“McCain 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.”
– Rick Hertzberg, in The New Yorker

I feel the same way and if conservative war supporters weren’t total hacks they’d be asking McCain a lot more questions about it. The qualifier McCain added to his 100 years comment – “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed” – renders his current position on staying in Iraq contradictory at best, incoherent at worst.

Right now, McCain says we need to stay in Iraq until we’ve achieved our goals regardless of violence levels or how many Americans are killed or injured. But his qualifier on the 100 years remark suggests there is a limit to the number of years that McCain would be willing to sustain American casualties there. If he doesn’t have such a limit, then the qualifier is meaningless. And if he does have a such a limit: 1) What is it? 2) What does that say about McCain’s stated commitment to staying in Iraq until the job is done?

I haven’t seen any conservatives ask McCain these questions. Indeed, they seem to have ignored the obvious implication of the qualifier entirely. Wonder why that is?

Save your anger for your candidate. He said something that will be very unpopular with the American people. There is no distortion of his words. He is completely out of touch. I have to agree with Daniel, McCain’s entire comment on 100 years in Iraq is even more damning than the small clips.

And? So?

that’s how the game is played. They learned it from watching Republicans.

Chris Wallace has been one of the few FOX heads who is getting the fact that there will be a world after November, and FOX viewers better get used to it. Wallace often comes after GOP figures and does not toe the FOX line like Hume, Doocey, or Hannity.

Dean was right to try and soften a bit for Wallace, but he came in hard on FOX News, that’s for sure.

Doubt he’ll be a regular guest, though!

I can’t believe Dr. Dean was badmouthed and ripped by the DNC before and even after he was elected Chairman. He still has a hard time with Rahm Emmanuel and Pelosi, but for my money he is the best thing to happen to Dem Politics since Bill Clinton, who singlehandedly took the Economy and taxes away from Reagan, Bush, and the GOP as an issue when he won.

I rather preferred other portions of the interview I saw excerpted — when Wallace ran two ads the DNC is putting out against McCain, and then ran the next few seconds of the video of McCain’s original statements showing that the ads were as pure “out of context” and “lies by omission” as you can get. Dean — kind of like the crowd here when I brought up the full “100 years” statement — just kept parroting the same lie and refused to acknowledge what any sane and honest person would have to admit: the ads are lies and distortions, and only the most shameless hacks and divorced-from-reality psychopaths (I run the risk of repeating myself there) can deny that.

J.

Nah. Fox viewers aren’t interested in facts.

Rather than explaining why Democrats now are appearing on Fox, make the conversation about why Fox isn’t a place they’d want to appear before.

Alas, typical Democrats, not wanting to offend.

I would like to know if his dad has sent Chris a might fuck you note or not concerning Chris’ comments toward Mike.