He added: "The point is that Senator Obama doesn't have an understanding of what was at stake with the surge, what is at stake in the future for the security of this nation. I stand by my comments and I think the record authenticates it."

So there you have it people McCain's record is open to discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol itics/special/clinton/stories/react08219 8.htm
1998

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stressed the importance of a strong U.S. role in foreign affairs, and criticized the administration for ignoring problems other than bin Laden, including Iraq dragging its feet on arms inspections, "North Korea building nuclear weapons," a stalled Mideast peace process, and "thousands of people being ethnically cleansed in Kosovo.

"This administration for the last seven months has neglected compelling national security threats besides this," said McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee. "I cannot say that they've been neglected because of Monica Lewinsky, but I can say unequivocally that they have been neglected."

So there is one record. John McCain was for War with Iraq before Bush was in office. John McCain was just looking for a excuse to go to war. No reality was going to change McCain view of the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazi ne/18mccain-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=4 &oref=slogin

After the terrorist attacks of 2001 and the sudden elevation of Al Qaeda as a defining national security threat, McCain never had any doubt that Iraq, with its supposed capability to unleash or share weapons of mass destruction, posed an existential threat to the United States. Reading his statements from the time, there is no indication that he ever judged the invasion of Iraq by the standard he had used earlier in his career -- whether it had the potential to become another Vietnam. Instead, as American troops swarmed Baghdad, McCain repeatedly compared Hussein to Adolf Hitler and predicted that the occupation of Iraq would be remembered in much the same way that history celebrated the liberation and rebuilding of Europe and Japan.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/librar y/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

  Congress, on a bi-partisan basis, is fed up with the Clinton administration's do-nothing policy on Iraq.   Today, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" was introduced into the Senate and House.  Those introducing the bill in the Senate were Sen. Majority Leader, Trent Lott, [R, Miss], Sen. Bob Kerrey, [D. Ne], Sen. John McCain [R, Az], Sen. Joseph Lieberman [D Conn] and Sen. Jon Kyl [R, Az].  Those introducing the bill in the House were Rep. Benjamin Gilman [R, NY] and Rep. Christopher Cox [R, Ca]
I.  S.2525, "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998"

John McCain wanted war folks. How many people forgot about the Iraq Liberation Act? What about McCain's role with Chalabi?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/09/chal abi-mccain/

A new book by Aram Roston reveals that Chalabi supported John McCain (R-AZ) for president in 2000, believing that the senator would be the most receptive to his agenda. Muckraked reports:

One of his key backers has been John McCain, who was one of the first patrons of Chalabi's grand-sounding International Committee for a Free Iraq when it was founded in 1991. McCain was Chalabi's favored candidate in the 2000 election since Chalabi knew that he would be able to free up the $97 million in military aid plus millions pushed through in Congress and earmarked for Chalabi's exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, but held up by the Clinton State Department.

Indeed, McCain was a Chalabi backer long before President Bush took power. In 1997, he tried to pressure the Clinton administration into setting up an Iraqi government in exile. Despite opposition from the Pentagon and the State Department, the next fall, McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, committing the United States to overthrowing Saddam and funding opposition groups. According to a 2006 article by John Judis:

McCain welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money. When General Anthony Zinni cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the Iraqi opposition, McCain rebuked him at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Then we have this.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_I_w ould_have_started_Iraq_0106.html

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, it's an important question -- President Bush has said, "Even if I knew he did not have biological, chemical, or a nuclear program, I still would go into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein." Would you have?

SEN. McCAIN: Yes, but the point is, that if we had done it right, it's been well chronicled in many books, you and I wouldn't even be discussing that now-- the mishandling after the war.

Look, I met with a high-ranking former al Qaeda operative in Iraq recently, and I asked him, "How did you succeed?" He said, "The lawlessness after the initial invasion and Abu Ghraib," and so they were able to recruit people because of the disorder and the mishandling. So you would not be asking me if it had been mishandled. You would have said because we succeeded and established the stable Iraq, you'd have said, "Aren't you glad we went in because Saddam Hussein, one of the most brutal, most terrible dictators in history who fought in several wars, used weapons of mass destruction, invaded this neighbor, is now gone from the world scene." That's what you'd be saying.

MR. RUSSERT: I think there would be a debate amongst the American people if we were told he did not have biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.

SEN. McCAIN: If frogs had wings -- look, Tim, we can talk about lots of hypotheticals. Would we have stopped Saddam Hussein from going into Kuwait back in '91 when he went in? Would we have said that the Chinese aren't going to cross -- if we had known that the Chinese were going to cross the Yalu in the Korean War, would we have done it differently?

So I question McCain's judgement on wanting war no matter what the facts were. Which judgement is worse?