Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments in John McCain And 100 Years In Iraq

Re: John McCain And 100 Years In Iraq

Craig Hickman — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:18:00 -0000

jack, I'm with you. McCain is InSane.

When the heat is turned up on Crooked Talk, he's going to explode like a volcano and I'm going to tape it.

The man is troubled, unstable, infirm. You can't be a POW for as long as he was and not be.

He has no business anywhere near the Oval Office and most sane people know it.

Re: John McCain And 100 Years In Iraq

Jack Turner — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:46:00 -0000

this is ridiculous. first of all, no one EVER EVER gives the democratic candidate the luxury of going into the detail and full possible meaning of what he REALLY MEANT.

McCain has to answer for this.

He said he's fine with us staying in Iraq for 100 years or longer as we've stayed in Korea. He also said he doesn't believe we can stay in Iraq like Korea. I posted BOTH videos because the man is now arguing with himself.

Second, he's foolish if he thinks we can peacefully remain in the holy land with our military for 100 years with no conflict.

Third, when does the clock start? We're at war now. Americans are dying now. How many years does it take for us to get to the steady state fantasy of his? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?

He makes no sense.

He lashed himself to this war. He sings fun little songs about Bombinb Iran. He's the most irresponsible commander in chief of the three remaining candidates. WHO JOKES ABOUT BOMBING A COUNTY AND SINGS A SONG ABOUT IT.

No, McCain gets to quarter here, nor do his insane ideas nor his shady associations.

And for the record, I don't care if we are "at peace" in Iraq. *I* want our troops out. You think the people of Okinawa are thrilled with our presence and rape of their women?

Regardless of whether or not peace is possible *I* am against installing a base of operations for the military industrial complex in ANY MORE COUNTRIES.

So John McCain gets no slack from me on this.

none.

Let's send his ass over for the next 100 years.

Re: John McCain And 100 Years In Iraq

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:26:00 -0000

Let them stay and bankrupt the country, kill the poor young men and women who can't get real jobs here and have to fight a war that can't and won't be won, be it one more year or 500 years. The voters are to the point where they don't want change, i.e. falling in love again with HRC and helping her steal the nomination, so, let the war rage on when McCain wins.

Re: John McCain And 100 Years In Iraq

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:16:00 -0000

Here is the ENTIRE analysis from factcheck.org:

"The latest ad follows up on a DNC fundraising e-mail, which we critiqued in February, portraying McCain as willing to fight an "endless war" in Iraq.

DNC Ad: "100"

Mccain

Offscreen voice: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.

On screen graphic: Senator McCain. President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain: Maybe a hundred. That'd be fine with me.

On screen: 100 years in Iraq.

On screen: 5 years. $500 billion. Over 4,000 dead.

Offscreen voice: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain: Maybe 100.

Narrator: If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America's future?

On screen: Is John McCain the right choice for America's future?

Narrator: The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

It opens with a shot of McCain onstage at a town hall meeting in January. An offscreen voice says President Bush has discussed keeping U.S. troops "in Iraq for 50 years." We see McCain saying, "Maybe a hundred." Pause. "That'd be fine with me." Then we hear an explosion and sirens, accompanied by video of cars on fire, plumes of smoke and general chaos in an obviously dangerous setting. The words "Maybe a hundred" appear on the screen, followed by "5 years," "$500 billion" and "Over 4,000 killed."

The clear implication is that if McCain is elected, we can expect to be battling in Iraq for many decades to come. But the admakers cut off the rest of McCain's response, which provides some badly needed context:

McCain, town hall meeting, Jan. 3: Maybe a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world.

The DNC ad doesn't mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence. And the text of the ad paired with images of Iraq under siege leave a clear impression that McCain proposes to allow a century more of war, with U.S. involvement. That's not what he said, in New Hampshire or in other settings when he's been asked about it.

Republicans have called the ad a distortion, but DNC Chairman Howard Dean defended it, saying in an NBC News "Meet the Press" interview on Sunday:

Dean, April 27: First of all, we're not arguing that he's going to be at war for a hundred years. We don't think we ought to be in Iraq for a hundred years under any circumstances. Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being spent in Iraq, which we need right here at home right now to preserve American jobs. That's the first thing.

Secondly, if Senator McCain believes that you can occupy a country like Iraq for a hundred years without having a long war and violence and our troops being hurt and, and killed, I think Senator McCain is wrong. ... [D]oes anyone think, who's watching this show, that if you keep our troops in Iraq for a hundred years, people won't be attacking them and won't be setting off suicide bombs and won't be having militias go after them? I don't think so. And most Americans don't think so.

Dean is correct in one sense. His ad doesn't say in so many words that McCain is "going to be at war for a hundred years." But by juxtaposing McCain's words with dramatic, violent images of war, it clearly leaves that impression.

It's one thing to argue, as Dean does, that McCain's position is a recipe for continued violence and bloodshed, whatever his stated intent. But it is another thing to misrepresent that intent. The ad twists the sense of McCain's words by showing images of war, when he was really talking about a peaceful troop presence. Imagine how different the ad would seem if it showed images of, say, American troops walking the streets of Tokyo or Seoul and had included what McCain said about "Americans ... not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Anyone who didn't already know the fuller version of McCain's answer could easily be fooled into thinking that McCain would be perfectly happy to see the war continue. McCain has said quite clearly that he considers Democratic proposals for a quick withdrawal from Iraq to be "surrender," and so deadly fighting could well continue longer under a President McCain than under either a President Hillary Clinton or a President Obama. But what the DNC ad conveys is the opposite of what McCain said."

Re: John McCain And 100 Years In Iraq

D. — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:36:00 -0000

McCain-and anyone with a true understanding of how the military works-knows that we cannot sustain the current operational tempo in Iraq for a hundred years.

The quote itself:

Maybe a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world.

....you know, the same type of presence we have in Japan, Korea, Europe, etc.

I give you this, from the National Review in March:

""[McCain's] statement speaks for itself. If we prevail in Iraq and the violence ends, American troops can be stationed there just as they are in other peaceful, strategically important countries such as South Korea and Japan... [W]e suspect the public still prefers winning a war to losing one. If it does, John McCain is better suited for the task than either of his two opponents, no matter how often they throw out the 100-year comment."

Once al-Qaeda is defeated in Iraq (which is happening now, contrary to liberal belief!!), our mission there can become the same type of setup we have in Bahrain....if that's what the Iraqi people decide-for themselves!-that they want.

But since you brought it up, let's talk about the ad the DNC produced about McCain's "hundred years" comment. You know, the one that shows two American servicemen getting killed by an IED.

Isn't that a little disrespectful to the families of those two servicemen? And if so, why isn't Obama calling for the ad to be pulled? Shouldn't he hold some sway with the DNC?

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?