Every time they get hit on this 100 years in Iraq pledge, the GOP and McCain camps go nutso – yet it’s hard to push back on something the candidate actually said.
Howard Dean on out of touch John McCain and 100 years in Iraq:
“Look, John McCain is a weak candidate. He’s wrong on Iraq as far as the American people are concerned. We don’t want to stay there for 100 years. He’s wrong on the economy. It wasn’t the mortgage-holders whose fault this was. He’s wrong on health care. We should have health insurance for all our kids. He is not a strong candidate…”
“We don’t think we ought to be in Iraq for 100 years under any circumstances. Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being spent in Iraq which we need at 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 100 years without having a long war and violence and our troops being hurt and killed, I think Senator McCain is wrong. Look, 70 percent of our country does not want to be in Iraq for 100 years under any circumstances. Senator McCain is wrong. He is out of step with the American people and he is wrong… “
UPDATE: Like I said, you know this ad hits them in the gut. Check out the hysterical hissy fit the RNC chairman of the minute sent out in response:
“This morning we saw yet another advertisement being announced by the Democrat National Committee which is not only illegal, but a complete distortion of Senator McCain’s comments and record.”
Waaaaaaaah! John McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years, he got caught on tape saying it, and the Republicans are pissed.
So, keep saying it.
Just one thing on McCain and his military experience. He should start catching up with how war mentality works though. I bet you Al-Qaeda will endorse Obama if they could make another video from a cave somewhere in “allied” Pakistan. Because they know how to use reverse psychology (you idiot, McCain). How do you get your enemy to do what you want them to do? Tell them the opposite. Want war? Then endorse the one guy from the “enemy” who wants peace. McDrain and the gang please note – Hamas is playing you like a little toy drum. And you are walking to their beat. McPain should wake up and think a little bit more. Think. Think. What do Al-Qaeda want? What do you think Hamas want? Chaos so they can recruit more. Anarchy so they can continue a mindless war. They want one thing and will tell you the opposite. You think you can trust what they tell you? They are playing you for a fool. You played into their hands in Iraq. And you are going to play into their hands again. You stupid, stupid man. http://angryafrican.net/ 2008/ 04/ 26/ i-angry-african-endorse-mccain/
This ad will absolutely hurt McCain. I am glad the Democrats are finally publicizing McCain’s comments. They should include the part where McCain says he doesn’t think the American people would mind if we were in Iraq for 1000 years. Here’s some inspiration for you on this Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
For all the whining and pissing and moaning about how Reverend Wright’s remarks were “taken out of context,” about Obama’s “clinging to guns and religion” were “taken out of context,” you and the DNC certainly don’t waste any time doing exactly that to McCain.
What was the full context again? Oh, yeah:
I’d call it hypocrisy, I’d call it lying, I’d call it deceptive, I’d call it fraudulent, but “SOP” and “IOKIYAR” (Standard Operating Procedure and It’s OK If You’re Attacking Republicans) sum it up quite well.
Man, you must be wetting your pants over McCain if you have to distort his words that much to make what you laughably call a point…
J.
There is no distortion of words, J. In my opinion the American military shouldn’t be stationed in over 100 countries around the world. We were never elected as world police.
Jay, how does your highlighted part of McCain’s answer (the one not used in the DNC ad) change the context of the portion of the answer that the ad did use (”Maybe a hundred”.)? I don’t see that it did at all.
That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.
You know a really good way to make sure American’s aren’t being injured/harmed/wounded/killed? Bring them home.
So how long would McCain stay in Iraq if US soldiers are being injured or harmed or wounded or killed?
If we leave while our troops are still being attacked that would be defeat, right?
McCain’s position seems to be that we won’t leave until the attacks stop and after that he’s cool to stay for one hundred years. Well, what if the attacks don’t stop? Got any context to answer that one, Jay Tea?
Speaking of hypocrisy, lying and deception.
The more Obama keeps trying to sell this argument, the more McCain gets to play the 2nd half of the soundbyte and then tagging it by saying Obama is “just another politician”. Thus severely undercutting Obama’s sole argument for election: that he is a change from politics as usual.
“I’d call it hypocrisy, I’d call it lying, I’d call it deceptive, I’d call it fraudulent,”
Hey Jay, you realize Americans are dying in Iraq right now, correct? You do know that, right? You also realize McCain’s plan is to keep them there till they are no longer dying. You understand that, right? He would keep troops in Iraq for as long as it took, even if it was 100 years. That is what he said, that is what the American people believe understand. Whining won’t change those facts.
McCain said he thinks we should be in Iraq for 100 years. Nobody thinks Iraq is anything as settled as Europe was after WWII, yet McCain thinks we should be in Iraq for 100 years. If its not such a big deal, then the McCain camp shouldn’t freak out every time someone says it.
