Okay, this afternoon John McCain pushed back on criticism of his Anbar-surge timeline flub by arguing, in effect, that the overall strategy change that made the Anbar Awakening possible began before the actual surge in troops:

The Arizona senator has told reporters during a stop at a super market in Bethlehem, Pa., that what the Bush administration calls "the surge" was actually "made up of a number of components." McCain says some components of the surge began before Bush ordered more U.S. troops into Iraq.

McCain says U.S. Col. Sean MacFarland started carrying out elements of a new counterinsurgency strategy as early as December 2006.

Hmmm. McCain is crediting the success of the surge to strategic components that didn't involve the increase in troops themselves? Sounds a bit like he's undermining the troops, doesn't it?

Seriously, what McCain actually said is that one of the key figures in the Awakening "was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening." But McFarland himself, who is cited by McCain above, first started describing the stirring of the awakening in September 2006, months before the surge strategy was announced in January.

Maybe McCain is arguing that we can use the "surge" label on any aspect of the war we want? The surge can be whatever you want it to be...