John McCain: Willing to Keep American Troops in Iraq for 100 Years

Remember when John McCain said he'd be fine with American troops in Iraq for 100 years?  

Well, according to the Republican National Committee, he never said it, or not really like it's being quoted, or there were mitigating circumstances, or...and...but...but...  

To paraphrase Shakespeare,

The
RNC
Doth
Protest
Too
Much
Methinks.

The Republicans and their lackeys are trying to say that McCain didn't mean we'd be at war for the full hundred years.  Well, then why say it?  There's little indication we've "subdued" Iraq enough that we'll ever not be at war there.  To do that, to eliminate any attacks on the US occupying forces, will probably never happen.  But if one were open to the possibility that we could eventually subdue all Iraqi opposition, what would be a good estimate of how long it might take?  

100 years sounds about right to me...and to John McCain.  

The difference between John McCain and the Republican dead-enders vs the Democrats and the two-thirds or more of Americans willing to face reality is that we realize it's time to start leaving Iraq.  John McCain wants us to stay there another 100 years to see if things get better.  And the RNC is trying desperately to convince people John McCain didn't mean it.  Or didn't say it.  Or...something.

•  He said it. He believes it.

  He will have to live with it, no matter how politically devastating it is for him, and that fact is demonstrated by their repeated backpedaling.

  by Delaware Dem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:23:02 PM PDT

  •  Let's play that clip again.

    And again, and again, and again.

    Time for a video mashup methinks.

    by Rob Cole on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:24:09 PM PDT

    •  We should repeat "100 Years" on endless loop

      That "gaffe," although it wasn't a gaffe so much as it revealed their clueless warmongering foolishness, should be the main torpoedo to sink Old Man Magoo's ridiculous campaign.

      by WinSmith on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:27:32 PM PDT

      •  To be fair ...

        McCain did not want 100 years of war, just 100 years of occupation.

        The  difference between the two is

        by Bronxist on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:39:14 PM PDT

        •  Right. He wants the Iraqis to stop shooting at us

          I never would have guessed.

          What's next - tell the Sunnis and Shia to "cut the bullshit"?

          Oh, wait a minute.

          by RickMassimo on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:21:01 PM PDT

        •  Indeed. 100 years of occupation AFTER we "win"

          And I'm sure we'll turn that corner any day now.

          by DemCurious on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:48:44 AM PDT

    •  Fox is working overtime, trying to convince...

      ...the wingnut sheeple that McCain is being quoted out of context.

      What McCain really means, people, is a kinder, gentler occupation of an Arab nation.

      Kind of like our presence in Seoul, where the Koreans now suck down as much McDonald's and about 45 times as much SPAM as the average American soldier. Where the Itaewon strip looks like a $3 American whore.

      Damn, we're good.

      by Melody Townsel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:27:44 PM PDT

      •  Can Seoul even be called an occupation?

        The US maintains bases and a troop presence there -- by agreement with the sovereign government of S Korea. That's like having an air base in Aviano, in Italy; or Kadena, in Japan. If those governments ever wanted the US to shut down and vacate, then it would be time to move on.

        Obviously Iraq is a different story. There is really no sovereign government to issue an eviction order. If one day such a government emerged, the US would absolutely not comply. That's why we have monstrous investments in the 'world's largest Embassy' and assorted permenent bases.

        Now that's an occupation. Be it ever so kind and gentle, it's an occupation. It's a violation of sovereignty. It's a dirty word.

        by gotgat54 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:30:13 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      because they are going to lie about it again and again and again.  You can always tell when Joe Scarborough makes it the centerpiece of his show, the orders have come down from on high.

      by MadRuth on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:28:40 PM PDT

  •  In truth

    Nobody believes Sen. McCain meant having 130,000+ troops for the next century.  What's clear from that statement, however, is that we will have that number of troops while he is President.

