHILDISH.

Updated below: The Note slams Milbank as "childish."

If you were hoping that the press coverage of the 2008 Presidential race wasn't going to be marred by the vacuousness and childishness that saturated the coverage of the 2004 and 2000 contests, guess what: It is.

The signs are already everywhere. Check out, for instance, the coverage of Senator Barack Obama's entry into the race yesterday. It was shot through with efforts to portray Hillary Clinton as "threatened" by Obama -- which would be fine but for the fact that these efforts were deeply, almost comically foolish. Here's the New York Times's Anne Kornblut, yukking it up on the paper's Caucus blog as she struggled to make this case:

So what does Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton think of Senator Barack Obama’s exploratory entry into the 2008 race? Or, for that matter, her very recent trip to Iraq?

As of Tuesday evening, she wasn’t saying. Brushing past reporters in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton — conspicuously talking into her cell phone; whether there was anyone on the other end of the line, or not, could not be confirmed — went into the chamber to vote, then posed for an all-ladies photograph with Diane Sawyer and female senators.

Breaking: Hillary faked cell phone call! Look, this is probably meant as a gag -- part of the paper's efforts to let its hair down and be freewheeling and "blog-like" -- but it's deeply fatuous all the same, and it's not even an isolated incident. Indeed, the press corps and cable TV went mad yesterday trying to prove that Clinton had canceled her post-Iraq-trip press conference yesterday because she was worried about being eclipsed by Obama's announcement.

The Clinton people tried to explain that the schedule change took place because a fellow member of Congress set to attend had fallen sick. But that didn't stop the Washington Post's Dana Milbank from devoting virtually an entire column to this question, skewering Clinton spokesperson Philippe Reines' explanation that the sick Congressman had stayed behind in Iraq to recover as follows:

"We knew that yesterday, but didn't have a new time for tomorrow because the members were in the air, and because the Radio & TV Gallery was closed yesterday," Reines continued in his email. "We were only able to lock it in this morning."

And we lost the phone number. And the dog ate my homework. And I think I hear my mom calling.

It was awfully early in a presidential campaign to be getting so defensive -- but such is the tone of the accelerated 2008 race.

Yep, gotta love it. The press manufactures a non-story, and then when the Clinton people offer up information about it, they are being defensive. Neat trick. And "such is the tone" of the race -- that is, the tone that Milbank and his frolicking friends are already trying to set. Look, I like a little fun in my political coverage as much as the next guy -- and sure, the Clinton and Obama camps will be dueling for attention -- but can't we inject a little wit into our coverage without being so damn babyish and frivolous about it? Am I wrong here? What do you all think?

Ah, our Peter Pan Press, at it again. And only two years to go until Election Day.

Update: Media Matters has a great rundown on more of this madness here.

Update II: Looks like ABC News' The Note agrees with our description of Dana Milbank's piece today as "childish." The Note's link to the piece was accompanied by the following blurb:

Most absurd over-the-top analysis of Clinton versus Obama: Dana Milbank's childish Washington Sketch in the Washington Post.

(January 16, 2007 -- 4:02 PM EDT // link // )

PUNDIT HEAD IN THE SAND DEPARTMENT -- RICHARD COHEN EDITION.

If something happens and a pundit decides not to see it because it doesn't affirm his chosen world view of the moment, did it happen at all?

As noted below, the Washington Post's Richard Cohen writes today that things might have been different in Iraq if we'd noticed that some of the locals weren't too thrilled when an American flag was draped on the toppled Saddam statue in 2003. If we had noticed this, Cohen says, we might have had an inkling of the disaster that awaited us:

Similarly, we did not notice that in all the hoopla just before Hussein's statue in Baghdad's Firdaus Square came down in 2003, the crowd went silent after an American flag was draped over it. The crowd came to life only when the Iraqi flag replaced it. Had we noticed that, we might have learned something about Iraqi nationalism and the fleeting gratitude awarded to liberators. One minute you're a liberator, the next an occupier.

