If, Like the TV Says, Americans Don't Care About Iraq...

by Josh Orton, Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:24:57 PM EDT

Then why is the Republican party descending into hysteria over ads highlighting McCain's casual suggestion that we may stay in Iraq for 100 years or more?

First, the RNC's ridiculous legal threat against the DNC's ad.

Then, today, McCain himself tried to explain away his comments:

"You have seen an ad campaign that is mounted against me that says I wanted to stay and fight in Iraq for a 100 years," McCain said to a crowd at a Jewish Community Center. "My friends, it's a direct falsification, and I'm sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion, because there's legitimate differences between myself and Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton on what we should do in Iraq. After we win the war in Iraq ... then I'm talking about a security arrangement that may or may not be the same kind of thing we have with South -- with Korea."

But we know it's not a "falsification" at all.

Josh Marshall quotes a post written back in January by the great Rick Hertzberg, who was there when McCain said it:

"McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal--that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

It's easy to see the backstory here: McCain's position on Iraq, and more specifically his willingness to prolong the original mistake of invasion by talking about a 100 (one million?) year presence is a huge political liability.

There are only two options here. Either McCain is so worried about clouding his "straight-talk" brand that he's cynically unwilling to change his position to save lives and end the war, or he actually believes that the Cold War is still going on, the Middle East is like Korea, and American troops will soon live and breathe in Iraq without fear of casualties. Either way, the American people are starting to think it disqualifies him to be president.

Tags: Election 08, John McCain (all tags)

Comments

10 Comments

Sort by

permalink

McCain is toast

because even if people buy his argument that he was talking about an arrangement similar to that we have with South Korea, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe that we can leave any amount of troops in Iraq that wouldn't remain to be one huge target for any number of groups that want us out of there.

by lizardbox 2008-05-02 03:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Didnt Cheney say something similar?

Also, in one of Noam Chomsky's books there is some kind of US/British policy on the Middle East thats mentioned several times? I forget exactly where but his books tend to be well researched.

Thats why we - everyone on Earth - needs energy independence. As long as we - and others - 'need' oil they all will be starting wars over it.

by architek 2008-05-02 04:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

we never had the burden of proof..

Okay.. this is what Cheney said..
This is what Cheney said in, I think, 2005
...

This is a big mess and a big dilemma. Bluntly, I would NOT want to be in command of a situation like this. I do not trust the Bush administration or the neocons and its not because people like Saddam were not evil people.. they are and were.. Its because people like the neocons have a LONG record of cooperation with other evil people in the world, even when they ARE or PRETEND (except real people DIE) TO BE FIGHTING THEM.

we need people we can trust in Washington. People who clearly and unambiguously don't have this all too common callous disregard for human life.

"Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday accused critics of "corrupt and shameless" revisionism in suggesting the White House misled the nation in a rush to war, the latest salvo in an increasingly acrimonious debate over prewar intelligence.

Cheney also denounced proposals for a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "a dangerous illusion" and shrugged off the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. "We never had the burden of proof," he said, adding that it had been up to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to prove to the world that he didn't have such weapons."

by architek 2008-05-02 04:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

McCain

McCain at an event today outside Denver:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,"

Yes, you read that right. Into conflict "again."

Once this Democratic nomination process, and the spotlights are turned more onto McCain, we will see either BO or HRC's numbers in every swing or battleground state grow stronger. Both BO and HRC are much, much stronger candidates than McCain, especially in this election cycle.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/05/02/974014.aspx

by mascho 2008-05-02 03:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Except I am 100% sure that McCain's 'energy policy

will involve at least

building more aboveground nuclear power plants (or 'terrorism targets' for short) and entrusting their operation to companies that are known to be irresponsible and then also limiting their liability in case something goes wrong.. (similar to the nuclear and war exclusion clauses found in all homeowners insurance policies)

throwing more energy into growing corn for ethanol than the ethanol actually produces.. and driving up the price of food grains globally, causing millions of people to starve to death because they can no longer afford food. Or giving tax breaks to American companies for it who turn around and buy the stuff.. from Brazil.

Avoiding any technology that might stand a chance of making energy something that can be generated near the points where it is used, reducing not only dependence on oil companies but also dependence on an aging, outdated energy distribution grid that would be exceedingly vulnerable in situations of national emergency or electromagnetic pulse terrorism.

Technologies that I think we should be looking into but we aren't.

Geothermal. Not the kind of geothermal that requires volcanos, hot springs, etc, low tech geothermal that simply requires drilling deep holes.. We could also use geothermal on a much smaller scale to warm and cool homes, saving a huge amount of energy..

That doesn't require deep drilling.. just burying some pipe a few feet underground.. where the year-round temps are constant, then blowing air through them.

by architek 2008-05-02 04:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Increasing solar papel efficiency...

could also generate a HUGE amount of electricity.. basically 200 watts fall on each square yard of the Earth.. Until quite recently, solar panels were obscenely expensive.. new processes are coming online.. to make them far more cheaply..

like for example, under a dollar a watt!

by architek 2008-05-02 04:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If, Like the TV Says, Americans Don't Care Abo

Massachusetts superdelegate backs Obama
May 2, 2008 05:20 PM

Time to adjust the magic #.....again.

by Kobi 2008-05-02 03:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If, Like the TV Says, Americans Don't Care Abo

In all fairness, news organizations were reporting Kirk for Obama as far back as February, though he didn't make the official endorsement until today. Then again, I lost track of how many times they announced Jackie Speier was endorsing Clinton.

by Skaje 2008-05-02 04:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If, Like the TV Says, Americans Don't Care Abo

Close enough.

by Kobi 2008-05-03 12:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If, Like the TV Says, Americans Don't Care

I wish the AP would watch the ad rather than taking McCain's word for what it says. It d
esn't say war, conflict, etc.

by bosdcla14 2008-05-02 04:55PM | 0 recs