    But that's not the question Democrats should be debating.  We're mistaking the forest for the trees here.  The real question is whether we are to continue this radical foreign policy doctrine contradicting the past 42 Presidents where America can launch an open-ended, preemptive war on another nation if we believe that particular nation will be a threat to America 5-10 years from now.  That's the real debate the American people should be having.

    by jim bow on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM PDT

    •  You got this part right, I think:

      Nobody believes Sen. McCain

      Unfortunately, there are still a lot of stupid people in the country who will vote for him.

      by Youffraita on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:43:16 PM PDT

      •  And as the saying goes ...

        ... the voters deserve what they get.

        by jim bow on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:44:15 PM PDT

        •  unfortunately, that means the rest of us have to

          suffer what they get as well.

          by ejpoeta on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:13:52 PM PDT

      •  Check out the guy in the front row with the beard

        His mouth is hanging open in disbelief at what he's hearing!  lol

        by spotDawa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:25:53 PM PDT

    •  Who's Debating?

      What's great about this is that the RNC is spending so much time trying to say McCain didn't say what he said.  Obviously that means they know it's a potentially lethal line of attack against McCain, and that it's drawing blood.  

      by DHinMI on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM PDT

      •  It draws serious blood ...

        Especially the way Obama connects the money spent in Iraq to the lack of dollars for health-care or job training or education.

        Every time they say "Tax and Spend" we can point to a billion dollars a week down the drain.

        by Bronxist on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM PDT

        •  No kidding

          McCain is a "fiscal conservative" the way I avoid chocolate.  There's no money for anything--anything except this trillion-dollar war, another war with Iran, and of course Bush's tax cuts for the rich that is.

          by oscarsmom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM PDT

  •  third verse, same as the first two...

    

    by Timroff on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:35:38 PM PDT

  •  But only if we're not getting killed

    and wounded and harmed, remember? That's what he said, actually.

    Brilliant. You know, I wouldn't mind if there was an al Qaeda safe house next door to me - AS LONG AS all they're doing is holding bake sales for youth football and running the neighborhood watch.

    I Can Haz Seeryus Forn Polsy Xprt Baj Now?

    by RickMassimo on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:23:01 PM PDT

•  They'd lie if the truth saved their lives.

  But its harder to get away with lies now thanks to the tubes.

  by Rob Cole on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:23:06 PM PDT

•  Blackwater out now!!

  by ezdidit on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:23:33 PM PDT

  •  Quite the opposite, sadly.

    Just in:

    The U.S. State Department will renew Blackwater USA's license to protect diplomats in Baghdad for one year. The decision comes six months after Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqis as a convoy passed through the capital. The guards said they were defending themselves after coming under fire.

    The FBI is investigating. The New York Times has reported that FBI agents have determined that at least 14 deaths were unjustified. The bureau's final report is expected later this year.

    Yesterday, Reuters reported that a top Blackwater official said it was too soon to blame its guards for the deaths.

    by Rob Cole on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:26:19 PM PDT

    •  There's never a bad time to blame Blackwater.

      Think up something utterly fucking outlandish, cruel and wasteful and say it at any given time and you're likely to be right.

      by Melody Townsel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:29:20 PM PDT

•  A mere 100?

  McCain now says a million years.

  After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

  http://www.motherjones.com/...

  Now, the important thing, is, do the 5 years we've already been there count as time served? In that case, we have only 999,995 years to go.

  by jfern on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:24:08 PM PDT

  •  Here's his problem...

    He just doesn't get it...

    If the end goal is an indefinite American occupation, then we will never "win," and American lives will be lost.

    And I get the feeling that sooner rather than later, the Iraqis are going to elect a government that isn't so willing to be friends with America.

    by Dave Sund on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:30:24 PM PDT

  •  Sooooo, since we are taking casualties

    we can leave? Excellent.  Oh, you mean we cant leave until we succeed?  What does that mean? Ohhh, when the shooting stops.   But then we have to stay. I'm so confused.

    by Nailbanger on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:31:20 PM PDT

    •  No, years

      John McCain has spoken. We will be in Iraq until around his 1,000,067th birthday.

      by jfern on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:42:33 PM PDT

•  But, he's a _maverick_

  and we all know that that means he can never say anything that puts him in a poor light.

  Right?

