Pushing Back on the "100 Years" Pushback

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Conservatives are stepping up the pressure on the traditional media to call Sen. Barack Obama a liar, because he is mentioning Sen. John McCain's explicit support for a 100-year military presence in Iraq.

Over on LiberalOasis, I previously laid out what I consider the best way to discuss the "100 Years" remark going forward. And it appears the Obama campaign is going in that direction, engaging in a broader foreign policy debate whether or not we should support the conservative foreign policy goal of installing permanent military bases in Iraq.

But allow me to add one more element to the mix. This is from my recent Bloggingheads.tv appearance with Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation. (Our "100 Years" discussion starts about 10 minutes in):

BS: Is it a lie and a distortion when John McCain says that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to "surrender" in Iraq?

CC: No.

BS: Why? Have they openly said, "I would like to surrender in Iraq today"? Is that what they say?

CC: Well, there's no one to surrender to.

BS: Exactly.

CC: But, saying you're going to -- well, we can get into the details of that in a bit -- but saying you're automatically, no matter what happens in 2009, going to start bringing a brigade home every month, definitely signals that whatever enemies we do have in Iraq have succeeded in getting us out of there on their terms.

BS: That is McCain's interpretation and characterization of what that policy would be. It is not Obama's or Clinton's interpretation.

Just as McCain would say, "I think we can have a 100-year permanent military presence that would just be hunky-dory," the Democratic, liberal interpretation of that is: that is effectively going to bring you a 100-year war.

McCain and his conservative brethren want a double standard -- where they can characterize Democratic positions in any way they choose, but whine up a storm when their policy views are held up to the light for scrutiny.

RedState is calling for its readers to complain to specific reporters and pundits about "examples of inaccurate or incomplete reporting." Funny thing is, their list only shows accurate descriptions of McCain's comments: offering a "100-year occupation," to "keep tens of thousands of United States Troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years," and "I wouldn't want to have to defend [a] 100-year occupation in Iraq, even if it was reportedly to be peaceful."

Here's the RedState reporters list. Contact them to say, you got it just right.

LA Times:

Maeve Reston: [e-mail]; 213-237-5000

Peter Nicholas: [e-mail]; 213-237-5000

Chicago Tribune:

Mike Dorning: [e-mail]; 202-824-8223

Rick Pearson: [e-mail]; 312-222-4271

Editor: George De Lama: [e-mail]; 312-222-2408

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Timothy McNulty: [e-mail]; 412-263-1581

James O'Toole: [e-mail]; 412-263-1562

City Desk Editor: Tom Birdsong: [e-mail]; 412-263-3068

Editorial Writer: Susan Mannella: [e-mail]; 412-263-1448

Editorial Page Editor: Tom Waseleski: [e-mail]; 412-263-1669

Boston Globe:

Op-Ed Page Editor: Renee Loth: [e-mail]; 617-929-3035

MSNBC's Hardball:

Central feedback receptacle: [e-mail]

Comments

[sdrawkcab]

Read between the tea leaves...
McCain wants to shift his position, swiftly, to some form of "timely" withdrawl.

The consent of House Democrats is prerequisite to any McCain plan. Alone, they hold enough power to kill the war by defunding it, and their constituents hold them on a short leash -- 2 years terms.
To fund McCain's 100-years-in-quicksand-plan, would be to commit an act of political "non-hostile gunshot" for nearly any Democrat in congress.

It serves no end to slide toy soldiers and monopoly money around the war room -- success in Iraq is best measured in Iran.

The real "job" McCain wants to finish is not Democracy in Iraq, nor is it to prevent Al Qaida hatchlings, nor genocide, nor civil war.

The real intent is a grand hope to prevent a certain, but irrational threat to global supremacy:
Control of Oil Production + someday WMDs = someday global threat to supremacy
We know, someday, this will happen, but have little to no idea when.

International treaty does not recognize "resistance of someday aggression" as just cause for war.
On the other hand, bad intelligence, which lies about the need to currently "resist aggression," can be spun as human error (oops, I did it again).

Nobody can measure whether that certain someday is hastened or delayed, but present military readiness can be measured.

