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.

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.

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.

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?

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.”

“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.

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?