  -dms

  by dmsilev on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:24:21 PM PDT

  •  He's also a "moderate"

    Because Campaign Finance Reform is slightly to the "left," and rage based warmongering is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, which somehow balances out to "moderate" status in the crack smoking asswipes we call our national press.

    by WinSmith on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:28:48 PM PDT

    •  How to tell if McCain is lying?

      When he starts the sentence with "my friend."

      by Melody Townsel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:30:11 PM PDT

•  100 years he said, 100 years it is.

  by DFutureIsNow on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM PDT

•  the RNC has had some effect

  I've seen a number of journalists insist McCain didn't mean it.  Meanwhile, you'll still here "Al Gore said he invented the internet" and the like.

  by John DE on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:25:13 PM PDT

•  Why Won't McCain Sign the GI Bill?

  Faced with unprecedented filibusters, the only way to ensure Senate passage of the GI Bill is to get 60 co-sponsors. So far, John McCain has refused. The same McCain who insists he supports our troops. The same McCain who is voting lockstep with the Bush administration (who have also resisted this bill). We need to get John McCain to lead -- to sign now and signal to other Republican leaders that we should be strongly behind our vets.

  Sign the petition demanding John McCain sign on as a co-sponsor to The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S.22 & H.R.2702): http://therealmccain.com/...

  by Scarce on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:25:55 PM PDT

•  Remember?

  "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it?"

  It doesn't matter if you misspoke (McCain, didn't). This is how politics works. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

  Since his "100 years" provides a clear window into his Iraq strategy - an indefinite U.S. occupation - that paints him as exactly what he is.

  by Dave Sund on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:27:18 PM PDT

  •  Yes!

    This is his "voted for it before I voted against it" moment.

    Every single democratic pundit and politician needs to mention how this man wants us in Iraq for 100 more years every time his name comes up.

    by Sam Loomis on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:32:51 PM PDT

    •  lather, rinse, REPEAT

      for all it's worth

      by newfie53523 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:16:08 PM PDT

•  John McCain: Unfit for Command

  The inescapable conclusion about John McCain's own suitability as Commander-in-Chief?

  McCain's mistake-filled record, questionable judgment, calamitous misreading of history, nonchalance about American casualties and notorious short fuse all combine to make him a dangerous choice to lead an America at war. Simply put, John McCain is unfit for command.

  For the details, see:
  "John McCain: Unfit for Command."

  by Avenging Angel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:27:34 PM PDT

•  John McCain is a militarist.

  Born to a military family and a famous navy war hero. He does what he knows how to do - make war.

  by internationaljock on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:27:48 PM PDT

  •  With all that family military history,

    wouldn't you think he would know there was a big difference in the occupation of Post-World War II Japan and Germany and what we are dealing with in Iraq??

    by evdebs on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:45:37 PM PDT

•  He said exactly that. 100 years.

  And given that McCain and almost the entire Republican party refuses to talk about ANY timetable for getting our soldiers out of Iraq witout screaming "traitor" and "cut and run" like a bunch of hysterical fools, we have to take their new leader at his word.

  The truth is very simple sometimes.  And it hurts, when you want to conceal it.  

  by chumley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:28:31 PM PDT

•  Hang this war around his neck like an anchor

  And watch him sink.

  

  by Sam Loomis on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:28:50 PM PDT

  •  Hang this war AND

    this economy around his neck - two anchors will sink him even faster!

    by internationaljock on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:30:52 PM PDT

•  McCain is Bush. Period.

  Run that over and over and over again.

  For all the fuss the media's making about earmarks, the government spends less each year on earmarks than it does in two months in Iraq.  And earmarks generally don't kill people.

  by Phoenix Woman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:31:06 PM PDT

  •  McSame.

    

    by Sam Loomis on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:36:28 PM PDT

    •  McW n/yt

      by newfie53523 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:17:14 PM PDT

  •  Bush didn't tell the Secret Service they sucked

    nor did he sing about bombing Iran.

    McCain will go further down the Bushian road.  

    by bosdcla14 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM PDT

  •  Bush on Steriods Is the phrase I've heard nt

    by JML9999 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:47:02 PM PDT

    •  Bush ion viagra perhaps?

