McCain tries to flip-flop on his 100 years in Iraq statement..

[Virginia Dare]

channels Dan Quayle gets a quote by JFK in there, cute...:eyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq

OUSTON - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said his remark that American troops could stay in Iraq for 100 years has been distorted, yet he still suggests a lengthy U.S. presence comparable to that in Korea and other countries.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Of course, that comment of mine was distorted. Life isn't fair, as Jack Kennedy said," McCain told a town hall meeting at Rice University. "I was talking about American presence after the war."

Responding to a student who had criticized his 100-year remark, McCain added, "No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties."

"I think, generally speaking, we have a more secure world thanks to American presence, particularly in Asia, by the way, as we see the rising influence of China," McCain said. "But the key to it is American casualties, America's most precious asset, and that is American blood."

The student had referred to McCain's response at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January when he was asked about a comment President Bush had made about U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain answered. "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 maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

-snip-

I've got NEWS for you Senator, after Hitler was gone the U.S. didn't take any more casualties. After Hirohito was vanquished, the U.S. didn't take any more casualties. South Korea is okay but North Korea is still on our axis of evil. Kuwait and Turkey have been bought and paid for.

After Saddam was gone, that's when the U.S. STARTED to take casualties in Iraq. Tell me, who is going to wave their magic wand and make Iraq safe for Americans again?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. weasel!

[blondeatlast]

2. Too bad, Bush III. It fits nicely on a bumper sticker and that's all that

matters, really... :rofl:

[jpak]

3. His comments were recorded - he can't take them back

I suppose his "bomb bomb Iran" nonsense will be spun as well...

[TwilightGardener]

4. The "Korea" argument drives me nuts--WE DON'T HAVE TROOPS

in North Korea! Maybe we should invade them, and plan to occupy for an indefinite period of time, since they threaten us so? Oh, wait--do they sit on vast oil reserves? Never mind...

[griffi94]

6. i just re-read his statement

i didn't see where he said north korea, he just said korea, and i think we do still have troops in korea
along the dmz.

[Virginia Dare]

8. And he's a stupid-ass for bringing it up..

is that what we're aiming for in Iraq? He needs to be reminded that the nutjob in North Korea has got nukes. Does he really think the American people are going to go for that?

[griffi94]

11. i don't quite follow you

when you say he's stupid for bringing it up. bringing what up, he was answering a question about troops remaining in iraq. he said there would be a long term presence the same as we had in germany japan and korea. he also said the war would be over soon and the remaining troops wouldn't be taking combat casualties.
as for the american people going for it, i think they will. after all we still have a military presence in germany, japan, and korea, and they go for that. that's provided the actual combat stops.

[Virginia Dare]

14. As I said griffi94..

the American military had a presence in those countries AFTER the respective governments were dispatched.

We've dispatched Saddam, and we are STILL taking casualties, lots of them.

How is this situation going to end up like Germany, Japan, or even Korea? Do we want another Korea? Personally, I don't.

We aren't going to "win" this war in Iraq without committing ten times more troops than what we have there now, and that means instituting a draft.

Right now, we're barely holding on, and that's after sending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives down a rathole. There's no happy ending here.

We're YEARS beyond even considering an amicable presence like we have in the countries he mentioned, if ever.

Do you follow me now?

[griffi94]

21. i do in fact

i agree with you that his position is assuming that peace will break out and we'll not have to fight the way we have the last 5 years. i don't think that's realistic, but i also don't think he meant we'd still be there in 100 years if things stayed like they have been.

[Virginia Dare]

29. So you don't think it's realistic..

but somehow you think all other Democrats except the activists here on this site will? Honestly, nobody, myself included, has to twist his words or take them out of context to realize how utterly misconstrued his thinking is.

If we "win" in Iraq, doesn't that mean destroying al qaeda? If that's the case, then what will we still be doing there in 100 years?

Oh and by the way, Johnny the Saint will never mention this, but we actually surrendered to al qaeda the day we A) pulled out of Saudi Arabia, and B) moved our troops into Iraq. (A) was demanded by Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. (B) was icing on the cake for them, as we removed a secular presence in the middle east and made way for radical muslim fundamentalists to take another foothold there.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

Oh, but that's all in the past now, as Saint Johnny says.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

37. "Saint Johnny" McCain? LOL!!!!!

[TwilightGardener]

31. That's exactly what he meant. He thinks that if we keep the casualties at a low simmer

somehow, the occupation will be accepted by Americans. Now, what's missing with this plan? STRATEGY! WTF is OUR interests in keeping a sizable presence there permanently? What's his end game? What's worth the RISK to American lives, and trillions of dollars, to keep our troops in a Muslim country that doesn't particularly care for us? Our troops will be PERMANENT targets for insurgents and terrorists, that will never change--we can't kill them all. Kuwait, Qatar, SA--they all wanted us or at least tolerated us, for their protection and to deal with us in terms of oil/business. We didn't conquer them and obliterate their government on a false premise. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis, it's not a prize that we have won. The longer we sit there, trying to control them and manipulate them, and their oil, the more future terrorists we create. And I'm sure McCain also wants a base of ops there for his planned strikes against Iran, which is horrifying. There is simply no defense of this bloodthirsty jackass, and there is no solution to Iraq that will make us safer, other than to leave, responsibly and carefully and gradually--but we must get our footprint off of their soil.

[TwilightGardener]

10. I'm well aware of our presence in South Korea--my husband spent

a year there for the Air Force. We weren't fighting South Korea, they were not our enemy--we fought NORTH Korea's communist invasion of South Korea, unless my history is totally wrong. A true analogy for permanently occupying Iraq, a country that we invaded and conquered as an enemy, would be the US permanently occupying NORTH Korea, not S. Korea.

[griffi94]

20. well now you're trying to split hairs

and i just listened to that clip and he did in fact say south korea. i also thought we had a military presence along the dmz to discourage the north korean army from invading the south again.

[TwilightGardener]

28. I'm not splitting hairs. I'm saying that his argument that we have troops in Korea

as an argument for leaving troops in Iraq is a false argument, because South Korea was never a hostile country--we defended them, we didn't invade and conquer them, so there was no reason why we COULDN'T keep bases there, they wanted us to, and didn't fight us. North Korea was a hostile regime--we would have had to keep troops THERE, in large numbers, for the "Korea" model to be anywhere akin to the occupation of Iraq. We have troops and bases all over S. Korea, but not just for defense against N. Korea--that's a minor consideration, that's not the main reason why we're still there. It's a strategic location for us to keep check on China and the rest of Asia.

[OHdem10]

5. Unfortunately, since Activists are oh so different from rank

and file Americans, it is fascinating to see what Activists
dwell on and Americans go forward their own way.

I am a Liberal Democrat. I watch the other side because elections
are lost when one party does not keep an eye on the opposition.
When I post on topics like this, I am not saying the other side
is right wrong or indifferent. I am trying to help us think
as average Americans and perceive as they do. Otherwise, we
once again jerk defeat from the jaws of victory.

In reality this is a non-issue. Never once when I am honest
with myself, did I believe John McCain would keep troops in Iraq
or keep the war going 100 years. I, like, most Americans who
have some idea of John McCain----I figured he was being sarcastic
or using hyperbole to make a point. Most Americans think in this
common sense way.

From his first town meeting very close to the beginning--he starts
with. The war is going to be over soon. The war is going to be
over soon. Then he tells them, just as in Korea, Germany etc we will
have troops there. They will not be in combat. They will not be
in combat.

IMO, this was a weak argument against John McCain and will not
go anyhere in the GE.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Uh, no. Nice try defending McCain, as I notice you often do, but he

wants a permanent state of war. That is clear. Every conflict we've had since he's been in the Senate, he screams for ground troops. He loves war. He wants to strike Iran. He says he will only pull troops out of Iraq if Petraeus wants to, he insists it's not up to civilians. I heard this with my own ears--he's a scary, unreasonable motherfucker on the subject, and he's going to start WW3 while keeping the bloodshed in Iraq going. He PROMISED this, no matter how he tries to backtrack now that he's in general-election run-to-the-center mode. And we are going to hammer him on this point, over and over, because he's going to blow up the world if we lose.

[blondeatlast]

22. He defended Mccain on his "Commander in Chief" primary ad, too.

I see WAY too much defense of McCain on this board. I've spent most of my life trying to get him out of the Senate because we's such an unapologetic hawk and anything but a "maverick."

And good ol OHDem10 defended him for that commercial, too. I come to DU for some sanctuary from inside my blood red state.

[TwilightGardener]

32. I know, I've been watching this particular person defend McCain over and over.

It's sad that we have to fight Republican and pro-war sympathizers and supporters on a Democratic forum, but I see it (and combat it) every day here. It alarms me to see how many Dems still seem to love McCain, more than Obama or Hillary. It's sickening.

[blondeatlast]

36. If only the Mccain lovers had spent 20 some years with him representing them.

The best thing I can say about his being the presumptive RRR nominee is that the end of his political career may be spectacular as finally all the skeletons may fall out of the closet at last.

[Virginia Dare]

9. Then I invite you to watch the video if you haven't already..

and let me know if you still stand by your remarks as to the sarcasm or hyperbole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

[griffi94]

18. ok i just watched the clip you posted

he said make it 100, that's fine with me we've been japan for 60 years we've been in south korea for 50 years or so, as long as americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'll be fine with me, and i hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al khaida is recruiting everyday....

that's not saying we'll still be fighting the war in 100 years sorry.

[Virginia Dare]

19. I have never characterized his statements that way....n/t

[TwilightGardener]

33. dupe, delete

[TwilightGardener]

34. What the fuck do you consider "fighting a war"? We stopped fighting a war in

Iraq in 2003. We've been occupying, and battling insurgents and troublemakers, and losing American lives, ever since. We will continue to sit there, and lose American lives and billions of dollars, until someone has the BALLS to start getting us out. Go to Free Republic and get your wargasm there, I'm done with you and your defense of this GOP asshole.

[blondeatlast]

12. Why are you constantly defending John McCain, a man I've spent the greater part of my adult life

trying to save the country from? You did notice the "Democratic" in the name of this site, didn't you?

[griffi94]

15. that's a really good post

and imo you are correct. there is a huge difference between everyday democratic voters and the activists one sees here on du.
most people will in fact not think he meant we'd still be where we are now in 100 years. i also believe many if not most americans will support a long term military presence in iraq as long as it isn't the expensive bloody mess we have now. many americans will indeed think it's a good way to exert a calming influence in a volatile region. whether or not it will work, i have no idea, but i think a majority of americans may be willing to try it.

[Virginia Dare]

16. I invite you to join your friend and watch the video..

believe it, he envisions us there 100 years from now. BTW, this is a volatile region largely BECAUSE of our presence there, not in spite of it.

I'm surprised that you think you know so much about DU, from your statements I would gather you haven't learned a whole lot of anything here, except that we're all "activists".

[griffi94]

25. i did watch the video

i agree that our presence in the region is part of the reason it's so volatile, but that's not the only reason.
i've been here at du a long time, and it is mostly activists that post and contribute posts to the forum. i didn't mean activists to be a dirty word. i'm n activist myself. btw you gather wrong i've learned a lot in the time i've been a member here, but that doesn't mean everybodys opinion is the correct one.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

13. K&R

[Virginia Dare]

17. Thank you JG..

I'm in a twilight zone of McCain apologists here.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

23. so I see... do you think they'll vote for him? Here's a pic. of him I made a while back ...

Admittedly, he looks much younger

[griffi94]

24. i'm not apologizing for anyone

but his statement is being taken, at least to some degree, out of context.
if this becomes the center of a big push to discredit mccain because he said he wants war for 100 years. it won't hold up. that's not what he's saying and he compares it to japan and germany.
i don't think his plan will work anymore than i thought invading iraq would work.
but intentionally taking a statement out of context, is not going to be a winning position.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

27. They'll probably Diebold us anyhow but still I don't see Virginia taking ANYTHING out of context...

how'd you like the picture, griffi94?

[TwilightGardener]

35. It's on many threads now--once McCain sewed up the nom, the closeted McCain

sympathizers started piping up. We'll have to fight them from now until November, I guess.

[Avalux]

26. The poor old guy. He's got PTSD and dementia - can't remember his statements.

I have no problem pointing to McCain's erratic mood swings and age as a way to beat him down in the GE. Obama can't do it but the rest of us can. I think I hate him as much as I hate Bush; I think he might actually be more dangerous.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

30. yep, he's got the same approach with more smarts and he's not a draft-dodger n/t

[Supersedeas]

38. American casualties are viewed as an asset...an investment opportunity--what the hell happened to

viewing War as a last resort!?!

[Virginia Dare]

39. The neocons and the new world order-ites came to power..

that's what happened..