Trying to defend Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq by saying that Clinton illegally invaded Kosovo is irrelevant EVEN IF the Kosovo war was illegal.

Basically, Bush invaded Iraq contrary to the UN rules that required UN authorization for invasion. Even if the UN had authorized the Iraq invasion the authorization would have been vitiated and nullified because it would have been granted based on fraud and lies. 

Here's what Vincent Bugliosi says about the comparison:

"By way of footnote, it also isn't a legal defense for Bush to argue: 'Well, the U.S. bombed the Kosovo province of Yugoslavia in 1999 without UN approval, only that of NATO.'  That would be like a driver of a car saying to a police officer about to give him a speeding ticket: 'Why are you giving me one when cars on my left and right were  traveling just as fast as I?'  So, maybe the U.S. (in the Clinton administration) was also in violation of Article 2.  But by the way, there is no evidence that President Clinton and his people engaged in lies, deliberate distortions, and hence, criminality leading up to our bombings of Kosovo to stop the genocide of the ethinic Clbanians by the Serbs there.  Indeed, even if Clinton had lied to the American people in the Kosovo intervention, since not one American soldier lost his life, this would, by definition, preclude any murder prosecution of Clinton." (The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, page 283.)

So, notice that McCain directly opposed Clinton's conduct of the Kosovo war without ground troops, but it was Clinton's choice to not use ground troops that not only led to the "win" but  that meant no American troops died in Kosovo while if the war had been fought using McCain's strategy surely American ground troops would have been killed.

So McCain's claim that he knows how to win wars is spurious and the comparison is spurious also.