Well it certainly was the deciding factor in his getting to the 'left' of Hillary early in the piece, not that she made it difficult, but I still believe that it is the fundamental issue of the campaign.  Even if you believe the economy is the compelling concern of the electorate the trillion dollar cost of the war and it's long term impact on our global prosperity is strongly coupled, and you don't need much imagination to see the current price of oil as a possible consequence.  McCain has already tripped over that connection in his attempt to reconcile 'victory' with a balanced budget.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 26-29, 2008. N=1,026 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"
6/26-29/08

Favor 30%
Oppose 68%
Unsure 2%     

Looks like only 2% "stopped caring."      

Are we conflating the decision to invade with it's execution?  There are many who probably believe that the only thing wrong with the invasion was that is was clumsily, even incompetently, executed.  The point about the 2002 decision is that the war was a mistake even if the level of violence is abating.  Tactical success can't yield strategic victory, especially where the magnitude of the error was so significant in the first instance.

Our challenge now, as I said to you recently, is to recover from this situation and carefully restore the sovereignty of Iraq and the balance of power in the Gulf.  But I don't see any scenario which is a net 'win' for US interests there geopolitically.  We will get points for doing no more harm, to be sure, but it is hard to see where our sacrifices have been prudent.

And as far as the 'war' on terrorism, we have ceded the initiative in Afghanistan and now face a resurgent Pashtun insurgency there which not only threatens to destabilise Afghanistan but Pakistan as well.  We must remedy this quickly or face another decade of damaging engagement in the region.

No, he DID. But I would argue that he risked his career on a bluff. I think he brought up the surge thinking that nobody would ever do it. That way he could come out later on and say, "I said we should have put MORE troops in."

Posting talking points right out of the GOP Book of Attacks Against Democrats makes one a McTroll.

You really don't get it, do you?

I'm not going to educate you, frankly.  If you can't try to see people as people instead of political figures you'll miss genuine decency from time to time.

As to your question?  Why do those things matter?  If you'd bothered to spend thirty fucking seconds googling you'd have figured it out.  The two of them fought in the same squad in Vietnam, one a Democrat, the other a Republican.  They thought the war was a complete failure and mistake and a horrible waste of life.  They promised one another that if it ever happened again and they were in a position to do something about it, they would try.

Chuck Hagel is trying.  He came later to the party than I would have liked, but he came for absolutely no political benefit.  He's taken this position because he's an honorable man who's sickened at how we've apparently learned nothing from Vietnam.

Respect a person of principle even if you disagree with him or her.  If you don't all you'll ever get is politics as warfare.

The Republicans as a group are not evil.  They are misguided.  They are wrong.  They are also our countrymen, and some of them are damned good people.

Anytime I see a Senator take an unpopular and costly stance on principle I will applaud.  If you want this country to prosper you should do the same.  Dog him all you like for those things on which you disagree.  I will likewise dog him.  But that doesn't mean I don't respect the man.

He doesn't want another American soldier to risk his or her life for a cause so idiotic and poorly run as he himself did.  He didn't sell out on that.