DNC Ad on John McCain and Iraq: "100"
I wonder if McCain will regret saying those words?
The RNC are currently trying to have this ad banned claiming that it is “false and defamatory” and illegally coordinated.
Tags:
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Of course the creative editing obscures what he really said, which was that 100 years would be fine with him if the US military were not taking any casualties and it was in the model of our deployments to Korea and other places where we have maintained forces for some time after conflicts. Germany, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, and others have retained a US presence following conflict and McCain was pretty clear in what he meant. Therefore, attempts to paint his position as wanting 100 more years of combat are complete lies.
It is also notable that this blatant distortion was repeated on multiple times by Obama, who is not running the clean campaign his Obamatons claim, and is not a "different" kind of politician.
Germany, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, and others have retained a US presence following conflict and McCain was pretty clear in what he meant.
The whole point is that there will never be an occupation of Iraq that could possibly resemble any of the above as you already have militias fighting to get you to leave.
So if you stay for 100 years you will be getting US soldiers killed for 100 years, that's what makes his statement so DUMB.
So if you stay for 100 years you will be getting US soldiers killed for 100 years, that's what makes his statement so DUMB.
Since he explicitly gave the qualification that he was speaking only of a situation where nobody was getting killed and it were a something akin to South Korea, your point is moot. You can try to make any prognostications as to what the eventual outcome will be (how'd that one about shia-sunni civil war work out for you?), but McCain quite explicitly referred to a peaceful Iraq only, meaning if there were continued conflict, there would be no "100 year" US deployment. The only thing that's DUMB are those trying to pretend he meant something else.
You can try to make any prognostications as to what the eventual outcome will be (how'd that one about shia-sunni civil war work out for you?), but McCain quite explicitly referred to a peaceful Iraq only, meaning if there were continued conflict, there would be no "100 year" US deployment.
But US soldiers are still dying there and McCain is refusing to give any sort of timetable for withdrawal, which undermines his claim that the US would only stay there if there was no conflict.
He's saying they'll stay until there's a victory, which I note most of you war mongers fail to ever define.
If the victory takes 100 years I presume he'd stay that long. Or are you saying he'd leave even with US soldiers still dying? A sort of retreat?
Jason,
McCain's qualification is specious. Ridiculously so. Iraq is simply never going to resemble post-war Germany or Japan or Korea. Ever. Iraqis are not going to surrender, there won't be a formal ceremony, and the Iraqi parliament is resisting and is outraged by the backroom Maliki-Bush force maintenance agreement.
If giving McCain a pass because he "qualified" his statement with some disingenuous nonsense about "as long as US soldiers are not getting killed," well, that simply claptrap. Besides, if we really want to believe that Iraqi is sovereign, then is not up to us to decide and right now, 80% or more of that country wants us GONE NOW.
Like much of the Bush administration's claims about Iraq, McCain's statement exists in the realm of fantasy. It is time for the fantasies to end.
Post a Comment