Obama spokesman Bill Burton, responding to John McCain’s suggestion that both he and Obama take a trip to Iraq in the near future:

“John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.”

You know what is intriguingly missing from that answer? Any indication that Obama will return to Iraq before Election Day.

Obama has been to Iraq once, in 2006. It was a two-day tour of the country.

I suppose one can argue about the value of seeing the situation on the ground with one’s own eyes, but wouldn’t the architect of a withdrawal want to see some of the circumstances himself? Even if Obama didn’t want to travel with McCain, is it really wise to suggest that a tour of post-surge Iraq is unnecessary? Wouldn’t scheduling a visit defuse criticism like this from Vets for Freedom PAC?

And isn’t Obama vulnerable to the argument that a man who’s pledged to meet unconditionally, one-on-one, face-to-face with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really ought to meet at least once one-on-one with Gen. David Petraeus?