We know where Sen. McCain stand on the war in Iraq; He is claiming that " the surge is working " and doesn't want any time frame for the US pull out until the " enemy is defeated ", and Iraq can function as a " stable democracy ". He wants to stay until the " job is done " ( whatever that means?) and he mentioned, in a speech, a few month ago  that  the " US could be in Iraq for  another 100 years ".

There are days when I start to think that the war in Iraq is a bit of a political Rorschach test: What you see when you look at it says more about you than it does about the war itself. That's why I can take a look at the war and see a disastrous burden, while my friend Ben looks at it and sees the possibility -- and necessity -- of success.

America can't succeed in Iraq, even in the face of tactical (if not strategic) victory. It's impossible. No matter what happens, no matter how many insurgents we capture or kill, it's just a lost cause. Don't take my word for it. According to New York Times columnist Frank Rich, the United States just experienced its Tet Offensive in Basra and "no one cared."

It's become apparent in recent weeks that perhaps the reductions in Iraqi violence brought about -- in part -- by the surge may have been illusory. Now comes Steven Simon to suggest the surge has, ultimately, made it harder to create a stable and peaceful Iraq.

Today's reason to get out of Iraq is brought to us by John McCain: