McCain - 100 years in Iraq

[ViolaLee]

There's been a lot of argument over what McCain meant when he said we would be in Iraq for 100 years.

After a questioner told McCain that President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said, "make it a hundred."
He continued: "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 are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/01/politics/horserace/entry3985914.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

I think he said "maybe 100", but either way it seems to me, he is saying we will stay in Iraq until no more Americans are being killed and even then we will not leave. This is the kind of thing that helps Al Qaeda recruit people to become terrorists. They attacked us because we had a base in Saudi Arabia. Cheney closed that base a year later and our troops moved to Qatar.
McCain doesn't understand a thing about the Middle East. He keeps bungling the Shia/Sunni/Al Qaeda differences and now he wants to keep permanent bases in Iraq for 100 years.

Republicans are trying to pretend McCain never said this.

On the Senate floor today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "one of the things that we will be debating this fall, Mr. President, is whether our troops need to be in Iraq for another 50 or 100 years. I think that will be a pivotal part of the debate that takes place for the presidential election.”

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, took issue.

“Mr. President, of course no one has said that," McConnell said. "And my dear friend, the Majority Leader, knows that. That's a swipe at Senator McCain, who was talking about troop deployments overseas, not the continued engagement in warfare. And the mainstream media, which has not been particularly friendly to the war, has hammered those who have accused Senator McCain of saying we were going to have a 100-year war in Iraq. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what he has said."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/republicans-try.html

McConnell is making a strawman argument here, as lots of Republicans do, to try to deny what McCain said. As you can see Reid didn't misrepresent what McCain said. McConnell is changing what Reid said and saying that's a misrepresentation. Typical strawman.

Does anyone here disagree that McCain said we should keep troops in Iraq for 100 years? If so, what do you think he said? I think it's clear he wants to have US troops in Iraq for the long haul.

[micfranklin]

Not very good McCain.

[David]

What McCain was saying is that it'll take time to rebuild the country after we trashed it and we need to clean up our mess. He's not implying that we fight for 100 years. It's McCain the old warhorse, not Huckabee the crazy Christian we're talking about here.

[micfranklin]

Those people don't want us there another day.

[MrHappy]

Those people don't want us there another day.
I don't want us there another day, either. But if we left now while the place is a complete fluster chuck, and we had to re-invade a couple of years later, then that would be even worse.

The whole thing sucks, actually.

[apdst]

McCain was speaking hypothetically, and, as usual, the Liberals take a single comment and run it in the ground.

[ViolaLee]

McCain was speaking hypothetically, and, as usual, the Liberals take a single comment and run it in the ground.Please explain. Are you saying he didn't mean we should stay for 100 years if our troops are not being killed?

[Go Fish]

How long have we been in Korea? Japan? Germany? The Balkans?
How long before we're BACK in Somalia? Why aren't we in Lybia? ;0

Why are we there in the first place? Because President Bush, Presidents Clinton, and David Kay were right all along. Scott Ritter should be shot. You can call him up and tell him I said that. He's a fucking traitor, and the Marines disowned that POS long ago.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

[ECW]

Neocons wouldn't know the truth if it crawled out of the toilet and bit them in the gonads. Citing Kristol as a source of truth is like citing Barry Bonds as an example of drug free living, Paris Hilton as a role model for young girls, and Rosie O'Donnell as an example of how to make friends and influence enemies.

Scott Ritter had it right. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=11993) Bush, Clinton, and all the Neocons who crowed for war had it wrong from the get-go.

John McCain has it wrong, too. He's living in a dream world if he thinks that Iraq will ever be like Korea or Germany. The Koreans and Germans or the Japanese were not waging a religious war after their defeat by American forces. The analogy falls apart like a house of cards in a windstorm when you get closer than 100 yards to look at it.

You once spoke of bringing proof to a post to someone else (Elrathin) who made a claim you did not agree with. Your turn:

...and the Marines disowned that POS long ago.

Citation from the Marine Corps itself would be acceptable.

[Trish]

I think McCain's comment of "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." makes it pretty clear that the Senator was not speaking of 100 years of war but rather a continued presence in Iraq in much the same way as we have had a continued presence in Japan and Germany since the end of WWII and in Korea since the end of the Korean War. Of course the presence in Iraq could well be different than that in other places. Our presence in Korea is certainly of a different nature than our presence in Japan and Germany. Why? The situation is different. The same would apply to Iraq - the nature of our presence would be determined by the situation in Iraq.

