On ABC World News Tonight, David Wright to John McCain:

It sometimes seems, as an outside observer, that both of you guys sometimes get stuck in the past. Senator Obama's kinda stuck in 2003 and whether the war was a good idea in the first place, and you kinda seem stuck sometimes in 2007 and whether the surge was the right strategy. Shouldn't this debate really be about the future and where we go from here?

McCain:

Oh, you're exactly right. It's all about the future. And the future in my view--we have succeeded but it's still fragile. The point is that we are responsible for our records. I was right, Senator Obama was wrong. So therefore I think that I have more credibility on what the future should be as opposed to Senator Obama, who if he'd have had his way we would be--very likely be involved in a wider war today.

The obvious next question is: "Senator, you want credit for being right about the surge, but were you right about the war in the first place?

In a NYT op-ed just before the start of the war, on March 12, 2003, for example, you wrote: '[N]o one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values....Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?' How good was hyour judgment? Did antipathy toward the U. S. in the Islamic world diminish? Didn't those who argued that the war 'would not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values,' and that 'antipathy toward the U. S. in the Islamic world' would skyrocket, have a point? Didn't you seriously underestimate the dangers of what you called 'rogue-state rollback?'"

Not to repeat myself, but I've been asking this question for weeks, and I've yet to hear a journalist with access to McCain ask it.

McCain presents himself as the candidate of experience. In the slovenly fashion that dominates our political talk, journalists attribute the brand to him--he's "the candidate of experience." OK. Two surgeons offer themselves to perform a certain procedure. Both are eager to get the job. One of them has been around hospitals for a long time, though his advice on this particular procedure proved lethal in one instance. The other is just out of medical school, but gave the opposite advice. The first claims the advantage of experience. You're the patient. Do you ask detailed questions about how well the older man's experience has served his patients?

Or not?

P. S. For further reason to doubt that McCain knows what he's talking about, don't miss Fred Kaplan's "How Much Does John McCain Really Know About Foreign Policy?" on Slate.