I don't think McCain's "one hundred year" remark is a particular good thing to attack him on.

[Smith_3]

I mean, aside from the fact that it was very poorly worded.

He was implying that, given a situation like it exists in Germany, where there is no hostile activity against american troops, american troops could stay in Iraq indefinately. That this is an extremely unlikely scenario is another thing.

I think this remark is more of an example of his inability to correctly articulate a thought, or judge the prospects correctly, than of his warmongerism.

I don't think it will work as a propaganda piece against him, if it is used to portrait him as a warmonger. I think it will more likely backfire as "them liberals are using the war to get elected" type of thing.

I think there are lots of other things to attack him on, that would be better.

Just my two cents.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. I Think It Will Work Just Fine

And as to your proposed GOP rebuttal, all the Dems have to say is "No, we're not. We're trying to prevent him from continuing the constant war policy of the last president. You don't want more of the last 8 years do you?"

I think it really is that simple.
The Professor

[DesertRat]

2. "there are lots of other things to attack him on, that would be better'

Can you list some of them?

And you'll want to fix your spelling of hundred in the subject line.

[Smith_3]

7. hmm.

I think his anger issues and his treatment of his wife are a good start.

His remark about how he supported states rights to fly the rebel flag purely out of ambition, even while he personally thinks it is wrong and hateful to do so.

[DesertRat]

29. Nothing will affect the voters more than the thought of 100 years in Iraq

The public is so tired of this occupation and want out of it asap. Reminding them that McCain doesn't care if we are there indefinately will definately strike a chord. As will the video of him singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
Anger issues and rumors of his ill treatment of his wife are non issues in comparison.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Don't you just love that line?

Seems to be the typical buzzword for not attacking McCain.

[treestar]

27. So true, and there are so many threads about how McLame should

not be attacked on this or that.

So the rethugs can attack the Democrat, but the rethug cannot be attacked. One wonders, indeed.

[liberal N proud]

3. Aside from the fact the idea is as stupid as the invasion was

I think it is a must that we attack him on it.

We need to attack him on every comment and ideal in order to win in November

[LiberalFighter]

4. I doubt Americans want anothe 100 years in Iraq considering how much...

it is costing them and our economy.

[stray cat]

5. Make him define what he means by "winning in Iraq" and staying until we "win"

[benddem]

6. Our troops

have record no's of suicides and divorces. The multiple tours are taking a toll. We've reduced recruiting standards to accept felons and people who didn't graduate from HS. Of course we don't accept homosexuals...but it is ok to have a convicted armed robber in your unit. Where the hell are we going to get the people? The numbers just don't stack up. A tour in Iraq is really hard, the climate, the language, the alphabet.

[bryant69]

8. I disagree

I agree that what he actually meant was a peaceful co-existence - that said, he's clearly intending to stay in Iraq whether or not there is peace. If the attacks on Americans and Iraqis continue we need to stay to "defend our allies." And if the attacks stop, well, then there's no reason to leave.

Kind of a catch 22, and the 100 years comment is a way at getting at that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[gatorboy]

10. "I think this remark is more of an example of his inability to correctly articulate a thought..."

So he's a senile warmonger.


Even better. :)

[Winterblues]

11. It shows he has no concept of Infidels and Islam

Muslim countries do not want the Infidels in their country for any length of time let alone one hundred years...War or no war. It is very much a point to attack McCain on because it shows just how out of touch the GOP really is.

[erebusman]

12. its perfect and here is why ....

Its a perfect "soundbite" to be used against him. Right now this is how American's digest media. In small stupid chunks.

Perhaps as members of DU we like to read more comprehensive coverage, to hear debate on issues and be critical in our thinking .. perhaps. But the MSM isn't delivering content to the masses that way - and McSame saying he wants to be there for a 100 years is a perfect very simple clear stupid thing for him to say for us to use against him. Let him "flip-flop" and try to say thats not what he meant ( even if he didn't we can still call it flip flopping). People wont beleive or trust him because that small little snippet will repeat in the back of their heads .. what if he really does mean it? Hmm better be safe and get my kids ,my neighbors kids, my grandkids out of Iraq for good and vote for the other guy!

peace

[Canuckistanian]

13. You just provided the best reason for USING it in your post

"where there is no hostile activity against american troops, american troops could stay in Iraq indefinately"

Iraq is NOT one of those places and never will be.

US Troops (and the contractors) will be unwelcome and hated in Iraq for generations.

That's NOT a minor detail.

[calmblueocean]

20. EXACTLY. When he says "100 years" he means "100 years PLUS however long it takes to 'win' there."

That's what's so preposterous about that quote.

People need to understand that that's exactly what he meant.

[Johonny]

25. Now he says

He'll win by 2013, which means we will be in Iraq for 100 years after that.

If you can't attack a candidate for a stance on an issue "such as believing he can get Iraq to a state of post war Germany in 4 MORE years of occupation" than what exactly is fair game.

[Iggo]

14. It's working so far....(n/t)

[DemoTex]

15. To a fighter pilot, few things are worse than being "Winchester."

"Winchester" means out of ammo. Got ammo? Use it. Use it judiciously. Use it smartly. But use it.

[Javaman]

16. ahhh, what?

81% of the US pop wants to pull out of Iraq. Attacking mclobbyist with his 100 year remark is right on the money.

If you are trying to compare the post-WWII occupation of Europe with our invasion of Iraq, please don't go there, you will lose every time.

[VP505]

17. Thank you for your 2¢

But quite frankly his hundred year comment was what it was, don't make excuses for him and it is NOT propaganda to point out what a war monger he is, its being TRUTHFUL.

[hlthe2b]

18. "PLEEEASE don't attack our lousy candidate, McCain"

on his vulnerabilities.... That's not FAIR! :sarcasm: Yeah, right......



Of course there is the fact that 100 human years = only 1 MCCAIN year....:eyes:

[cloudythescribbler]

19. I think that the perception of its callousness is NOT, as suggested here, even largely mistaken ...

[Richard Steele]

21. As always, thank you for your CONCERN. nm

[Occam Bandage]

22. I disagree. But thanks for the concern.

[DefenseLawyer]

23. I didn't know Dick Morris posted here.

How are the feet these days?

[The Stranger]

24. Worst post I have read in a month here -- and that is saying something.

First, he is a warmonger. Second, he meant what he said. Third, EVERYONE is against the war crime.

You win. Worst post in a month.

[ErinBerin84]

26. eh, I actually agree with some of your points.

Just because the media definitely launched a "clarification" campaign to try and claim that Democrats were twisting his words. The media will never launch a noticable "clarification" campaign for Democrats, because they always give Republicans the "benefit of the doubt", "oh, everyone knows what he REALLY means". It might have been helpful for the ad to include a debunking of the bullshit comparison of Iraq to the other countries that he tries to compare it to who had US troops present in time of "peace" , bc it totally shows how out of touch his foreign policy paradigm is as well.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. The problem with McCain's statement...

...is that regardless what he meant, it is dependent on the listener's interpretation.

McCain's inelegance with and bludgeoning of the English language reminds me of an essay by the esteemed British writer, Eric Blair:

A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

--Internets Tube

Oops, did I post "Eric Blair"? I meant George Orwell.

McCain's disordered language is a clear reflection of his disordered thoughts.

Occupying a country that was never a threat to us is foolish; wishing to stay for 100 years is pigheaded.

McCain needs to consider his words better otherwise the public's opinion of him may reflect his disdain for the language.

(EDITED to fix spelling and add link for quote)

[ecstatic]

30. Have you watched the full clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRAshmSdps&feature=related

Thanks for the concern though.