Aw, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?

MCCAIN: I don’t think so.

ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?

MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.

Flippity, flippity, flop!

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.

Just because you “don’t hear loud calls” to do such a thing doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.

That’s because thats not what we’re talking about.

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.

>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.

“I don’t care.”

But I’m just “one of those stoopid libs” so what do I know?

“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.

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

Seems pretty clear to me: Shorter McNovocain:”I don’t care.”

- 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.