Senator John McCain tells Bill's Wife, "Be A Man!"

No matter how much that putz Cliff Schecter yips and yaps, America knows where the Senior Senator from Arizona stands on the issues.

America always has.

And, whether or not you agree with the proposed troop surge, Senator McCain has consistently argued that more troops are needed in Iraq to help stabilize Baghdad, prevent the outbreak of a wider regional war and finish the job that 373 members of Congress voted to start in 2002.

GreenMountainPolitics1 wholeheartedly supports the Senator's support of the surge.

Not because the surge is easy and politically expedient.

It isn't.

Not because we are "war mongers" who are "lost in the delusions of empire".

We aren't.

We support the surge because we believe that if America remains unable to stabilize Iraq that the long-term consequences to our national security and our economic interests will be catastrophic.

Which is why this anti-war activist from 2003 has joined Senator McCain in supporting what we feel is the right way forward in Iraq today.

Furthermore, we agree with the Senator's recent comments regarding Congressional support for a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's Iraq Strategy:

"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it.

I do believe that if you really believe that this is doomed to failure and is going to cost American lives, then you should do what's necessary to prevent it from happening rather than a vote of 'disapproval’.

How's that for some straight talk?

We have said time and again that if you don't favor the troop surge and you don't favor cutting off funding to end the whole war then, by default, you are in favor of staying the course in Iraq.

Which is why we find Hillary Clinton's recent comments on Iraq Strategy so interesting.

Bill's wife now says that she would not have gone to war in the first place and promises to end the war in '09 if elected President.

But why doesn't Hillary just end the conflict right now by supporting Senator Feingold's bill to cut off funding for the war?

John Edwards and Chris Dodd are putting their political capital where their mouths are and support the bill (which is why we are so fond of them, misguided though they are).

Why doesn't Hillary Clinton have the power of her convictions?

Isn't she man enough?

That goes for you to Nancy "Grandma" Pelosi.

Your favorables are currently up, but for how long? How long can you keep the New Left at bay? How much longer can you let political calculations interfere with what you feel is right?

Senator McCain's support of the surge might well cost him the Presidency (we "Clackers" rarely lose something in support of anything, which is why people go into punditry in the first place).

But even the very real threat of losing what he has worked for his entire life is not enough to make Mr. Straight Talk avoid doing what he feels is right.

Which is why we love him.

And it is why we are skeptical of so many of the Anti-War Establishment.