      Although steroids is probably more accurate, as there is the risk of dementia with them

      by newfie53523 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:18:19 PM PDT

•  What they don't seem to get is

  that it doesn't matter whether he meant as a peace-keeping force or not. The Iraqis will see us as occupiers no matter what. THEY DON"T WANT US THERE! PERIOD. Iraq is NOT Japan, Korea or Germany. Japan, Korea and Germany were not under Colonial occupation. They were not separate regions forced by Colonialists to form a country none of them really wanted. John McCain and his buddies are totally tone-deaf to the sentiments and history of the peoples of Iraq. In 1992 Cheney understood what would happen if we stayed on hallowed ground. In 2002 he didn't give a damn---the smell of all that oil clouded his brain.

  by DWKING on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:33:29 PM PDT

  •  precisely, but Pappy doesn't see it this way

    THEY DON"T WANT US THERE! PERIOD. Iraq is NOT Japan, Korea or Germany

    by newfie53523 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:19:18 PM PDT

•  The Dems doth protest too much..

  They do control the spending, and they've been voting for the illegal occupation with the purse ever since they gained control.

  How about shutting down the kleptocracy, and getting the contractors out first?

  Or is the plan to just have Iraqis leave or die until there are none left (4-5M down, 20-21M to go) - and then the oil is ours? (or Chevron's, or BP's, or..)

  by modestybl on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:34:18 PM PDT

•  A hundred-year occupation ...

  ...is scarcely better than a hundred-year war. According to Mister Bush, we haven't had a war in Iraq since May 1, 2003. Just the desperate last throes of dead-enders. We'd still be in Vietnam if McCain had his way, occupying the "gooks," as he still calls them.

  by Meteor Blades on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:35:09 PM PDT

•  Buchanan - McCain Bellicose Red Faced Angry Guy

  by Jimmy Crackcorn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:35:46 PM PDT

  •  Bellicose Red Faced Angry Guy

    PB calling McCain a Bellicose Red Faced Angry Guy   being a Bellicose Red Faced Angry Guy he's understand.

    Uh Got it

    by JML9999 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:49:32 PM PDT

•  To be fair...

  He simply meant that we would have a military presence in the country for an extended period. That's nothing unusual. We have troops in countries all over the globe and our presence is largely to everyone's benefit. We have more political leverage in the region, local economies are bolstered, and our troops are exposed to foreign cultures.

  Now, that having been said, McCain's purpose with these statements was to divert questions about how long the war will last... and it's working. Democrats are focused on demonizing him for this statement and Republicans now have something to defend. Meanwhile real questions of how he intends to deal with the Iraq war remain unasked and unanswered.

  by Lord Sphere on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:38:16 PM PDT

  •  It's unusual in the Middle East...

    You're right, McCain has a benign military presence in mind. But he and the rest of the Republicans are delusional to believe that can ever work.

    This region has had occupier after occupier over the last 1,000 years. The Brits occupied Iraq a mere 60 years ago. We can never have the kind of military presence there we have in South Korea, Japan, or Europe. As long as we stay, it will be a fiasco. Most of the regional governments and terrorists of all stripes are going to be hounding us. We will create a multi-generational hatred that will take lifetimes to fade.

    If we start to argue nuts and bolts and strategy with them, we will fall into their trap. They will pick apart every detail, diverting attention from the important issue:

    They want to stay.
    We know we need to go.

    Keep it simple.

    by davewill on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:10:34 PM PDT

    •  Excellent counterpoint

      However, I still wish we would address McCain's statements and his overall position on the war more seriously, rather than simply mocking him.

      McCain's viewpoint isn't going to disappear along with his presidential hopes. It's just going to simmer under the surface until Americans aren't paying attention again, because so long as we're dependant upon the middle east, the U.S. is going to want to maintain leverage in the region.

