As I wrote yesterday, I think the anger among McCain supporters over McCain’s “it’s not too important when the troops come home” gaffe is less about McCain’s statement being taken out of context, and more about people no longer interpreting McCain’s incoherent answers in the most charitable way possible.

This is not true of MNBC’s Andrea Mitchell and Lee Cowan, however, who begin their segment yesterday by throwing a block down for McCain. Watch it:

Marc Ambinder also had this odd defense of McCain against unfavorable interpretations of his remark:

The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn’t the issue; instead, it’s the casualties they receive. The differences between McCain and Obama are clear enough; Obama wants a bare-bones U.S. presence in Iraq, and McCain is willing to tolerate a much larger one; Obama believes that the presence of U.S. troops exacerbates the tension and gives Iraqis a crutch to delay political reconcilliation. McCain does not. One would think that those differences are a sufficient basis upon which to launch a political attack.

Leaving aside why Ambinder feels the need to certify this or that difference as a “sufficient basis” for political attacks, I would argue that McCain’s dismissive attitude about when the troops come home from Iraq is obviously fair game. Most Americans want the troops drawn down within one to two years; McCain wants them to stay in Iraq until he feels that “victory” has been achieved, which is just a cut-rate Churchillian way of saying that he wants them to stay indefinitely.

Whether McCain personally appreciates the troops’ sacrifice isn’t particularly relevant. What is relevant is that McCain’s policies would require the troops and their families and communities to sacrifice more and more and more, until some unknown time when the disastrous decision to invade Iraq is judged to have been sufficiently redeemed, and the reputations of its architects and advocates rehabilitated.

Also, given how McCain strains to put the best possible face on the lack of Iraqi political progress, it’s interesting that he chooses to ignore the very impressive and diverse Iraqi political coalition that has recently coalesced — around the idea of getting the U.S. out of Iraq.

McCain and assorted flacks suggest that, since Al Qaeda wants us to leave Iraq — a questionable assertion, given that keeping the U.S. in Iraq in order to bleed its resources is one of AQ’s stated goals — we must therefore stay, lest the terrorists win, the terrorists apparently being defined as everyone who wants us to leave Iraq.

This is the catch-22 of the U.S. presence in Iraq: For that presence to be legal and legitimate, it must be it must be under an agreement by the Iraqi government. But it is extremely unlikely that any Iraqi government that agrees to an extended U.S. presence — especially on the terms the U.S. is currently demanding — will be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqi people. And around and around we go.

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized to the Supreme Court’s ruling granting Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts:

It obviously concerns me. These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens. We should pay attention to Justice Roberts. It is a decision the Supreme Court has made and now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and I still think we ought to do that.

McCain’s statement mirrored remarks by President Bush, who said, “I strongly agree with those who dissented.” Watch reactions from McCain and Bush:

McCain’s desire to close Guantanamo Bay and his dislike of torture have nothing to do with this case. When it comes to upholding the rights of detainees, McCain has a long history of opposing them:

– In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul v. Bush that the Bush administration had no jurisdiction to strip habeas corpus rights from detainees. In 2005, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced legislation overturning this decision and thus stripping detainees of their rights. McCain voted for the bill, which passed 49-42.

– The Military Commissions Act of 2006 denied anyone Bush labeled “an ‘illegal enemy combatant’ the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court.” McCain weakly pushed to strengthen the torture restrictions in the legislation, but ignored the lack of habeas rights. In the end, he voted for the Military Commissions Act.

– In 2007, Senate conservatives successfully filibustered legislation that would have “given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.” In a 56-43 vote, the chamber fell just four shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate and proceed with the bill. McCain was part of the conservative filibuster and voted against moving forward with the legislation.

Today, the McCain campaign blog also approvingly cited Justice Antonin Scalia’s exceptionally extreme rhetoric on the consequences of the decision.

Our guest blogger is Adam Jentleson, the Communications and Outreach Director for the Hyde Park Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

In all the hubbub over his comments that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq was “not important,” McCain still hasn’t taken a clear position on the status of forces agreement (SOFA) currently being negotiated between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

Maybe this is because McCain lacks familiarity with the topic. Earlier this year, he gaffed when George Stephanopoulos asked him about the SOFA:

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Bush is also negotiating a long-term status of forces agreement with Iraq. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama say that agreement has to come to the Congress.

MCCAIN: It wouldn’t bother me to bring it to the Congress. I don’t think that’s a huge deal. We have status of forces…

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Bush says he doesn’t want to, though.

MCCAIN: Well, look, if we succeed in Iraq, which I believe we are, the rest of it takes care of itself. We have status of force agreements with a number of countries that have never been approved by Congress; we have some others that have been approved by Congress.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the big ones, Korea was approved by Congress.

MCCAIN: Yes, but we have some countries — we’re still in Bosnia. We don’t have a status of forces agreement there, as I recall. We have — look…

Problem is, the U.S. does have a status of forces agreement with Bosnia.

Perhaps McCain was thinking of another example of a country where we have a long-term troop presence but no SOFA. If not, he may need to come up with another answer to the question.

In theory, McCain should welcome questions about his stance on the SOFA. The SOFA is a binding legal agreement setting the terms for the U.S. presence in Iraq in the years to come. It’s necessary because the UN mandate authorizing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq expires at the end of this year, and it will put on paper the answers to major questions like, how many bases will we have in Iraq? Will they be permanent or temporary? Who will be in charge of the Iraqi security forces? How many U.S. troops will be stationed in Iraq? What will their mission be, and how long will they be there?

So if McCain truly does not think it’s “not important” when we withdraw U.S. troops, and if he truly does not want us to be in Iraq for 100 years, then this should be the perfect vehicle for him to explain, in concrete terms, his vision for the U.S. presence in Iraq in the coming years.

But maybe he still needs some time to bone up on the issue.