There's no smoking gun in the Senator's statement.

[Elrathin]

I think McCain's comment of "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." makes it pretty clear that the Senator was not speaking of 100 years of war but rather a continued presence in Iraq in much the same way as we have had a continued presence in Japan and Germany since the end of WWII and in Korea since the end of the Korean War. Of course the presence in Iraq could well be different than that in other places. Our presence in Korea is certainly of a different nature than our presence in Japan and Germany. Why? The situation is different. The same would apply to Iraq - the nature of our presence would be determined by the situation in Iraq.

There's no smoking gun in the Senator's statement.

Which goes against the policy of "When they stand up, we will stand down" to the Iraqis. So lets win their hearts by saying we are going to make a presence there. This is why I have said we are a hinderence to the peace process there because we have other motives and the Iraqis see right through it.

[ECW]

I think McCain's comment of "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." makes it pretty clear that the Senator was not speaking of 100 years of war but rather a continued presence in Iraq in much the same way as we have had a continued presence in Japan and Germany since the end of WWII and in Korea since the end of the Korean War. Of course the presence in Iraq could well be different than that in other places. Our presence in Korea is certainly of a different nature than our presence in Japan and Germany. Why? The situation is different. The same would apply to Iraq - the nature of our presence would be determined by the situation in Iraq.

There's no smoking gun in the Senator's statement.

Conversely, if "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." is the case, that would make it clear that we should be leaving Iraq anyday now. The logic does not follow but it never does when you are talking about the newest Bush clone, John McCain. He can't keep AQ straight from the Shia, he tells us that it's safer now than it was before when he can't go to the same market he visited last year with all the armed guards, and now he gives us qualifier after qualifier about the situation in Iraq.

He's sounding more and more like Bush every day. No wonder you are bucking up for him.

[ViolaLee]

I think McCain's comment of "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." makes it pretty clear that the Senator was not speaking of 100 years of war but rather a continued presence in Iraq in much the same way as we have had a continued presence in Japan and Germany since the end of WWII and in Korea since the end of the Korean War. Of course the presence in Iraq could well be different than that in other places. Our presence in Korea is certainly of a different nature than our presence in Japan and Germany. Why? The situation is different. The same would apply to Iraq - the nature of our presence would be determined by the situation in Iraq.

There's no smoking gun in the Senator's statement.

Bin Laden said he attacked us because we had a military base in the land of the two holy mosques called the Bin Sultan Air Base. The Bush admin knows this and closed the base soon after 9/11. Papa Bush built the base in "the land of the two holy mosques" after the first Gulf war. Bin Laden proclaimed this is why they attacked us and he uses this reason in their terrorist recruiting videos.

DefenseLink (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29047) News Article: Saudi Base to Close, Ops Center Moves to Qatar

Producing (http://www.fathom.com/course/21701721/session2.html) Jihad: The Al Qaeda Recruitment Tape

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm) NEWS | Middle East | US pulls out of Saudi Arabia


Staying for a long time in Iraq makes us less safe.

Al Qaeda attacked us for our base in Saudi Arabia.

We are just giving them another reason to attack us if we do what McCain wants and stay in permanent bases in Iraq. Being in Germany or Korea or Japan does not harm our national security. Being in Iraq, does.

[DamnYankee]

We have been there long enough. Five years is surely long enough to train the Iraqis to defend themselves. It's like being in Europe. Isn't time we left there as well?

[Pookie]

I'm not so sure about Europe, because I think they can defend themselves and all, it's a different story.
I wonder why the Iraqis won't go all out to defend themselves. Seems to me we got rid of Saddam Hussein and surely they can go on and be stronger for all of this mess?
We got rid of the dictator. Could it be that these people have no clue what to do or how to defend themselves without a ruthless dictator calling all the shots?
I don't know, and I may be way off here, but if you love your country, wouldn't you give all for it?
What is holding these people back? I don't get it.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Trish]

Conversely, if "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." is the case, that would make it clear that we should be leaving Iraq anyday now. The logic does not follow but it never does when you are talking about the newest Bush clone, John McCain. He can't keep AQ straight from the Shia, he tells us that it's safer now than it was before when he can't go to the same market he visited last year with all the armed guards, and now he gives us qualifier after qualifier about the situation in Iraq.

