McCain has many flaws. No need to distort his "100 years in Iraq" quote

[jasonkrueger]

The apolitical website Factcheck.org rebuked our strategy of criticizing McCain for saying we could be in Iraq for 100 years, because no context was provided (by the DNC).

Here is what Factcheck has to say:

McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, 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.

As you can see, there is one condition to the proposal to leave Americans in Iraq for 100 years.

McCain has a horrible record, and that should be enough to defeat him.
Smearing won't work and will invite the same dirt thrown at us from the other side.

Let's play fair.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

[BlueStateGirl]

1. Thank you for your 24 hours of concern. Welcome to DU!

[Cooley Hurd]

4. I'll give him 8 hrs...

...once the mods wake up and chug a cup o' joe...;)

[jasonkrueger]

5. Any comments about Factcheck's work? n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

6. I COULD, but you might stay...

:D

[jasonkrueger]

8. Or could it be that you have no defense against Factcheck.org? n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Nohh...

You'd have to be an Al Franken fan to get the joke...;)

[AX10]

2. That is not going to help us in the fall.

If he wants to keep a military presence in Iraq ala Germany/Japan, then most Americans won't object to that.

[Flabbergasted]

18. It's a war as well as an occupation.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Welcome to DU, Jason...

Um... what's SEARMING? Does it have anything to do with mail-order catalogs?:D

[NWHarkness]

7. Well, he may be flawed

But at least he's got you on his side.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. He says about maintain presence at the same time which means occupation

as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
McCain Flip Flops Again: 100 Years In Iraq ‘Would Be Fine With Me,’ Even ‘A Million Years’

During a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told a crowd of roughly two hundred people that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years“:

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

Q:

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Read and see it here folks, he talked about presence

and he sure the hell wasn't talking about the girl scouts.

[sandnsea]

11. We shouldn't be in Japan or SK either

So I reject that on its face.

But as it specifically pertains to Iraq, the key reason it is stupid is because as long as we're there, it will give them a reason to eject the 'infidels'.

Either way, it's perfectly legitimate to call him out on saying we would stay in Iraq 100 years. It's a stupid idea. Most Americans don't believe in being the world's police. We've got problems of our own to fix.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Did we fight the North Koreans or the South Koreans? Because

we sure as hell don't have a 60-year presence in NORTH Korea. People always seem to miss that little factoid.

[JimGinPA]

12. Maybe If You Gave It A Little Thought...

You'd realize that as long as we have an occupying force in Iraq, refereeing opposing Muslim sects, it's a false argument that we'd have no "Americans...being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" for any years, much less 100.

[TwilightGardener]

14. Um, sorry, we are not going to occupy a huge Islamic country for 100 years--

at least, not without our troops being constant terror and insurgent targets, no matter if their mission is simply "peacekeeping". We're not going to do it because we fucked up when we invaded to begin with. This war was a mistake--OUR mistake--and Iraq is not a prize we've won, but a point of national shame. 10, 40, 100 years of a misbegotten occupation, to the tune of trillions of American tax dollars, while trying to pretend we're not usurping their oil, is not going to fly with either America or Iraq or the rest of the Middle East, and will certainly foment more terrorism against us. Really, what is McCain's end game in even bringing this up? It's fatal. And it implies NO STRATEGY, NO ENDGAME for the war/occupation--unless the strategy itself IS to occupy for 100 years.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. See my post in this thread you can watch the video

he is talking about a military presence in Iraq not the girl scouts.

[TwilightGardener]

19. I'm not getting your point--are you defending the OP and McCain?

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. No, I telling him that he took out part of the quote

McCain was talking about Military occupation such as Japan, Korea
and German which he called PRESENCE.

[Flabbergasted]

16. No, we're not going to be fair. He said it. He meant it He will be quoted on it.

I'd agree with being fair if the GOP were. But not now.

[Binka]

21. Ah Jezus Defending The War Loving Ass Carrot

As you can see, there is one condition to the proposal to have you get lost. Bye now. :hi:

[jasonkrueger]

22. Do you think Factcheck.org should get lost too? They defended Kerry against the Swifties n/t

[stillcool]

23. 100 years is 100 years...

here's the video..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM

and here are some other articles...

McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years"

The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush's escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed."

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, "There's the general election campaign ad." He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years...

Unapologetic Imperialism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/unapologetic-imperialism_b_86033.html
Posted February 11, 2008 | 11:55 AM (EST)

During a campaign stop last month, someone in the audience rose to ask John McCain about Iraq. The questioner began to share some background facts before posing the question, saying "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years." Before he got the chance to ask the question, McCain interrupted him by saying, "make that a hundred!" "Is that..." the questioner gets cut off again; "We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years," McCain said. "We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Ron Paul: McCain's Reckless '100 years in Iraq' Comment Endangers Americans
Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:54pm EST

ARLINGTON, Va.--(Business Wire)--In response to John McCain's comment at a recent town hall event
that he would be fine with keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 -
or even 1 million years - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul
issued the following statement:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS183560+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107

[jasonkrueger]

24. Perhaps the DNC should condemn the occupation of Japan and Germany, then

For the sake of consistency, do you agree?

[stillcool]

25. Why stop there?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html
The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition
Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty years after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."

General Analysis on
US Military Expansion and Intervention

The United States has over 700 bases in 130 countries. As of April 2007, 146,000 US troops were actively serving in Iraq, and thousands of special forces were fighting in the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Africa and other regions. Back at home, the US government openly threatens Syria and Iran while covertly supporting coups, protests and uprisings in other countries, such as Venezuela and Kyrgyzstan. Washington defends its military expansion and interventions in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. However, as critics often point out, these interventions probably increase the threat of terrorism. The pattern of US interventions does not show support for democracy either. Instead, as a prominent study by the Library of Congress has shown, US interventions tend to have undemocratic results. Often they install tough military regimes that pay little heed to their people, privileging cozy relations with Washington and support for its economic and geostrategic interests.