McCain wants the war to continue. It doesn’t matter if he’d prefer it to be a peaceful occupation, thats not what we’re actually dealing with. Unless McCain has an actual plan to withdraw troops, because the circumstances he listed aren’t what exists on the ground, he doesn’t get to make these distinctions.
Video-tape doesn’t lie. McCain only added the other addendum after he realized he royally screwed himself over with his remarks.
The gift that keeps on giving.
What is John McCain’s plan for Iraq?
He wants to send more troops.
Where he’s going to get them he doesn’t say.
He also wants to train Iraqis. As if that hasn’t been tried before.
Then he wants to continuously occupy all of Iraq. Every square foot. I guess he’ll be wanting to send way, way more troops.
Because once we lock down the country Iraqi leaders will mysteriously step up and take control.
And then we can dump more money into rebuilding Iraq’s economy because all the money we spent so far has been wasted. And with even more money coming into the country Iraq’s leaders will suddenly want to stop looting and embezzling and concentrate on solving Iraq’s problems.
And all this will be immensely popular with the American public because John McCain will explain it to them so they can understand: 9-freaking-11 people. Terrorists. Israel. Oil. Boom.
My favorite is where he says if we don’t win in Iraq we could damage US credibility throughout the world.
And that is my accurate summation of McCain’s own Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
If the DNC ad only included McCain’s “Make it a hundred” remark (making it sound like the U.S troops would be in Iraq for 100 years on an unconditional basis), then the “out of context” charge would stick. What they did include was the “Maybe a hundred” comment; in other words, the ad included the portion of his answer that attached conditions to the 100-year stay. The ad just didn’t include where McCain laid out exactly those conditions would be (the sentence that Jay highlighted). Big deal, it doesn’t change the context one bit; if anything, it makes McCain look worse, giving the extreme unlikihood that Americans in Iraq, post-war, are forever free from the danger of being injured or wounded or harmed or killed.
I know Jay and the other wingnuts have no interest in honesty, but could one of them address the question of how long St. McCain plans to keep us in Iraq if we ARE BEING SHOT AT? Because unless I miss my guess, leaving while we’re being shot at would constitute RETREAT, SURRENDER – DISHONOR!!!11!1one! And so therefore must be AT LEAST AS LONG AS WE ARE NOT BEING SHOT AT IF NOT LONGER.
In my last post, there should be a “what” preceding the word “those” in the “The ad just didn’t include…” sentence.
To be fair, 100 years is not a long time to McCain.
And McCain will be dead by then! Heck, he might expire before the election! Why should he care?
“all wars are free”-Norquistians
>McCain said he thinks we should be in Iraq for 100 years.
You would make a good PR flack Oliver. You repeat “100″ over and over again as if it will somehow change the clear meaning of what McCain said.
For the nth time, McCain is ok with a Japan/Germany/South Korea style presence in Iraq that lasts a long time. Note that our presence in those countries does not involve fighting. He did not enumerate when and how he would consider us to be in that “presence” mode however, which is a good question he should be asked – but it isn’t the question he answered with the 100 years quote. I swear, this quoting thing is your Achilles Heel Oliver. There appears to be no limit to how far you’ll take someone out of context in order to score a few points, and I have never seen you step back from any of your more egregious examples of it, even when you are flat out and obviously wrong. (Such as in this case.) Too bad.
For my own, I’m not interested in the DNC/Willis version (100 years of war in Iraq) or the McCain version (100 year non-war presence in Iraq.) The DNC/Willis version is stupid for obvious reasons, the McCain version was only arguably useful during the Cold War. I just don’t see much strategic value any more to having big military bases in all corners of the globe. Obama’s idea of a rapid reaction type force seems more reasonable to me.
For the nth time, McCain is ok with a Japan/Germany/South Korea style presence in Iraq that lasts a long time.
And for the nth 1 time, most of America is not OK with that. And you know that. That’s why you guys keep getting so upset every time somebody brings it up.
“nth (plus sign) 1″.
Put it in context then. How long will McCain keep our troops there if it continues to be a violent clusterfuck?
McCain certainly will not be bringing our troops home if he’s elected. Not in 4 years, not in 8. As a matter of fact, he wants to send more troops and more treasure.
Shorter McCain: I won’t be bringing them home, if future presidents want to continue the occupation for 100 years, it’s fine.
“I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
But not if anyone’s going to get hurt. Then we won’t stay for 100 years. Don’t let those sneaky lying Democrats tell you I’d want to stay if anyone was getting hurt!
Right, Mr. Tea?
