Oh, I never said he didn’t have character. It’s the strength part I was referring to. You know, as in sticking to principle, which he hasn’t really been able to do since 2005.

No it’s not, Haplo.

What you fail to understand is reality. In reality Iraq is not like Japan, Germany, or Korea and therefore when McCain makes a comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years, he means staying there for as long as it takes till the situation becomes like Iraq.

Got it?

Of course not.

Damn those guys who suffer for years in a Vietnamese prison camp….they’re weak.

I’m sure McCain is concerned that people like you don’t think he has character.

JK

Heh.

Jay, but it’s not the statement by McCain that is the issue (casualties vs. length of time) it’s the way it will be spun in the “information age.” That’s a soundbite that he may not recover from. Think of the DNC ads that will be flying.

McCain for all his great personal attributes, most of which his strength of character, we may find, he’s a soft political animal.

I love the guy. He’s got my vote. But he and his team need to be smarter. The point is that people like you and I shouldn’t have to defend statements like this in the blogosphere.

Q: How long

A: It’s important, BUT…..

OK?

JK
Good to be on the same side…..:) Who knew?

Show me exactly where OW said the following:

“McCain is talking about fighting a continually endless war for decades and decades”

Show me exactly where John McCain said the following:

“It’s not important whether our troops ever leave Iraq or not.”

For starters, Jay, that’s not what Mr. McCain said. I haven’t claimed that he did. That is what OW wrote. It is not a literal transcription. It is a paraphrase.

If you are unable to acquire your own literal transcription, I’m happy to oblige:

Interviewer: “Do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”

McCain: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany, that’s all fine.”

Please explicate the difference between the literal transcription and the paraphrase.

Pinocchio was more honest.

You are far too hard on yourself. Or is it Mr. McCain you indict with this clever mot juste?

Jay spends so much energy trying to say McCain isn’t saying he won’t bring the troops home, then he goes out and defends leaving them there in permanent bases. Which is exactly what MCCain is advocating. Again.

Let’s start again.

McCain is indeed advocating for a prolonged military presence in Iraq.

Agreed.

He thinks this prolonged presence is a good idea as long as there are zero US casualties.

Agreed.

Here’s the question: What is McCain’s position on the US military presence if casualties continue and never reach zero?

Can you answer that question?

We have military at 820 installations in 39 countries around the world and nobody raises an eyebrow. McCain talks about maintaining a strategic presence in Iraq and suddenly everybody goes into pants shitting hysterics.

“It’s not important whether our troops ever leave Iraq or not.”

Pinocchio was more honest.

“In fact, his statement on this is exactly where the “100 years” lie was drawn from:

“…as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

Well here’s a big, fat news flash: that’s not what’s happening on our planet. Right here on earth, Americans ARE being injured and harmed and wounded and killed. If you want to insist on reading Mr. McCain’s remarks with strict literalism, then you also have to accept that he’s describing a fantasy world, not the actual world we live in (and Iraqis and Americans are dying in).

OW wrote: “John McCain: It’s “not important” whether our troops ever leave Iraq or not.”

Then the Squid: “What is not OK is the way he presents the comment.
Which paraphrases it in a very unfavorable way.”

Then Jay, channelling Ambinder: “The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn’t the issue; instead, it’s the casualties they receive.”

And finally, Haplo: “It isn’t valid or useful to claim that McCain just can’t wait to get as many soldiers killed as possible, which is what Oliver’s framing has amounted to.”

Face it, boys. McCain said it. What’s his estimate of when we get out? Answer: “It’s not important.” OW quoted him–briefly and without interpretation–and linked to the actual videotape!

Where’s the “dishonesty” that’s making you boys cry?

Why are they ridiculous? Don’t make such statements without any support.

It is not “making shit up” to say that McCain is advocating a prolonged, if not permanent US military presence in Iraq.

It is “making shit up” when you claim McCain “has just announced that he doesn’t plan to bring our troops home no matter what.” Ok? That’s what Midderpidge wrote. Unlike what others are doing and taking McCain’s comments out of context, that’s an actual word for word quote.

McCain’s only stated reason for withdrawing troops, in the past and in this comment, is the level of US casualties. If casualties are low, he says, it isn’t important to have an estimate for withdrawal.

Wrong again. He said nothing about “low” casualties. He said NO casualties. In fact, his statement on this is exactly where the “100 years” lie was drawn from:

“…as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

That’s where the comparison to Germany, Japan and Korea makes sense. Do you think we have troops stationed in Japan because we’re afraid of another Pearl Harbor attack (If so, then somebody’s been reading one too many Tom Clancy novels)? We’re there because it’s a strategic position in those regions and it would be in the Middle East.

I have yet to actually see a conservative defend the incoherence of McCain’s comments. If casualties remain low

Because he never made such comments. You’re either mistaken or you’re purposely being misleading. The rest of your comments are built around the same nonsense, so it’s not worthy of a response.

Look at the passage you bolded above:

“The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn’t the issue; instead, it’s the casualties they receive.”

How does this actually explain McCain’s position on Iraq?

If there were zero American casualties in Iraq, god willing, starting today and going forward to infinity, what would McCain’s position on our presence be? According to him, it wouldn’t matter how long we stayed because no troops were being killed.

What if the opposite happened? What if US casualties shot up radically starting today, god forbid, and stayed very high for x number of years. What McCain’s position be then? Begin esitmating withdrawal times or stay until the casualties were reduced or brought to zero? And when they reached acceptable levels then what? See above, lather, rinse, repeat.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that McCain doesn’t care about troop casualties. Of course he does. The point is, however, that casualty rates actually have no impact on McCain’s stated policies: We’re staying in Iraq no matter what the casualties are. There is no other way to reconcile McCain’s contradictory statements on Iraq.

In short, it may not be fair to say McCain doesn’t care about the troops. It is fair to say that casualty level would have no real influence on his Iraq policies.

I’ve said it before the war, and I’ve been proven right: one main reason for the Bush invasion is to plant 75,000 US troops in Iraq to dominate the politics of the region. Unfortunately, with the botched occupation, it’s twice that and they’re more hostage to our politics.

Jay, McCain is using Japan, Germany and Korea as his examples. Leaving aside the ridiculousness of the analogies, those are all situations in which US troop presence has become, for all intents and purposes, a permanent condition. It is not “making shit up” to say that McCain is advocating a prolonged, if not permanent US military presence in Iraq.

McCain’s only stated reason for withdrawing troops, in the past and in this comment, is the level of US casualties. If casualties are low, he says, it isn’t important to have an estimate for withdrawal.

I have yet to actually see a conservative defend the incoherence of McCain’s comments. If casualties remain low, we can stay in Iraq for 100 years, just like in Germany and Japan, says McCain. If casualties go back up, then what? We stay until casualties are low again? Does McCain have a ballpark figure for acceptable casualty rates? Is he actually advocating that we’ll leave if US troop casualties reach those levels again? If so, isn’t that “surrender”? If not, what exactly is the point of making casualties a criteria for anything?

It isn’t unreasonable to look at McCain’s criteria and his logic and come to the conclusion that he wants us to stay in Iraq indefinitely, no matter what the conditions on the ground.

Which they pretty clearly don’t, otherwise they wouldn’t keep hooting at us.

See, that’s funny, because when Obama says the exact same thing, people call him naive.