      We're at a moment when we have an opportunity to seriously address these issues from a systematic point of view. Instead we're playing politics.

      by Lord Sphere on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM PDT

  •  i find it interesting how they take great care

    to contextualize what mccain said, when they play the wright thing out of context, and go on and on about the white women thing obama said.  i understand what mccain said, but when he says that, people aren't going to see it in the sense of germany or any other place.  they are going to see iraq as it is now and think 100 years like it is right now.  

    by ejpoeta on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:10:57 PM PDT

    •  sure, but...

      Just because they do it, that doesn't mean it's OK for us to do it too, is it?

      As a liberal myself, I want us to maintain higher ground and not get involved in petty politics.

      by Lord Sphere on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:51:06 PM PDT

      •  i agree to a certain extent

        though i do believe it is valid to ask him to explain exactly what he means by keeping troops there.  as in, how long?  how many troops?  what about afghanistan, which is floundering right now and should be where our focus is.  how about troop levels.  what is he going to do to address the state of the military?  if he plans on keeping troops in iraq and afghanistan, how is he going to rectify that with the fact that troops are being sent over and over again and we aren't going to be able to continue this indefinitely.  is he going to reinstate the draft to get the military levels up?  how is he going to pay for this war to continue?  how is he going to address the inadequate protections for the soldiers?  how is he going to address blackwater and mercinaries in general?    i could go on and on.

        by ejpoeta on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:36:52 AM PDT

        •  I totally agree.

          Those are the questions I want to hear being posed to McCain. That's what I wish everyone would focus on. Critical questions and the pursuit of real answers (The fact that we won't get any will be evidence in its own right).

          by Lord Sphere on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:13:53 PM PDT

  •  How about the wishes of the people --

    -- and their sovereign government? What if they said 'thanks but no thanks' to all this political leverage in the region and bolstering of local economies?

    In countries all over the globe, the US has a military presence by agreement with the host country. Yes, they are often welcome guests. They can be, and often are, a force for good.

    Not so in Iraq. Popular opinion wants them out. You can't club Iraq in with the rest. It makes the US at worst an aggressor and invader, and at best an intruder, interloper, squatter.

    Sammy Davis Jr with the Rat Pack: 'Do me a favour, bud. Don't do me no favours.'

    by gotgat54 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:53:01 AM PDT

    •  Agreed n/t

      by Lord Sphere on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM PDT

•  He attacked Obama

  He attacked Obama for calling him out on this. He siad Obama 'cherry picked" and didn't put his words in full context. This man cannot win the election if he runs against Obama.

  Man, I hope that Hillary supporter doesn't attack me again for calling out McCain again!

  This was WEIRD! I posted this about McCain's King comment.

  Ok so you DON'T know anything about King so you vote no. Yeah okay!
  When you want votes you vote yes. Another Republican lying racist fraud!

  The this was the response from what I see as a right winger because the ammo is exactly the same. NOTICE, I did not mention Obama!

  The was the response I got.

  yea just like bill clinton! (0+ / 2-)

  they all dont like obama so they're all racistsssss!!!!

  by warheroz

  on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:22:34 PM PDT

  by dynamicstand on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:41:39 PM PDT

•  Actually, its worse.

  He thinks the American people don't care if we are there 100 years. In other words, he thinks we are just as callous, just as desirous of spending whatever blood or treasure is necessary to stay close to the oil as he is. He thinks the American people don't care anymore about our soldiers, or our budget than he does. And, that is not enough.  

  by muledriver on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:42:31 PM PDT

  •  Keep focusing on "Islamofascists"

    for "a hundred years" and whoever's left can be "summering" at the South Pole wearing shorts or bikinis.

    Wrong President at the wrong time. What's not to like?

    by SecondComing on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:02:26 PM PDT

•  you are kidding, right?

  bolstering the local economy,exposing our troops to foreign culture?

  the middle east is not like Germany,or Korea.
  Having troops in SA inflamed Bin Laden and co. enough to produce an attack on NY.
  They have religious reasons for not wanting foreign troops on their soil. A 100 year occupation is not going to further our goal of world peace.

  The 100 years comment was a glimpse into a mentality that the US needs to shed. That we are the worlds policeman and willing to stretch our military beyond cracking to maintain all these bases around the world. No, McCain needs to be probed further on his philosophy on imperial america. Americans do not want to be in the middle east for 100 years, I can promise you that.

  by Hawkjt on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:44:29 PM PDT

  •  No, I'm not kidding.