Seriously. Can anyone post a clear description of just what McCain’s actual plan for Iraq is? A reasonable reply would have to, at least, answer the questions:
- If our troops continue to get “injured or harmed or wounded or killed”, how long will we stay?
- If our troops are no longer getting injured, etc, what kind of presence would we maintain?
If those questions cannot be answered, then McCain hasn’t got a plan.
You repeat “100″ over and over again as if it will somehow change the clear meaning of what McCain said.
Seems pretty clear to me: Shorter McNovocain:”I don’t care.”
“then McCain hasn’t got a plan”
Sure he does. He’s got a plan:
1) Bamboozle voters with a lot of tough talk–No surrender! Defeat the Sunnis…um, Shiites, er….the terrorists! Win! Win!
2) Get elected as the “Strong on Terrorism” candidate.
3) Kick the problem down the road another 4 years.
4) Repeat
5) PROFIT!
You think I’m kidding? Let’s put your premise…
“If those questions cannot be answered, then McCain hasn’t got a plan.”
…to the test:
- If our troops continue to get “injured or harmed or wounded or killed”, how long will we stay?
If our troops continue to get injured or harmed or wounded or killed, we must not surrender. We must stay and defeat the terrorists.
- If our troops are no longer getting injured, etc, what kind of presence would we maintain?
If our troops are no longer getting injured, harmed, wounded, or killed, we must maintain a robust presence to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, or worse, domination of the region by the radical Islamic clerics of Iran.
See? Sounds like he has a plan to me.
Sounds like an endless loop to me
But I’m just “one of those stoopid libs” so what do I know?
Yeah, that’s what I said.
“I don’t care.”
I posted his plan, translated right from his election website. He wants to send more troops and more money. There is no exit strategy, no exit conditions, just more of the same.
Quaker,
>And for the nth 1 time, most of America is not OK with that. And you know that. That’s why you guys keep getting so upset every time somebody brings it up.
Huh? How do you figure that? I don’t hear loud calls to get troops out of Germany or South Korea. No politicians are running on a platform of removing troops from these places, except maybe Ron Paul. What makes you say that most of America is not ok with Germany/South Korea style presence by the military? “Most” of America seems pretty ok with it by my reckoning.
>- If our troops continue to get “injured or harmed or wounded or killed”, how long will we stay?
- If our troops are no longer getting injured, etc, what kind of presence would we maintain?
Those are excellent questions that should be asked of McCain IMO. McCain basically assumed an end state where things are like Germany without saying how he would get there. That end state isn’t very disagreeable, getting there is the hard part. This makes the DNC/Willis out of context thing even dumber IMO. They could hit McCain on the substantive point which is that he is talking about the promised land without saying how he’s going to get there. Instead he can duck and weave and avoid because the context and quotation are so obviously cherry picked. Dumb dumb dumb.
Go to McCain’s website, look at his Iraq plan. His Iraq plan is taking the Bush plans that have been miserable failures and expanding them. More troops, more money. So when Bush says we might be there 50 years and McCain says maybe 100, it’s because they have the same basic plan. McCain’s is just MORE.
What confuses you is that McCain attaches some kind of fairytale condition to his timeline. Remember McCain’s position on the actual situation in Iraq is that we are making significant progress and success is just another 10,000, or 100,000, or 500,000 troops away. 3 or 6 months down the road, rinse repeat. $10 billion, $100 billion, or $5 trillion dollars more. He’s the Little Orphan Annie of Iraq prognostication, it’s always a day away. And he’s willing to bet our bottom dollar.
Huh? How do you figure that? I don’t hear loud calls to get troops out of Germany or South Korea.
That’s because thats not what we’re talking about.
“I don’t hear loud calls to get troops out of Germany or South Korea”.
Just because you “don’t hear loud calls” to do such a thing doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
“I don’t hear loud calls to get troops out of Germany or South Korea. No politicians are running on a platform of removing troops from these places, except maybe Ron Paul. What makes you say that most of America is not ok with Germany/South Korea style presence by the military? “Most” of America seems pretty ok with it by my reckoning.”
And I don’t hear loud calls to keep our men and women in Baghdad for 100 years. Except from John McCain. And everytime Oliver reminds us of that, Mr. Tea shows up to cry “distortion.”
Y’see, even the people who would like to see John McCain elected want to tamp down any mention of leaving our troops in Iraq for 100 years. Why is that?
Because its an idea that’s massively unpopular with voters.
Even McCain doesn’t believe his own B.S. Just six weeks before he made the “100 years, like Korea or Germany” remark, he said exactly the opposite on Charlie Rose:
Flippity, flippity, flop!
Looks like Jay and Farris’ crew have taken to threatening the media with cease and desist letters.
Aw, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?