[why100]

Hey just a side note for everyone. When an armed force leaves the battle feild under the duress of another armed force they are said to be retreating. During a retreat the force that is retreating is in fact "surrenduring" the battle feild to the force that made them retreat. In this case the battle feild is iraq so if we remove our forces from iraq under the duress of muslim extremist it constitutes surrendering iraq to those extremist. So yes it is a form of surrender.

[Pangaea]

I think that Senator McCain talking about "surrender" is just as bad as Senators Clinton and Obama talking about a "100 year war." Yes, both have a wisp of truth. However, mischaracterizations are never good. They make complex and nuanced situations seem simple, which is unfair and misleads the public. If politicians stopped misquoting and misrepresenting their opponents' words, they would go a long way towards decreasing the public's cynicism towards politicians.

[larryfishkorn]

I think "victory" for the warmongers is to turn Iraq into Darfur, the human-rights and humanitarian crisis that happens over a big pool of oil that has a big straw sticking out of the ground. The only "terror" is the terror that the Cheney and Bush clan feel when they realize they might have to share wealth with ordinary assholes, like the ones that go off to fight wars in the first place.

[TheRebel82]

I love how whiny these inept repukes get when people quote their words word for word. I also remember what these repukes did with John Kerry back in 04 and his "I voted for it before i voted against it". They took it completely out of context and knew back then. LOL now here's a taste of your own medicine repukes. It's payback time!

[argent1]

If Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan would join together and declare the US the hostile invader they are, the US might finally get it and leave. The four countries should consider uniting as did the disparate colonies of the British did in the 1770's. India and Israel would freak -- but they better learn to deal with their problems in an honest way. The last thing the super power wants is unity in western Asia. The Caesar like strategy of divide and conquer combined with the fear inculcators blanket over the American psyche has failed. Instead of conquering heroes the US has fractionalized and refractioned and fractioned again a situation they cannot control. It is time to let it happen and watch a new - probably peaceful ending. What exists now is the delirium of apocalyptic dogma.

[desmirl]

Someone once asked, "Who is the Prime Minister of Terror? What is the capital city of Terror? What is the GNP of Terror? What is the population of Terror?" and so on. The Republicans have created a tower of cards and protect it with the idea that if "You ain't fer us, yer agin us." Unfortunately, a lot of people respond to that kind of nonsense. The Democrats have to DEMAND a level playing field--even if it means getting in the faces of the plastic-haired talking heads of cable TV.

[MajorKong]

Terror is a tactic. You might as well declare a war on flanking maneuvers.

[Jeradlangley]

my thoughts exactly. well said.

[grendl]

" There's no one to surrender to" is precisely what's wrong with this war.

There's no one to defeat either, short of killing indigenous Iraqi's based on sectarian membership, or the odd Al Qaeda recruit. Why isn't John McCain being asked to expressly state for the record what would constitute victory in this "war"?

When will we know when we get there? Hitler blew out his brains in a bunker, Japan gave up their dreams of world domination when we started planting atomic mushrooms in their cities, General Lee surrendered to General Grant, who's supposed to surrender here?

No one. The failure of our policy in Iraq isn't that our military isn't succeeding, its that it isn't a military problem. It's an ideological problem. It's that if you ask a Shiite if a Sunni is his equal, the laughter will echo all the way to Mecca. And vice versa. They are practitioners, and true believers in sectarian superiority, loyal to clerics, not a centralized government, which they've learned the hard way doesn't give a damn about them personally.

McCain wants to solve this with guns, and perseverance, but just as in Viet Nam, he should've learned indigenous people must come to democracy of their own volition, at the time of their choosing, if at all.

[mamacat]

Well said.
One could put it another way, as well.
The failure of our policy in Iraq is that we are trying to maintain a military occupation in a country that is so determined to have its freedom and independence that they are willing to resist the richest military power on earth to achieve it.
We do not like to admit it, but the Iraqi resistance sees themselves as freedom fighters, heroes, and martyrs.
How Ironic, that a country so steeped in the lore of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," would be so fanatically determined to force its will upon a foreign country through the use of military force.