He's sounding more and more like Bush every day. No wonder you are bucking up for him.


I think you're stretching things a bit with your analysis. We're not leaving Iraq now because the job's not done. If and when the job is done, then comes the decision of if, where, how etc. American troops should continue in Iraq. Logically, one can't implement an "after" plan for Iraq "during" the war.

As for "bucking up" for Bush or McCain, I defend what I see to be wrongful accusations. I "buck up" for Clinton and Obama against such as well. Heck, I "buck up" in that regard for people I destest! There is so much of the dirty politics crap out there I just happen to believe that if you engage in deliberate character assassination you can't then turn around and piss and moan about the same tactics being used against you. So I object to anyone using those tactics. I realize that some may not appreciate the distinction, however, the distinction exists nonetheless.

[ECW]

Conversely, if "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." is the case, that would make it clear that we should be leaving Iraq anyday now. The logic does not follow but it never does when you are talking about the newest Bush clone, John McCain. He can't keep AQ straight from the Shia, he tells us that it's safer now than it was before when he can't go to the same market he visited last year with all the armed guards, and now he gives us qualifier after qualifier about the situation in Iraq.

He's sounding more and more like Bush every day. No wonder you are bucking up for him.

I think you're stretching things a bit with your analysis. We're not leaving Iraq now because the job's not done. If and when the job is done, then comes the decision of if, where, how etc. American troops should continue in Iraq. Logically, one can't implement an "after" plan for Iraq "during" the war.

As for "bucking up" for Bush or McCain, I defend what I see to be wrongful accusations. I "buck up" for Clinton and Obama against such as well. Heck, I "buck up" in that regard for people I destest! There is so much of the dirty politics crap out there I just happen to believe that if you engage in deliberate character assassination you can't then turn around and piss and moan about the same tactics being used against you. So I object to anyone using those tactics. I realize that some may not appreciate the distinction, however, the distinction exists nonetheless.

Nah, I don't think so on all accounts.

Neocons have been giving every excuse in the world for staying in Iraq and fighting that war and when one excuse is found to be faulty or an out-right lie, they make up another one and Stay The Course. Some people fall for this bullshit. I do not. Haven't since BEFORE the war started. I'm no Johnny-Come-Lately to this cause. I have been against the war since the beginning and have yet to find a logical reason that one of our troops should have to lose his life in a sectarian conflict that we do not have a compelling interest in. Remember, it's been 1807 days since since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq or have you forgotten? The war was won. The Neocons have lost the peace and are trying to make you think otherwise. You are trying to convince yourself (and others) that we need to stay and referee a civil war. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

And logically, if you do not have a plan to determine what your course of action is after the fighting is over and you do not compose that plan while fighting is taking place, you lose sight of what you are fighting for. That's what happened when we toppled Saddam Hussein. No post war plan meant all hell broke loose (the war you are seeing now). Long term planning is a real bitch for those who let their ideology trump common sense and observable facts, as is the case here with the fratboy president.

McCain's call for us to be in Iraq for 100 years "if we are not being shot at" begs us to ask ourselves, "What if they start shooting at us?" and the answer is, "Go home." They don't want us there. That "being shot at" qualifier is Bush Neocon speak. He plans for us to establish a permanent presence there.

As for you bucking up for folks against what you call "wrongful accusations" I have seen that even when you have been proven wrong, you continue to buck up for them. And I have never seen you defend Obama or Hillary on these boards with the resolute dedication that you have for defending Bush, Limbaugh and now McCain. Telling the truth about someone and backing that truth up with citations and facts hardly falls within the parameters of character assassination. But when you have spent so much time manning the barricades for the other side, I can see where it may appear that way, a problem I do not suffer from.

[Trish]

Nah, I don't think so on all accounts.

Neocons have been giving every excuse in the world for staying in Iraq and fighting that war and when one excuse is found to be faulty or an out-right lie, they make up another one and Stay The Course. Some people fall for this bullshit. I do not. Haven't since BEFORE the war started. I'm no Johnny-Come-Lately to this cause. I have been against the war since the beginning and have yet to find a logical reason that one of our troops should have to lose his life in a sectarian conflict that we do not have a compelling interest in. Remember, it's been 1807 days since since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq or have you forgotten? The war was won. The Neocons have lost the peace and are trying to make you think otherwise. You are trying to convince yourself (and others) that we need to stay and referee a civil war. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

And logically, if you do not have a plan to determine what your course of action is after the fighting is over and you do not compose that plan while fighting is taking place, you lose sight of what you are fighting for. That's what happened when we toppled Saddam Hussein. No post war plan meant all hell broke loose (the war you are seeing now). Long term planning is a real bitch for those who let their ideology trump common sense and observable facts, as is the case here with the fratboy president.