    Bin Laden used our presence in SA as an excuse to further his own fundamentalist agenda. No moderate muslim seriously thinks that's reasonable justification for war. His "religious" reasons are as "religious" as a fundamentalist Christian's "religious" reasons for blowing up an abortion clinic. It's not "religious," it's fanatic.

    The only thing that's going to prevent these conflicts from continuing is a homogonization of our cultures, and a benign military presence furthers that gain (albeit marginally).

    No matter how much you may want the U.S. to become more isolationist, it's not going to happen. The U.S. will always have a vested interest in maintaining some degree of military influence throughout the world.

    by Lord Sphere on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:58:17 PM PDT

•  He'll Apologize

  Don't worry, he'll apologize in 120 years. Maybe he'll have an Iraqi hold his umbrella while he speaks at Abu Ghraib.

  Seriously, how much more of this can they come up with? They must have PsyOps at the Pentagon working on this stuff full time.

  Oops! Another siding on the Straight Talk Express mainline.

  by OHeyeO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:51:14 PM PDT

•  Is it Just Me or is John McCain

  starting to look a lot like UNCLE FESTER?

  by Dartagnan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:51:24 PM PDT

  •  Hmmmm....

    

    I think you're right.

    by Rob Cole on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:08:35 PM PDT

    •  Someone needs to get that out there

      There's nothing as devastating to a politician as  ridicule.

      by Dartagnan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:09:05 PM PDT

•  John McCain said that?

  really?

  by C Dawgg on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM PDT

•  Funny..

  He didn't mention Vietnam.

  by SecondComing on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM PDT

•  Perspective

  McCain's comment must be seen in the perspective of his acceptance as a military man of our existing military presence around the world. As of 2002, only 46 countries around the world did not have a US Military presence. We had troops in 156 countries and bases and troops in 63 countries. These numbers haven't changed since then [although Ecuador Eleftist President Rafael Correa recently said that Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast]. A link to the DOD data is here:

  Map of US Worldwide Military Presence 2002

  So, all McCain was saying is that we may well base troops in Iraq for a long time after the fighting there is over because we will use that as the place to maintain our presence in the region. We are building huge, expensive, long term bases there.

  The real problem, which he isn't questioning at all, is the concern Ron Paul kept trying to raise. Why do we need to have troops all around the world in the first place?

  by JayHub on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:01:48 PM PDT

  •  When you rule by fear

    you have to keep the people subdued. They do it at home and abroad. Now, I can see the military presence in the case of the cold war, but the newest voters in this GE were one when the USSR fell. It's time for some new foreign policy!

    by margotb822 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:31:12 PM PDT

•  Ohhhh, this makes perfect sense...

  Now he's trying to say that it will be a peaceful occupation, like Korea. Riiiiight.

  So, the way I understand his plan is that combat troops can come home as long as no one is killing, injuring, wounding, maiming, bothering, looking at funny or saying mean things about Americans. But, until that happens, the troops will have to be there.

  I guess he's just counting on killing all the Iraqis before he brings the Americans home. How stupid can one be to not see that his proposal is an impossibility? As long as the troops are there, there will be casualties.

  We need a president who will actually make the tough decision and end this! No more of the same old shit!

  by margotb822 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:04:09 PM PDT

•  Here's my problem

  and I am by no means a hawk or ever thought this war was anything but a bad idea.

  Why isn't anyone bitching about the occupation of South Korea? It's the same thing. Insert a military presence and just leave regardless what the local population thinks (they don't want us there either).

  Don't say it has anything to do with whether or not our soldiers are being shot at, that's bogus. Even out of context no one could reasonably assume that McCain was advocating 95 more years of the statues quo.

  I knew instantly McCain was making a comparison to S. Korea, Germany, and Japan in not so many words. The sad thing is I'm sure most of the readers here did too, but unfortunately many have apparently descended to petty games.

  by kafkaesque on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:06:51 PM PDT

  •  Maybe S. Korea wants us out too

    but not nearly as passionately as the Iraqis.

