• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

why do democrats keep insisting McCain wants the war in iraq to go on for 100 years?

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
it's disingenuous at best, but it's nice to see someone actually call them on it:

'A Rank Falsehood'

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 28, 2008

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The United States (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.

Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for the vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.

The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq war, McPeak (an Iraq war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)

Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.

...

But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.' "

The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:

? "He says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

? "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

? "He's willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

? "What date between now and the election in November will he drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us . . . that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).

As Lenin is said to have said, "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.

Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee news release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. . . . Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.
but I guess Obama is taking another page from Bush and calling for people to do as he says, not as he does... clearly, this talk of post-partisanship and a new way of campaigning only applies to people's attacks on him, not his attacks on others.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Even if it's not exactly 100 years, McCain isn't on the same page as Obama/Clinton in regards to swiftly reducing troop levels. He wants to "stay the course" until the "job" is "done"; Obama/Clinton don't.

That's enough to bin him in the same batch as the Bush administration.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
ummm, because it's election season and most americans only can assimilate small, simple pieces of information???
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,361
3,738
136
i distinctly remember when the swiftboating campaign was in full swing against kerry and whenever the dems complained about how the repubs were using surrogate thugs to spread lies, innuendo and suggestive slanderous rumors, the repubs retorted with comments like "if you can't take the heat...., "tough politics is a game the dems can't play".... etc. etc.

well, the shoe is on the other foot in some ways, and the repubs have absolutely no right to complain about tactics they themselves used with such skillful effect, unless being hypocritical is another weapon that they've brought to bear.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,885
1,736
126
Maybe cause HE SAID SO!

"Even if it take a 100 years to get the job done"

It was during one of the debates. i watched it. I heard it.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where is the video of the actual remarks?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-VRAshmSdps

jump to 4:15-ish if you just want the soundbite and not the context.

WARNING: you're about to watch a politician actually engage in a discussion with the opposition. it might be a little scary, it's about as rare a sight as you'll find.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's disingenuous at best, but it's nice to see someone actually call them on it:

'A Rank Falsehood'

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 28, 2008

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. "Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
If you've ever seen Krauthammer, you'd know he's just one more right wing shill. But putting that aside, if McCain thinks there won't be bloodshed in Iraq for a long time to come, he's having a few too many senior flashbacks to his time with the Blackwater security boys in those Baghdad marketplace photo-ops. And if he thinks Americans won't be "injured or harmed or wounded or killed" as long as we've got troops in the middle of such chaos, he's simply not of this planet. :roll:
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's disingenuous at best, but it's nice to see someone actually call them on it:

'A Rank Falsehood'

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 28, 2008

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. "Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
If you've ever seen Krauthammer, you'd know he's just one more right wing shill. But putting that aside, if McCain thinks there won't be bloodshed in Iraq for a long time to come, he's having a few too many senior flashbacks to his time with the Blackwater security boys in those Baghdad marketplace photo-ops. And if he thinks Americans won't be "injured or harmed or wounded or killed" as long as we've got troops in the middle of such chaos, he's simply not of this planet. :roll:
I think your words are in the wrong order. he's saying if there's no bloodshed. he's *not* advocating slogging it out for a hundred years with dozens of soldiers dying every day.

I might be alone on this, but I trust McCain... I trust him if he thinks the war is winnable and I'd trust his judgment to reassess the situation if it's not. it certainly seems like a better plan than Obama's "we'll leave first and then come back later" strategy.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
Originally posted by: loki8481

I think your words are in the wrong order. he's saying if there's no bloodshed. he's *not* advocating slogging it out for a hundred years with dozens of soldiers dying every day.
If the Iraqis can't consolidate their own feces between them, there WILL be bloodshed. This isn't my opinion. It's what every expert on the region I've seen or heard says and writes.

No matter who is fighthing who, if Americans are there, Americans are the ones who look different, and Americans WILL be targets.

I might be alone on this, but I trust McCain... I trust him if he thinks the war is winnable and I'd trust his judgment to reassess the situation if it's not.
I can only hope you remain relatively alone. :cookie:
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,885
1,736
126
You need to remember or realize, on this one issue McCain is hand and hand with GWB.
They are head strong this is right and this is winnable.
No matter the length. No matter the cost i.e. money or blood.
To believe there is a difference between these two men, is terribly poor judgment.

And one HAS to remember from our history of war, NO president wants to be the one who pulls the plug and quits without a clean victory.
LBJ realized this and would not even seek reelection.
Nixon knew Nam was a lost battle, and fudged wording to get us out. (Peace with honor? remember?)