McCain's call for us to be in Iraq for 100 years "if we are not being shot at" begs us to ask ourselves, "What if they start shooting at us?" and the answer is, "Go home." They don't want us there. That "being shot at" qualifier is Bush Neocon speak. He plans for us to establish a permanent presence there.

As for you bucking up for folks against what you call "wrongful accusations" I have seen that even when you have been proven wrong, you continue to buck up for them. And I have never seen you defend Obama or Hillary on these boards with the resolute dedication that you have for defending Bush, Limbaugh and now McCain. Telling the truth about someone and backing that truth up with citations and facts hardly falls within the parameters of character assassination. But when you have spent so much time manning the barricades for the other side, I can see where it may appear that way, a problem I do not suffer from.


So be it ECW. It is pointless to continue an attempt to discuss anything with you. You're right - I'm wrong. You have facts - I have baseless opinions. Your political vision is a crystal clear paragon of liberal enlightenment unencumbered with the muddying waters of partisanship - mine are murky regurgitations of neocon propaganda. You call a spade a spade - I am unable to discern the difference in a spade and a shovel. Your sacrifice of a principle in support of a political idealogy is laudable - my support of a principle in spite of political idealogy is farcical. Got it!

Now that we have reached an agreement on all this perhaps we can spare other forum posters from an endless rehashing of the obvious.

[ECW]

So be it ECW. It is pointless to continue an attempt to discuss anything with you. You're right - I'm wrong. You have facts - I have baseless opinions. Your political vision is a crystal clear paragon of liberal enlightenment unencumbered with the muddying waters of partisanship - mine are murky regurgitations of neocon propaganda. You call a spade a spade - I am unable to discern the difference in a spade and a shovel. Your sacrifice of a principle in support of a political idealogy is laudable - my support of a principle in spite of political idealogy is farcical. Got it!

Now that we have reached an agreement on all this perhaps we can spare other forum posters from an endless rehashing of the obvious.

It's really must be frustrating when you are held up to the light of day and are not able to respond to criticism without making it about me. This isn't the first time you have tried to come after me and, chances are, it won't be the last. It's the nature of the beast, I guess.

Let me know when you want to discuss John McCain's plans for the 100 year War In Iraq or the continued occupation of that country in spite of Iraqi opposition. I'll be here.

[Trish]

It's really must be frustrating when you are held up to the light of day and are not able to respond to criticism without making it about me. This isn't the first time you have tried to come after me and, chances are, it won't be the last. It's the nature of the beast, I guess.

Let me know when you want to discuss John McCain's plans for the 100 year War In Iraq or the continued occupation of that country in spite of Iraqi opposition. I'll be here.


ECW, I tried discussing McCain's comment and the comment alone. You keep throwing in crap like "He's sounding more and more like Bush every day. No wonder you are bucking up for him." and "But when you have spent so much time manning the barricades for the other side, I can see where it may appear that way, a problem I do not suffer from." You see me as a fraud, a poser. Nothing I say on any subject is going to change your perception at this point. I have accepted that you will always see me in that light. As my grandmother used to say, you can't saw sawdust. I don't see much point in continuing that type of posting between us.

It is frustrating to always have to deal with a perception that you can do nothing about. I'm not particularly masochistic. I see no point in continuing to beat my head against the brick wall of your perceptions. It's pointless. I can't do a blessed thing about how you perceive me, but I can do something about how I present myself. And that's what I'm attempting to do.

Now you have a good day. I truly wish you well. I'm just done with the foolishness between us.

[ECW]

In Post #17 I gave you plenty to discuss with three paragraphs of opinion and analysis about McCain. You failed to do so. That speaks volumes.

I toss in a comment about you because it never ceases to amaze me that you run to defend all those folks who you see as "wrongly accused" but they always seem to be people who state objectives diametrically opposed to all that I believe in as a Democrat. I never remember seeing you standing along side those of us who regularly defend Democrats. When you present yourself differently, trust me, I will be the first to notice. As my grandmother used to say, "If it quacks like a duck, etc."