    From a comment I wrote elsewhere:

    The full context of the quote doesn't help McCain: it shows that he lives in a fantasy world. If we weren't taking causalties? Sure! And if Santa existed, I'd want him to bring me a pony (And a stable. And stablehands.) But I'm not going to make decisions that affect the fate of the free world based on the hope that Santa might bring me a pony.

    We're not going to turn Iraq into Korea; not in this decade, not in the next. So why was McCain even bothering with such talk?

    by Nowhere Man on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM PDT

  •  No, It's Not the Same At All

    South Korea wanted and still wants us there.  We're not occupying South Korea, we have some bases here and ther and a shitload of soldiers standing between prosperous, free and democratic (finally) South Korea and a North Korea that's controlled by a lunatic.  And Japan attacked us, and wasn't fighting us after they surrendered.  And Germany wanted us in Europe as a bulwark against the USSR.  

    None of that is to say we need the "force projection" we have now; not even close.  But this is such a different occupation than the other ones that McCain mentioned that they can't be called similar in any meaningful way.  

    by DHinMI on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:32:10 PM PDT

    •  You still ignored the main point of my comment

      And since you have strictly delimited your definition of whether we are wanted to government acquiescence and a lack of violence, you seem to be willing to also accept soldiers in Iraq for a hundred years, provided that no one harms our soldiers. We already have the permission of the government we created, an acceptable condition for you since it applied with the three states you defended.

      by kafkaesque on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:52:10 PM PDT

•  is mccain going to commit to reinstating the

  draft?  the only way he would be able to sustain our military that long is to reinstate the draft.  no, i am not in favor of a draft, except as a means of waking people in this country up to actually do something.  if their sons and daughters were being forced to go fight this war, you can bet there wouldn't be just disapproval... there would be a revolt!  so i want mccain to address just how exactly he plans on continuing the bush policies with the state of the military so stretched right now.  the only way is the draft.  and that would be the end of him as president and he knows it.

  by ejpoeta on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:08:49 PM PDT

•  You have a better stomach...

  than I do...spending all that time at GOP.COM...

  by dvogel001 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:14:22 PM PDT

•  McCain's communication director from his 2000 run

  Dan Schnur:

  "He is a very honest man, but he has a verbal habit that can throw people off. When he insults you, that means he likes you. When he refers to you as 'my friend' that means he's not sure about you. When he alls you 'my dear friend,' he doesn't like you. The more 'dear, dear, dear friends' he uses, the sooner you need to get out of town."

  PBS blog

  Funny that. If true, it indicates that when he addresses his audience of "supporters" with his "My friends.." B.S.-

  He's "unsure" about them at best.

  Look out when he starts calling them or us his "dear, dear friends."

  by SecondComing on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:26:29 PM PDT

  •  Could this be something he picked up at

    The Hanoi Hilton.

    by JML9999 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:34:21 PM PDT

  •  HA!

    Good catch!

    by paintitblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:34:43 PM PDT

  •  Damn

    Now I can't write that up as my own original observation.  

    I noticed during the GOP debates that he repeatedly referred to Romney as "my friend" and other such things as he was gritting his teeth and mustering all his self-control to avoid trying to strangle the smarmy guy.  

    by DHinMI on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:35:14 PM PDT

•  Stuck on Stupid!

  Can't change the context by repeating his quote over and over again. Christ! Enough already with this nonsense. There are real issues at stake! Healthcare, the economy, NAFTA, and Education, just to name a few. Notice I didn't list misconstrued statements. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL!

  by mdz108 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:39:51 PM PDT

  •  If You Think Education Matters More Than Iraq...

    ...to voters, whew, I'm glad you're not running the Obama campaign.

    by DHinMI on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:36:37 PM PDT

    •  Iraq is what it is..