Maybe "we" -- that is, Cohen and his pundit colleagues -- didn't notice the hostility to this gesture because they didn't want to notice it. Reporters told us about it, after all -- here's what the Associated Press reported on April 9, 2003 (via Nexis):

Many said they were disturbed by "provocative" images of U.S. troops lounging in Saddam's palaces or draping the U.S. flag around the head of Saddam statue.

"Liberation is nobler than that," said Walid Abdul-Rahman, one of the three Saudis. "They should not be so provocative."

That same day, ABC News reported:

There was also, briefly, an American flag atop the statue, which was quickly replaced by . . .a flag, pre-Gulf, first Gulf War Iraqi flag. And when that flag went up in comparison to when the American flag went up, there were a lot of cheers around the square, and clapping and cheering from Iraqi citizens.

From another AP story the same day:

On Wednesday, there were signs of mixed emotion toward U.S. forces. Marines briefly covered Saddam's face with an American flag, and were greeted with silence. They quickly replaced it with the Iraqi flag, to cheers from the crowd.

But now Cohen is basically conceding that "we" -- again, he and his pundit colleagues -- didn't allow themselves to notice the ominous significance of such things amid the "hoopla" of the American victory. Why not?

Look, I understand that Cohen's using this example to make a larger conciliatory point, but still, could you ask for a more perfect expression of the willful self-delusion and refusal to see the obvious that's gripped so many pundits throughout this whole catastrophe?

After all, there was no shortage of other signs that this whole adventure was both unnecessary and headed for disaster. These signs were right in front of "our" faces -- but "we" decided not to notice them. So "we" didn't.

(January 16, 2007 -- 9:21 AM EDT // link // )

RICHARD COHEN: PLEASE, MR. MCCAIN, DON'T BE MAD AT ME...

This is pretty impressive, really. The Washington Post's Richard Cohen has managed to accomplish, all in a single column, the following:

(a) He rewrites the history of the Iraq war in such a way that those who argued against it have been expunged from the record; even as he

(b) Echoes the same views as those now-expunged critics by saying that we shouldn't be in Iraq...

(c) He reveals that he thinks John McCain is completely wrong about what to do about Iraq; even as he

(d) Also demonstrates that despite disagreeing with McCain on the most important global issue of the moment, he's nonetheless absolutely terrified of criticizing him.

First let's check out Cohen's erasing of early war critics from the record. Note the constant use of the word "we":

This war has lasted longer than we expected not just because we were inept or understaffed or fired the Baathists or discharged the army -- but because we don't understand the country...Even late in the game, we didn't see it coming.

Similarly, we did not notice that in all the hoopla just before Hussein's statue in Baghdad's Firdaus Square came down in 2003, the crowd went silent after an American flag was draped over it. The crowd came to life only when the Iraqi flag replaced it. Had we noticed that, we might have learned something about Iraqi nationalism and the fleeting gratitude awarded to liberators. One minute you're a liberator, the next an occupier....

Now, of course, everyone looks like an idiot.

We? Who's we? Presumably it can't include all the people who warned at the outset of the very things that Cohen is holding up now as proof that "we" never understood what "we" were getting into. As for the claim that "everyone" now looks like an idiot, I guess we are now supposed to pretend that those who spelled out reasons for opposing the conflict at the outset simply never existed. That's convenient, isn't it?

Now check out what Cohen has to say about McCain:

I would like him -- because I do like him -- to consider whether the remedy for Iraq is not more American troops, as he insists, but fewer and fewer . . . and then none at all. Iraq is not Vietnam, but America is still America -- and we still don't know what in the world we're doing.

Please, Mr. McCain, don't be mad at me for disagreeing with you...I like you, I really do...

Recall that Cohen recently wrote that while McCain's move to the right was obviously politically motivated, "anyone who knows McCain appreciates that his call for more troops in Iraq is not, at bottom, part of any political strategy." Add that to today's simpering, fearful disagreement with McCain and it becomes clear that Cohen has completely lost any ability to assess the man in a dispassionate and rational way. When it comes to McCain, Cohen, like so many other pundits, is in intellectual captivity. He's McCain's prisoner, pure and simple. In a sane world, Cohen would recuse himself from writing about McCain, or if not, his editors would do it for him.

