It’s not difficult to develop an instinct for what’s really going on regarding all these players in the area. Hamas did the same thing to Jimmy Carter on his recent trip to Gaza, where they told him they would meet with Israel. As soon as Carter announced that to the rest of the world, they basically took it back saying that they didn’t really mean that…
So I guess by now everyone is starting to understand my stand on this issue - that Obama will be the next Carter foreshadowing things to come with respect to the Middle East. Appeasing bullies because the liberal’s idea is that this is the more reasonable way to treat the bullies in the kindergarten that we call the Middle East.

Yes, Obama basically ran a platform of having been against the war from the beginning. According to this idea, Jane Fonda should have run for president. But see, you need a lot more qualifications than "having been against the war all along". It’s called finishing the job once started, it’s called finishing the war in a responsible fashion once America decided to go in there.
"One of these men is a statesman, one is not. Their langauge and actions aren’t light-years apart, but one of them stands taller and cleaner of ideological filth."

That’s right. And that man is John McCain

However, Obama wants to talk to the generals anyway and they want to go slower, showing that he is willing to at least get dissenting opinions into his evaluation of the Iraq question. Once again, the positions of Obama and McCain might be similar, but Obama took the lead, McCain validated Obama’s position by sidling up to him like the weathervane he is and Obama is going with both Maliki AND the generals.

What is McCain doing?

"I have been there too many times. I’ve met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that’s what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be — the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions."

So your fancy passport has got more stamps in it.

Condition? What conditions could possibly flare up now that YOUR surge has "won the war"? Do you have to create more conditions, or do you  have to prevent bad conditions from flaring up (The Iraqis are saying they want the US unless there is a resurgence of violence - Obama is adressing that by leaving counter-terrorism teams)? Once again, Obama is handling this smoothly and trusting the relevant authorities, McCain is trying to steal Obama’s position, muddles the debate by trying to have the cake and eat it too, speaks for the Iraqi government (now that he has been there with a small army surrounding him), tried to use staged photos to fool US voters to think Baghdad was safer than it was, endangered Obama’s life and is once again behind the curve.

One of these men is a statesman, one is not. Their langauge and actions aren’t light-years apart, but one of them stands taller and cleaner of ideological filth.

Why can’t I see that both may have a point?  Also keep in mind that I criticized both, I think, fairly.