My column tomorrow is about Sen. John McCain's 100 years in Iraq statements and his attempts to clarify them, which I wrote before his comments about how the Iraq War is about oil, and his attempts to backtrack.

People see McCain's straight talk as his main strength. But if you use Karl Rove's campaign playbook, you attack you opponent's strength. And in McCain's case, the strength of his straight talk has a lot of holes in it.

When the Democratic nominee is finally decided, McCain is in for a whoopin. The news media has been lax about pointing out McCain's flip flops, but that can be corrected by the avalanche of attack ads that will be coming his way. Those ads will cause McCain to cry foul, and the media will be forced to examine those flip flops. Unlike the Kerry Swift Boat ads, these attacks have some actual truth to them. They have video of his misstatements and flip flops.

And as McCain keeps talking, he just keeps putting his foot in his mouth. The problem is that he wants to be truthful, but he knows that politically he can't. He knows the war in Iraq is about oil and that the Bush tax cuts were unfair. But he wants to be president, so he tries in vain to bite his tongue.

Hey, for once a war supporter finally admits the war is about oil. Give him points for honesty:

Update: Seems McCain's straight talk has a few twists in it. Kind of embarrassing hearing him trying to backpedal on this point, trying to claim it was the first Gulf War, not this one, even though he was talking directly about our current conflict.

Part of the reason Republicans have lost support for this war is their rank dishonesty about the reasons we are there. They just can admit what everyone else sees. If Iraq had no oil, we wouldn't be there, period.

John McCain can argue all he wants about how we have to stay in Iraq because cutting and running will hurt this country, but his history ont he subject shows it's just politics.

Here's what he had to say about Somalia in 1993:

"The American people did not support the goals of nation-building, peacemaking, law and order and certainly not warlord funding. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc, I think is a tragic and terrible mistake. But the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think, is baloney. The fact is, what can hurt our prestige, Mr. President, I'll tell you what can hurt our viability, as the world's superpower, and that is, if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation, which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aidid's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige."

And Haiti in 1994:

"The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti. As soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives.

"Now there may be different interpretations of this Resolution on the other side, but it is my view---and I want to make it clear and I think the majority of the American people's view---that as soon as possible means as soon as possible. Exactly what those words state."

So, according to McCain, it's only OK to pull out if there is a Democratic president in the White House.

John McCain is trying to claim whe would have handled the Hurricane Katrina crisis differently than Bush.

But what was he doing on that day New Orleans was drowning:

Democrats should remember that it was Social Security privatization that started Bush's descent in the polls, and Katrina that finished him. Iraq of course was there, but didn't come out in full until the Katrina debacle.

Voters should be reminded how the current president and the man he hopes to replace him were doing that fateful day.

John McCain keeps saying he learned his lesson about doing favors after getting caught in the Keating Five scandal, but skeletons keep falling out of his closet.

Take this one. McCain helps an Arizona real estate baron land sweetheart deals with the government. McCain claims it's just helping out a constituent, something he would do for any Arizonan.

But developer Donald Diamond is a pretty plainspoken guy. He raises a lot of money for McCain and other pols who can help him:

Mr. Diamond is close to most of Arizona’s Congressional delegation and is candid about his expectations as a fund-raiser. “I want my money back, for Christ’s sake. Do you know how many cocktail parties I have to go to?”

Or try this one:

Mr. Diamond, for his part, said Mr. McCain had only done his job. “I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents,” he said. “When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn’t you want to help move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with legislation.”

He said he often complained to Mr. McCain that he was “too straight” about refusing to provide federal help for Arizona businessmen. “I tell him, ‘You are an Arizona senator besides being the world senator. Loosen up, kid!’ ”

Sounds a lot like quid pro quo. "I want my money back." Just what favors is Diamond going to ask McCain if he becomes president?

John McCain is going to really, really wish he hadn't said he was OK with American troops staying in Iraq for 100 years. Actually, he's said it more than once, and even said 1,000 years, and 10,000 years.

And surprise, surprise, the Democrats have finally learned a few GOP tricks, and they are now using the 100 years remark over and over and over.

Republicans aren't too happy about this, and they are pushing back. They realize that this one remark could very well define McCain for this election.

Now, to cut McCain a little slack, he qualifies his 100 year statement by saying only if Americans aren't getting killed or wounded. That begs the question, how long does he think we should put up with Americans getting killed before we pull the plug?

I want to see someone ask McCain this question. Until then, that 100 year tag is going to stick.

As long as Hillary continues to ignore reality, John McCain is free to attack them both. McCain is saying they are irresponsible for advocating withdrawal from Iraq. If either of the candidates wasn't preoccupied with each other, they would be hitting that one over the fence.

Here, let me do it for them:

"What is irresponsible is leaving 130,000 Americans in the middle of a civil war with no plan for victory."

...but probably don't. McCain gets a free ride for being a maverick when his actual record is nothing of the sort.

John McCain seems to have a very basic misunderstanding of Iraqi politics. For two days in a row, he claimed that Iran was training al Qaeda fighters. Iran is Shiite, while the al Qaeda terrorists are Sunni, and are actively involved in blowing up Shiites in big, bleeding batches.

After the last time he claimed this, he came back and said he misspoke. No word yet on how he misspoke the same way two days in a row.

McCain also regularly says that if the U.S. leaves Iraq, al Qaeda wins. Really? al Qaeda has a few hundred Sunni fighters, who even the Sunni minority in Iraq doesn't like. The Shiite majoriy controls the government, and there is zero way that al Qaeda could take over or even be given much of a safe haven there.

It's very clear that McCain doesn't understand the very basic political situation in Iraq. I'd say that he flunks the commander-in-chief test right there.

Update: Make that three days in a row.

I've been wondering why Hillary refuses to release her tax returns until after she is nominated. What does she have to hide, and if there is something to hide, then it will come out anyway.

But then I find out that John McCain hasn't released his, either. Could it be that the Clintons are thinking that in the general election they can basically call a truce with McCain, allowing both of them to not disclose their returns?

Remember back in 1992 when the Clintons released their tax returns, except for the two years that showed Hillary was making a huge profit on the futures market, where she might have had some help.

If Obama wants to fight back, he should be hitting Hillary on this every day.