Don?t fool yourself and think McCain is going to shut this down.
Once he is elected, this becomes HIS war. Thats how it works. History is history.
And this thread is exactly why, whether Hillary or Obama, McCain has no chance.
 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,655
0
76
I don't even want to hear about it....if McCain was the Democratic nominee...The Rightradio tards would be calling him a traitor and find some swiftboat like group saying he talked when he was tortured and it directly led to american heros dying in combat...

Thats the way they play the game...
Fact is like others have said for better or worse McCain basically has the same opinon on the war that Bush regime has.
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
I might be alone on this, but I trust McCain... I trust him if he thinks the war is winnable and I'd trust his judgment to reassess the situation if it's not. it certainly seems like a better plan than Obama's "we'll leave first and then come back later" strategy.
He's certainly stuck to his words since the beginning of this war, whether it's blind faith or true determination is another matter though.

And as much as any candidate can preach a withdrawal, I have no reason to believe Clinton or Obama could successfully leave Iraq in good measures within their first four year term, or even a presumptive second for that matter.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,121
504
126
Originally posted by: sportage
Maybe cause HE SAID SO!

"Even if it take a 100 years to get the job done"

It was during one of the debates. i watched it. I heard it.
why do democrats keep insisting McCain wants the war in iraq to go on for 100 years?
Is it really that difficult to see the difference between those two sentences? I'll try and simplify it for you.

Even if it takes me 4 hours to do my taxes, I will do them. That does not mean that I WANT TO spend 4 hours doing my taxes.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The loki8481 position is---------I might be alone on this, but I trust McCain... I trust him if he thinks the war is winnable and I'd trust his judgment to reassess the situation if it's not. it certainly seems like a better plan than Obama's "we'll leave first and then come back later" strategy.

And just part of the reason that I don't trust Loki's judgment on other posts. But in a sense, the election of 2008 will be a gage of the American electorate and what they think, I have a right to my opinion, Loki has a right to his, but as to our collective national policy and taxpayer bucks, its a going to be a majority rules.

In terms of the thread title, the McCain position has somewhat been quoted out of context. McCain will be happy to stay that 100 years if he can achieve what is basically the past German Japanese, or South Korean situation. Where you have a national government with both broad support and a US ally situation, and all they still need is a US guarantee of support that a big international thug neighboring country will not try to make war on them. With that US guarantee being enough to deter the most irrational thug.
And as long no international thug is thus stopped from feeling froggie, it basically takes no American blood and treasure to maintain that status quo. That in a nutshell is the McCain position.

The Devil is always in the details. Because first one must have an Iraqi government with broad based internal support. And then be allied with the USA when there are innumerable reasons why future US and Iraqi interests could conflict with both US interests and the interests of neighboring countries.

As we well know from the five years recent US history, GWB, Dick Cheney, and a pile of neocons had similar dreams and fantasies for Iraq. And now resort to only a military hang on with our fingernails solution. Quite frankly I can't see even the quoted out of context solution vindicated McCain. McCain may be on a first name basis with every US general, but we should not forget that McCain had a recent total gaffe when he implied Al-Quida and Iran were allied.

When it comes to the needed diplomatic solution to Iraq, John McCain's understanding amounts to a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. If its a going to be a military solution, its been there, done that, it don't work. All the hot air and wishing does not make it so, and McCain is talking about step B without a clue on how to get to step A first.
Bottom line, first Iraq must be internally united.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
819
47
91
Originally posted by: loki8481
I might be alone on this, but I trust McCain... I trust him if he thinks the war is winnable and I'd trust his judgment to reassess the situation if it's not. it certainly seems like a better plan than Obama's "we'll leave first and then come back later" strategy.
You're definitely not alone on this. I actually think this is going to be a strong point for McCain in the GE. Some people may not like it but at least he's telling it like it really is.

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
He's certainly stuck to his words since the beginning of this war, whether it's blind faith or true determination is another matter though.

And as much as any candidate can preach a withdrawal, I have no reason to believe Clinton or Obama could successfully leave Iraq in good measures within their first four year term, or even a presumptive second for that matter.
I have to agree here too. Talking about withdrawal might buy votes but in reality a quick withdrawal just ain't gonna happen.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Once they have heard Obama's pastor refer to the US of KKK a few dozen times most people won't care what McCain said about Iraq.