Let's be clear: Cohen disagrees dramatically with McCain about the single most important policy decision our nation faces today -- one that will impact thousands upon thousands of lives. Cohen occupies prized opinion-making real estate at the second most powerful newspaper in the country. Why is he tiptoeing so fearfully around a guy who holds views that -- given what the consequences of getting this one wrong are -- should draw extremely aggressive condemnation from him? What the heck is there to be afraid of?

(January 15, 2007 -- 11:23 AM EDT // link // )

MCCAIN'S LATEST RUSE: IF BUSH "SURGE" PLAN FAILS, REMEMBER THAT I WANTED EVEN MORE TROOPS SENT!

Incredibly, it appears that John McCain is already laying the groundwork to subtly distance himself from President Bush's escalation plan, should it fail.

Here's how: Though full-throatedly backing Bush's plan, McCain is also starting to put out the word that he'd prefer that Bush were sending more troops to Iraq than the President has announced he'll send. This means, of course, that if escalation fails McCain may be able to dilute its impact on his political fortunes by saying success might have been possible if escalation had been carried out completely to his liking.

McCain put this new one out there over the weekend in interviews with both the New York Times and the Washington Post, letting it be known in both that he'd rather have sent more troops. This happens to be directly at odds with some of his own public statements in the past. Will he be allowed to skate on this one, too?

Here's the Times' version:

Mr. McCain embarked on a high-profile television tour announcing his support for Mr. Bush’s move. In an interview, he said he would have preferred that the White House send in even more troops, and noted that he had pressed this position on the White House, unsuccessfully until now, for more than two years.

The Washington Post lays it out even more clearly:

"There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops," he said at a forum at the American Enterprise Institute. "To be of value, the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained."

Does the new policy meet those tests? McCain offers an equivocal answer. He said he has been assured by Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the president's choice to take over command in Iraq, that 20,000 additional troops should be enough, but that if they are not, Petraeus can ask Bush for more.

You'd of course prefer to have direct quotes from McCain here, but given that both papers reported similar comments, it seems safe to assume that these depictions are accurate. So now we have McCain being "equivocal" about whether he thinks the President's "surge" is adequate. And McCain's so worried that it may not constitute enough troops that he's spoken about it to Patraeus, who's "assured" him that if worst comes to worst, he can "ask for more."

But hang on a second. McCain in the past has said unequivocally that he thought the right number of troops would be 20,000 -- which by the way is slightly less than what Bush has proposed sending. And not only that, but McCain has volunteered this number as being the right amount.

Here's McCain in October, 2006:

"Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq," Mr. McCain said Friday during a visit to northern New Hampshire. "That means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people. … It's just not a set number."

Here's McCain speaking at an appearance in January:

McCain outlined what he viewed as the minimum levels necessary to make a surge work: three to five additional brigades in Baghdad and one brigade in Anbar Province in western Iraq, a Sunni insurgent stronghold.

That would amount to between 18,000 and 27,000 soldiers, because an Army brigade consists of about 4,500 soldiers.

In other words, McCain said he viewed a number as low as 18,000 as the minimum level "necessary to make a surge work."

Though McCain has offered varying prescriptions for how many new troops should be sent, McCain has steadily presented the 20,000 number either as being what he sees as the right size of an increase or as being at the low end of what he thinks would be enough. Yet now -- while not backing off his support for Bush's proposal -- he's clearly starting to put out the word that he's equivocal about whether Bush's increase will be sufficient.

To its credit, the Post explains the politics behind McCain's latest move, suggesting that he may have "shrewdly left himself room to argue that Bush's plan for more troops was not substantial or sustained enough to ensure success." The Times, to its discredit, didn't bother offering this simple context. It's just ruse after ruse with this guy -- and let's face it, he'll probably skate on this one, too.

Update: To visit the homepage of this blog, click here.

Note to readers: This blog is now being hosted by Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo; its new homepage is here.