’)Who knew that the RNC would bust out the wahmbulance so soon in the 2008 campaign. And they’re going straight to legal maneuvers to squelch the ad. Funny how the party of “tort reform” always jumps to the lawyers.
The ad hits a nerve. And I hope it keeps doing so (I gave to the DNC for the first time in years in response to it).
The committee’s chief counsel, Sean Cairncross, said he sent letters Monday to NBC, CNN and MSNBC insisting that they stop airing the commercial.
At issue is McCain’s answer, in January, to a question about Bush’s theory that troops could be in Iraq for 50 years.
McCain said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’d be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
Democratic Party chief Howard Dean said “there’s nothing false” about the ad.
“We deliberately used John McCain’s words. This isn’t some ominous consultant’s voice from Washington. This is John McCain’s own words. And we’ve been very upfront about everything that he’s said.”
The RNC wants a new standard for campaign ads: Don’t run ads against Republicans if you’re going to use their actual words.
For extra rich nutty goodness, click here to see what makes Michelle Malkin angry today.
There’s something greatly satisfying in seeing the people who dishonestly recited “Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet” and “John Kerry was for the war before he was against it,” get a big steaming cup of their own medicine.
Was John McCain trying to make a more subtle point about military presence versus actual fighting? Maybe. But “nuance” was cause for derision not so long ago, wasn’t it?
I was going to say something, but Napoleon’s advice comes to mind:
“Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.”
Or you see someone violating the first rule of holes.
Please, continue to parrot the lie-by-omission. I’m sure this is all just smack dab full of hopey changefulness and new politics.
J.
We’ve been spared Jay Tea’s biting (read: stupid) analysis, thank the Gods of Kobol.
From TPM:
The New Yorker’s Rick Hertzberg put it all quite elegantly back in January just after McCain started saying this.
“McCain,” he wrote, “wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal–that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we’ll stay.”
In other news, McCain has tapped for a possible Cabinet several denizens of Lewis Carroll’s loopy-logic Wonderland.
Mr. Tea, sir?
Since you seem to be an expert about Mr. McCain’s position on our future in Iraq, could you please explain it to us? I keep seeing videotape of him saying “100 years would be fine with me,” which is, apparently, a gross distortion of his actual position.
If this is a distortion, what is his position?
Oh, and one more thing, Mr. Tea.
When you’re all done explaining Mr. McCain’s position on Iraq to us, maybe you could dial up McCain HQ and explain it to the candidate. He seems confused:
* In 2005, McCain decided Iraqis resent our military presence, so we should reject a Korea-like model for long-term troop deployment. He insisted that “U.S. ‘visibility’ was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America’s presence — positions held by both Obama and Clinton.”
* In 2006, McCain reversed course, and embraced the Korea model for a long-term military presence.
* In 2007, McCain reversed course again, saying the Korean analogy doesn’t work and shouldn’t be followed. “[E]ventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws,” McCain told Charlie Rose last fall.
* And in 2008, McCain reversed course yet again, deciding that we should be prepared to leave troops in Iraq, even if it means 100 years or more.
Sure is taking Mr. Tea a long time. He must be writing up a really good explanation!
As the saying goes: When you agree to stop telling lies about us, we’ll agree to stop telling the truth about y’all!
Don’t forget the point of the whole quote is McCain showing his unconditional support for Bush’s disastrous war to the 29%ers.
Randy: Ed Muskie.
“Please, continue to parrot the lie-by-omission.”
What lie? People are dying in Iraq right now. McCain would keep them there for 100 years. His caveat, ‘as long as no Americans were dying’ makes no sense since Americans are dying right now. The only way your version makes sense is if McCain is not aware there are Americans dying in Iraq right now.
The quote posted by SpiderJ is an excellent analysis of his statement. McCain will keep the troops there for as long as it takes, even if it takes 100 years.
SpiderJ: Did I read that right?
McCain said we’ll stay until there aren’t any more US troops dying in Iraq, and then we’ll stay some more?
Well gee whiz and all heck, if “no more US troops dying in Iraq” is what he wants, there’s a much easier and cheaper solution to that one.
John R – McCain said what he said. Rick Hertzberg analyzed it. I’m still waiting for somebody to successfully argue that Hertzberg’s analysis is incorrect, and he posted that in January.
SpiderJ: I don’t doubt for a second that he said it; I just don’t believe that he did. I mean, I do believe it, because it’s right there, but seriously, is he trying to lose?