      I apologize if that is what you read into my comment. What I was specifically referring to was the blatant misconstruing of the '100 years of War' comment made by McCain. If our side keeps trumpeting that comment without regard to context, it makes us all look bad. It makes us all look like we are too fucking stupid to understand the context of the statement. There are many issues for which McCain can not inteligently speak. Why not influence the debat where he is at a severe disadvantage? Or, the rest of you knuckleheads can keep repeating that McCain wants us in a 100 year war. Fucking ridiculous.

      by mdz108 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM PDT

•  You break it, you buy it

  Isn't McCain's line of argument (beyond this one sound bite) simply, "You break it (Iraq), you buy it (occupation of Iraq to prevent wide-scale humanitarian disaster and other badness)"?

  Maybe the UN would be more willing to come in for a non-Republican president.  Maybe not.  Iraq is obviously a U.S. mess.  Any bad stuff that happens when we leave is going to be blamed on the U.S.

  by wtanaka on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:03:10 PM PDT

•  They read Shakespeare?

  Or, is it Rasputin ?

  by JugOPunch on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:27:37 PM PDT

•  Aren't we getting tired of this? Misconstrued

  Why can't we get off this?  If you listen to McCain, it is clear he isn't calling for 100 years of war.  A century of a peaceful presence is not the same as a century of war.

  Even if we think a peaceful presence in Iraq is impossible, why jump on him for saying he wouldn't mind a South Korea-style setup?

  My opinion, this is going to come back and bite the Dems on the rear... the context is too obvious too be fudged!

  by gradstudent on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM PDT

  •  Well, If You Were Right...

    ...I don't think the RNC would be working so hard (and futilely) to change the perception.

    by DHinMI on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:37:37 PM PDT

•  Exactly...

  ...he immediately tried to hedge and say as long as Americans aren't being" attacked or shot at. But for someone to mean that, he would still have to say how long it is acceptable for having Americans shot at and attacked. McCain clearly has no idea or plan for what is acceptable. That's why when he uttered his 100 year comment, and I borrow a phrase here, his Freudian slip was showing.

  by Doug in SF on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:35:44 PM PDT

•  just because it mccain

  doesn't mean we should play by the Right-Wing rules.

  It was very clear what he said - he did NOT say he wanted to be at war for 100 years.

  Go read Somerby on the subject.

  by cynic on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:39:48 PM PDT

  •  Somerby

    Meh.

    I have no use for him.  

    by DHinMI on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:38:24 PM PDT

    •  truth be told,

      that says a lot more about you than it does about somerby.

      Thanks.

      by cynic on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:35:21 PM PDT

•  It's all about the hair

  I feel like I'm watching Federalists in powdered wigs ... especially looking at Lieberboy's pageboy haircut.

  I apologize for the unserious comment in a very serious DHinMI diary. But my reaction was entirely visceral.

  by Glinda on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:50:50 PM PDT

•  A hundred Iraqi years on the wall ..

  A hundred Iraqi years,
  If one of those years should happen to fall,
  99 Iraqi years on the wall,
  99 Iraqi years ..

  by apostrophe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM PDT

•  What's missing is the way to get there

  As Obama's pointed out, there's nothing wrong with a vision of Iraq as Germany, a peaceful democracy where US troops are welcome. The problem is that McCain has no fucking idea how to get there from here.

  by camipco on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:09:52 AM PDT

•  What he meant is actually worse

  It's clear that McCain wasn't talking about fighting indefinitely but about maintaining a peaceful military presence à la Germany or Qatar. Democrats implying the former are unconvincingly distorting his words.
  
  That said, McCain can't believe those words. Iraqis - and especially Shiites - are not going to accept endless occupation of their holy ground. Iraq is not Germany, any more than Al Qaida is really the Evil Empire, no matter how much the neocons might want to paint it as the new black. McCain's plan may fit nicely their original intention of setting up permanent bases to protect the flow of oil, but it doesn't fit with America's long term security. Unless your idea of secure is a perpetual, profitable war on terror that threatens American shores every few years -- and keeps the chicken hawks in power.
  
  Instead of distorting what he said, try explaining how what he meant is even dumber and more dangerous. If McCain wins and Iraqis see no end in sight, will they just keep fighting amongst themselves forever? Or will they remember Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, all of us against the stranger?

  by Zando on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:37:17 PM PDT