So Kerry tells the president that the decision rests with him, but Congress shares the responsibility. McCain says, "This is your decision - your sole decision." Sounds statesmanlike.

"McCain Spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan ..."

Pardon my cynicism, yet nepotism among the village elite is fairly notorious these days. This wouldn't be some granddaughter of Pat Buchanan, now would it?

Who cares what McCrashedthreeplanes thinks.

If this representation of Senator McCain's comment is accurate, then he has effectively waived any meaningful claim to criticize both the President and the policy, and cannot assert any credit for a positive outcome. Nor—and this is quite likely the key—can he be held responsible for an adverse outcome.

Memo to Senator McCain:

Thank you for your contribution. And, abdication. Now, shut the hell up!

So McCain told his Commander-in-Chief that he wouldn't stand with him in a time of war? Country first!

What a bunch of frikkin' lunatics. ALL OF THEM. What are we doing in Afghanistan? We should be pulling out. No more young American lives should be wasted there. It's senseless and a terrible tragedy brought on by the Bush administration. There's no "win-able" war there. We shoud be getting out. Right now.

This is why JMM hired C Bellatoni -- digging for the real story, tightening up the reporting, and walking back the spin and faux disputes that Politico et al thrive on. Excellent pro job, CB!

We don't really know what was said, nor do we understand the context in which the discussions took place. Whoever is leaking this information has their own agendas.

It's ok to speculate, but drawing any conclusions is about as specious as it gets. Having said that, whatever we do next in Afghanistan and Pakistan (you can't separate those decisions) should be carefully debated. Those situations are very tough problems.

Is Obama's term over? It sure seems that way.

The President is acting like a lame duck President, completely incapable of making decisions, kicking the ball down the road on almost every policy decision.

Afghanistan: no withdrawal, no surge -- let the next President make the hard decision.

Health care: leave it up to the Congress, all the while giving signals to the Blue Dogs that the Public Option is "not essential", while telling the Progressives that he still backs a Public Option.

Gitmo: We'll close it . . . eventually.

Don't ask, don't tell: don't ask.

I thought those that were making comparisons to Jimmy Carter were a bit premature -- no more. Both the President, and the economy are acting like the late seventies alloveragain. And we know what that got us: 12 years of Republicans in the White House.

After we've been in Afghanistan for eight years, it takes a certain amount of nerve for someone to point out, "Time is not on our side." That's been blindingly obvious for quite a few years already, yet the problem lands on the new guy's desk.

This is a poorly written article with several fragments and run-on sentences. The writer's style is awkward and detracts from the details being conveyed.

I suppose it is too much to hope for to expect the administration to clearly define the goal in Afghanistan. Sure, there are some bad guys there, and in Pakistan. That isn't new. We supported Pakistan to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which apparently went into private bank accounts, for many years. There were bad guys there all during that time, and the spread of nuclear weapons to radical governments accelerated, thanks to Pakistan. That seems to prove that we are there to stop some bad guys.

So, what the hell are we there for, in plain English, with demonstrable facts to back it up? When I get to read the answer to that, if that answer makes good sense, I am behind Obama all the way. I'm not holding my breath.

Sorry: last sentence, first paragraph, insert "not" after "are".

We should all listen to McCain. After all, he thought Sarah Palin would make a great VP.