By Scott Wright

God bless poor old John McCain. The senator from Arizona wants to be president so bad he can practically taste it. To that end he seems willing, here lately, to say just about whatever he thinks folks want to hear regarding the war in Iraq.

That's too bad, really, because he's killing his credibility in the process. That can't be a good thing for someone who wants to be president of the United States. (If you don't believe me, ask someone who's credibility is shot to hell and back -- George W. Bush.)

Related website: TheRealMcCain.com

Last week, in an article at the political website Politico, columnist Roger Simon reported that Sen. McCain has recently taken to blaming Vice President Dick Cheney for the nation's failed policy in Iraq. Specifically, Simon reported, McCain is now charging Cheney with concocting a "witch's brew" of mistakes and deceptions that has resulted in a "terribly mishandled" war in which U.S. forces are staring defeat in the face.

He's absolutely right, of course. Dick Cheney may actually be the devil himself, near as I can tell at this point. For some reason, though, McCain is not so quick to voice his displeasure with Dubya. Instead, according to the senator, Bush is only guilty of "listening too much to the vice president." Oh, sure, McCain explains, "The president bears the ultimate responsibility."

But during the interview, conducted in his office after Bush's nationally-televised speech to the American people detailing his latest troop increase, McCain was quick to point fingers in every direction except the president's: "(Bush) was very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of Defense."

Nothing wrong with any of those words -- goodness knows, Cheney and Rumsfeld have spent the past 20 years planning the end of the world. To the politically-attuned ear, it sounds as though McCain has pretty much got the country's problems figured out, where the war in Iraq is concerned.

Unfortunately, the main problem is that by saying those words, McCain proves without a doubt that he's no brighter than the dimwits he's jockeying to replace at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Why? Because, back in July 2004, this same presidential hopeful, Mr. McCain, called Cheney "one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice presidents this country has ever had."

In Mr. Simon's opinion, the reason for that bit of blather is that McCain was in full keister-kissing mode at that time. (Even then, McCain wanted badly to be the next president). Simon goes on to speculate that McCain is honestly speaking his mind now when he says he's frustrated with Bush and his administration. But Simon also thinks McCain doesn't want to castigate the current commander when he can send a couple of his underlings down the river, instead.

Why? Well, perhaps McCain figures there's at least one chance in a billion that this war won't turn out to be the train wreck that just about everyone who isn't named Cheney or Bush thinks it's going to be. If, somehow, this ridiculous plan to send 21,500 more Americans into the middle of a civil war doesn't turn out to be a disaster, the logic goes, then Bush might be a good man for McCain to have standing alongside as he maneuvers the campaign trail -- but I sure wouldn't bet on that.

In another expert display of talking out both sides of his mouth, McCain has also recently voiced support for the president's plan to send those 21,500 additional American troops to Iraq, while at the same time condemning the plan because the number of troops is too small to do any good -- these alternating praises and condemnations coming in practically the same breath.

"I can't guarantee success by doing this," McCain said last week in one interview. Meanwhile, in another sit-down with journalists, he uttered the following: "The irony of all this is that I am the guy that for three years -- more than three years -- has said, 'You don't have enough troops there!'"

McCain's argument is that Bush's plan doesn't call for enough troops to be sent into the region, but then he says it's a bad idea to suggest that American troops might have to leave if the civil war gets any worse. Of course, in his next breath, McCain contradicted himself again, when he discussed withdrawing troops.

"If this strategy doesn't succeed, we will have to devise another strategy," he said. One of those options, he added, is to "withdraw to the borders (of Iraq) to try to keep other countries from interfering."

All of this back-and-forth (I believe the Republicans called it flip-flopping when John Kerry was doing it in 2004) is coming from the man who painted "Straight Talk Express" on the side of his tour bus during the 2000 primaries. Based on everything he's said regarding the Iraq war so far, McCain needs to consider labeling his 2008 ride the "Double Talk Express."

The senator can't have it both ways. The war in Iraq is either right or wrong, and 70 percent of the people in this country are now firmly leaning towards the latter. In the meantime, McCain's trying to straddle the fence by voicing support for the war to the conservatives and criticizing it to the rest of the country. Can it be that the remaining 30 percent of the electorate who haven't given up on the president is so important to McCain in his bid to win the White House that he'll say whatever he thinks they want to hear in order to ensure their support come 2008?

Sadly, and to the detriment of our troops, it sure sounds that way right now.