This is not a problem for Obama he has plausible deny ability.
He will say that he personally did not use those words and he can’t control the words of others.
Who in his right mind can believe that he is reinventing politics. Put all the lipstick you want on it it’s still politics.
Even if McCain meant “100 years” in the context of Korea,
Germany etc., it’s not a comparison he ought to be making.
Why not? Having a garrison there makes perfect sense. It shows that he’s thought things through and he’s being honest about it. It’s actually a good way for him to contrast himself with the sunny predictions of pre-invasion Bush.
Even if McCain meant “100 years” in the context of Korea,
Germany etc., it’s not a comparison he ought to be making.
Why not? Having a garrison there makes perfect sense.
Because most voters won’t equate “Iraq” with “garrison.” They’ll think McCain means 100 more years of fighting an expensive and deadly war in Iraq against the terrorists.
For the record, here is the exact McCain quote, which has been knowingly misrepresented by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other leading Democrats. . .
And by practically everyone in the mass media, parroting the Dems on cue.
That John McCain believes “the war in Iraq” should continue “another 100 years” is fast becoming a catechism for the Democrats and the media talking heads. It’s going to take a concerted effort by Sen. McCain to make it clear to the electorate at large what he meant.
He’ll have to learn go go “over the heads” of the media, as Ronald Reagan did as President. It’s a little harder when you’re only a candidate.
"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.”
is not the same thing as
“I think it is a great thing we have an election year where you have two people who love and are devoted to the interest of this country.”
Depends on what the definition of “is”, is.
And we did have Americans killed, wounded in Korea for sixty years. Shortly after 9/11 Bush toured the DMZ and was shown--over the wire--a North Korean “peace museum” where weapons used to kill US soldiers during the cease fire were displayed. At least until the 2nd Infantry Division was pulled off the DMZ, it was a combat-area posting. The Pentagon discouraged wives and children following soldiers to Korea and paid nothing towards their room and board inside the country. This I was told by career Army soldiers in the 1990s. If Senator McCain means something fluffy and harmless he’d better clarify his remarks.
I thought that we had got beyond all this nitpicking about Iraq.
I thought everyone understood that Iraq was all about our not being able to tolerate anyone hostile to us controlling that portion of the world’s oil supply that (sadly) happens to be in the Middle East.
We will have to have our Military in the region for as long as the region is like it is now, just as we will remain in Europe for as long as there is a Russian (Communist or otherwise) threat. Ditto Korea and Japan, and add China.
Does anyone else remember all the “Yankee Go Home” and the “Bring the Troops Home” agitation from the left during the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s?
You lefties should stop quacking long enough to think about how much more difficult things would have been for us had Russia brought Western Europe into its orbit or would be now if we had allowed an unfriendly Iraq or Iran to control the oil spigot.
The lefties always act as though they are being touched them with a red hot poker when someone questions their patriotism. Well, the only other possibility is to question their intelligence, and they get just as excited about that.
Democrats were in favor of bringing back to America its troops stationed all over the world, they MIGHT have some credibility. That six month commitment of theirs to the Balkans has gone on for what ... TWELVE years now? And there is still no end in sight as the Muslims they assisted are never satisfied with a parcel here and there, but they want the whole enchilada.
Having an outpost in Iraq for many years to come makes perfect sense.
It is incumbent upon future President McCain to make the case for it.
Let’s face it, “100 years in Iraq” was an unforced error by McCain, and arguably as revealing of a flaw in its speaker as was Dem-dunce John Kerry’s claim in ‘04 to have “voted for the 84 million” before he voted against it. McCain will get pummeled with “100 years in Iraq” at least through the November election. Couldn’t happen to a nicer fella.
Let’s face it, “100 years in Iraq” was an unforced error by McCain, and arguably as revealing of a flaw in its speaker as was Dem-dunce John Kerry’s claim in ‘04 to have “voted for the 84 million” before he voted against it. McCain will get pummeled with “100 years in Iraq” at least through the November election. Couldn’t happen to a nicer fella.
It wasn’t an error. But maybe understanding his statement requires more reasoning capability than the Democrats, the MSM, and James23 are willing, or able, to display.
McCain is right. Most Americans don’t care where American soldiers are in the world, or for how long. (Permanent bases? Sure, whatever!) Nor do they care all that much about the expense of the war. What they DO care about is the bloodshed, especially American blood. Opposition to the war rises and falls in response to the number of American casualties, nothing else.
McCain needs to hope that these numbers continue to fall over the coming months and at the same time convince Americans that the war is worth it. This must a wholly new, McCain argument, shunning the garbage George Bush has been putting out there for the past five years. McCain must also bring to the American voter a realistic vision of what will happen to Iraq if the US leaves prematurely. While he must repeat to the American people that he will not keep us in a war that can’t be won, he must impress upon them why he believes it is winnable… and how to measure “victory.”
In other words, I don’t think Iraq need work against McCain if he plays his cards right.
