So, the Washington Post conducted a poll on the war, and talked to some so-called experts.

One of them was the wanktacular Michael O’Hanlon:

To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,’ said O’Hanlon, who described himself as ‘livid.’ ‘I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.’

(emphasis mine)

• This guy is not a Middle East expert.
• He’s not a terrorism expert.
• He does not speak Arabic.

His “expertise” is in military budgeting, and he has gotten a lot of face time on the air because he’s from the so called “center left” think tank, the Brookings Institution, and he loves the war in Iraq.

I understand that when the war in Iraq is over, he won’t be quoted 2-4 times a month by the national press, but that is no reason for him want Americans and Iraqis to keep dying.

Not also that the poll is wanktacular too, it says it’s about the candidates positions, but the question is, “Obama has proposed a timetable to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office. McCain has opposed a specific timetable and said events should dictate when troops are withdrawn. Which approach do you prefer – a timetable or no timetable?“

That is a question designed to get a higher number (it’s 50%-49% in favor of the time table) than any other question, but it allows the Post to claim that people are evenly split, when “not worth fighting” wins 63% to 36%, and that success in the war is not necessary to win the war on terror (60% to 34%).