Also, Obama?s own mistakes about going into Pakistan etc aren?t going to help him either. By time the election rolls around people are going to see Obama as a smooth talker with little or no experience and the I don?t think the American people are going to pick him over a very experiences McCain. The fact that the far right has been all over McCain the past few months is just going to help McCain in the long run.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I've always despised the twisting of McCain's point in that quote -- even by my own candidate, Obama... but I guess it was just too damn tempting for all concerned. They KNOW that many Americans - some in this very thread - are f'n retarded enough to believe it, so they will just keep pushing it as the gospel truth.

So be it... dirty and dishonest politics are becoming the norm.

sad that.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Also, Obama?s own mistakes about going into Pakistan etc aren?t going to help him either.
What Obama said about Pakistan was not a mistake -- it was perfect! In fact, it's one of my primary reasons for supporting him.

But the way his statement has been twisted by Billary is certainly very similar to what is being done to McCain's quote, so I do see the connection you're trying to make.. I think.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
^ Didn't Obama try to try to change what he said afterwards?

I am talking about his whole 'if we saw Osama in Pakistan I would go get him without permission' bit.

After Obama got a bunch of crap for that line I thought he tried to change what he said?

Either way I don?t think it really matters. The choice is between a very experienced McCain and a very inexperienced Obama. Everyone is flocking to the exciting Obama now but when it comes times to cast the vote that matters I think people will go with McCain.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Once they have heard Obama's pastor refer to the US of KKK a few dozen times most people won't care what McCain said about Iraq.

Also, Obama?s own mistakes about going into Pakistan etc aren?t going to help him either...
What do you mean when you say that was a mistake?

A mistake in the sense that you disagree with his carefully prepared remarks or a mistake in the sense that you believe he had no prepared remarks and ad libbed something in wrong.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ Didn't Obama try to try to change what he said afterwards?

I am talking about his whole 'if we saw Osama in Pakistan I would go get him without permission' bit.

After Obama got a bunch of crap for that line I thought he tried to change what he said?
I know exactly what statement you're referring to, but I'm not aware of him changing it, or going back on it. Perhaps, like McCain, he tried to explain it in other terms, and the dimwits of the world still thought he wanted to invade Pakistan...?

Either way I don?t think it really matters. The choice is between a very experienced McCain and a very inexperienced Obama. Everyone is flocking to the exciting Obama now but when it comes times to cast the vote that matters I think people will go with McCain.
I support Obama, but I'm certainly looking forward to his debates with McCain.

More than anything, I'm happy that for the first time in my life, I'll be able to choose between two seemingly decent human beings for President -- unless Hillary steals the nomination.. then I'm alllll McCain, trust me!

Both Obama and McCain still have my respect. That's as much as any man could hope for in Presidential politics...
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Even if it's not exactly 100 years, McCain isn't on the same page as Obama/Clinton in regards to swiftly reducing troop levels. He wants to "stay the course" until the "job" is "done"; Obama/Clinton don't.

That's enough to bin him in the same batch as the Bush administration.
As opposed to what? Screwing the Iraqis in return for some political capital? I'm considering voting for McCain now
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Once they have heard Obama's pastor refer to the US of KKK a few dozen times most people won't care what McCain said about Iraq.

Also, Obama?s own mistakes about going into Pakistan etc aren?t going to help him either...
What do you mean when you say that was a mistake?

A mistake in the sense that you disagree with his carefully prepared remarks or a mistake in the sense that you believe he had no prepared remarks and ad libbed something in wrong.
I thought Obama?s ?I?d go get Osama? comment was turned into ?Obama?s going to go invade more countries? comment and was thus called a mistake, at least on the Democrat side.

I thought the general news coverage of his remark was that Obama made a ?mistake? when he made that comment and that his comment showed his lack of experience.

Of course the general election won?t be Hillary and Obama fighting over who is going to end the Iraq War first and instead will be McCain and Obama fighting over who is better able to lead the country in the future and make the right decisions via Iraq, Afghanistan and the general war on terror (or whatever you want to call it.) I expect that in that context Obama and McCain are going be very close to each other, as would any responsible candidate. IE. If we found out Osama was having tea with Putin and there was a way we could either kill or capture him without starting WW 3 I think we would do it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where is the video of the actual remarks?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-VRAshmSdps

jump to 4:15-ish if you just want the soundbite and not the context.

WARNING: you're about to watch a politician actually engage in a discussion with the opposition. it might be a little scary, it's about as rare a sight as you'll find.
Thank you, now I want to see this:

? "He says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY