McCain Told Me 100 Years

I am McCain's "Ernest Hemingway"

I was the questioner at the January 3 Town Hall Meeting in Derry, NH, who McCain called Ernest Hemingway and who asked him what he hoped to accomplish in Iraq and how long it would take. When I pressed him for a time frame and cited George Bush's figure of fifty years, Senator McCain shocked me by saying "Maybe a hundred".

Since that time his remark has been repeated thousands of times in the press, on political talk shows, by columnists, commentators, and by the Democratic candidates. There are music videos commemorating his words, and you can buy T-Shirts displaying the quote.

Needless to say, Democrats have had a field day with that sound bite. I'm wondering, where's my cut?

Now, three months later, McCain partisans are regretting the candor of their candidate, and in a full-court press, are claiming that McCain's opponents have mischaracterized his remarks.

In Check Point: McCain Said '100'; Opponents Latch On, Kate Phillips reported in the March 27 New York Times that McCain spokesman Steve Schmidt complains that, "There is a deliberate misrepresentation of the statement" by Clinton, Obama, and the DNC.

In Foes target McCain's 100-year war remark, Brian C. Mooney wrote April 2 in the Boston Globe that "McCain and Republicans say that [Senator Barack] Obama is trying to 'swindle voters' with 'dishonest smears'."

Charles Krauthammer, in his March 28 column, went much further, and declared hysterically, "It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie." One has to wonder what planet he's been on these last seven years!

Now the Manchester Union-Leader has joined the chorus with its Sunday, April 6 editorial, McCain's '100 Years': the Democrat's war on the truth.

While splitting hairs over the meaning of campaign rhetoric, all ignore the fact that McCain advocates an open-ended presence in Iraq, and the consequences that would follow from such a commitment.

McCain's words left little room for interpretation. By saying that he was fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years, he made clear his commitment to staying the course and, further, to remaining in Iraq for years after the country is pacified, assuming that's ever possible.

Everyone who was there that night got it: we weren't getting out anytime soon.

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker summed it up when he wrote, "what the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn't really all that unfair. 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."

When offered the opportunity to backtrack later, McCain only dug himself in deeper, upping the ante to 10,000 years, or a million. He may as well have said "forever" when he confirmed his 100 years remark and added that he would support permanent bases in Iraq three days later on NBC's Meet the Press.

Not content to confine the endless war to Iraq, McCain went on to warn of other wars. Speaking to Tim Russert he asked, "What if Jordan falls? What if there's another war with Israel?" He also singled out the instability in Pakistan. Though he did not mention it by name, one can imagine that Iran figures in his thoughts.

McCain has stated his belief that "the war will be over soon", and that the Iraqi government and military will handle the ongoing insurgency. Given the current fighting in Iraq and the ineffectiveness of the Al Maliki government's military, this seems highly unrealistic.

McCain's comments to me raise more questions than they answer. If U.S. troops are garrisoned on permanent bases in Iraq, wouldn't it be likely that they would come under attack? And when they do, would we depend upon the Iraqi government to protect us? Of course not! How would that be different from the situation we face today?

If McCain's campaign now wants a do-over on the 100 years remark, then here is his shot. How long would he keep our troops in Iraq? Both of his opponents have offered specific exit plans. Where is McCain's?

I like John McCain. I commend him for his opposition to torture, and his refusal to scapegoat Spanish speaking people. I applaud his willingness to engage in debate with those who disagree with him. You might say he is my favorite "conservative liberal Republican" (as he recently described himself in what some called a Freudian slip).

But when it comes to the war in Iraq we part company. Americans want to see an end to the war and they will not get that from John McCain. And no amount of spin can change that fact.

Dave Tiffany is a politically independent activist working for peace in the Southern New Hampshire area.

Comments

[doneflyin]

We're going to have a military presence in that part of the world as long as there is oil and natural gas.

It really is that simple. This is just the beginning of the Resource Wars.

[johntal]

McCain is the son of an Admiral and the grandson of another. The perks and privileges of that alone ( wealthy wife with money is another story) should make McCain wary when he chooses to gang up on elitism

[lagunabeach]

Thank you Dave Tiffany for asking questions that our media does not ask.

In the world of George Orwell which George Bush has imposed on us all, you, who asked the question, and the many witnesses who heard McCain's answer, are liars. In George Bush's world and the world of the neo-cons, up is down, good is bad, bad is good, and truth are lies, and, most importantly, lies are truth.

Lies are truth: Where to begin with the Bush administration's endless lies? WMD? Valerie Plame? Torture? the economy? The lies posited as truth go on and on and on and on...

Didn't a smart person once say, "The truth shall set you free?" or something to that effect. You, Dave Tiffany, scored one for freedom for your non-Orwellian question and your non-Orwellian essay today in the Huffington Post. George Orwell would be proud of you.

[Stevelagain]

So, it's ok to take McCains words out of context in order to impart negative context to them....but we must stop doing the same to Obama's words concerning Christians, gun owners, and "average white people".

What sort of game are you on the left playing?

[Necron99]

Seems like they're playing your game Steve. Here in the post fact world.

Seems to me both Jesus and Buddha said that the only way to stop this kind of thig is to act above it, take the blows, and hope eventually your opponent feels guilty enough to stop. I try that once in a while but I can't maintain it, I'm too petty.

How about you?

[TimN]

McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment is right up there with Al Gore's "I invented the Internet". Still, it looks like Obama's "they get bitter, and cling to guns or religion" comment is overshadowing both.

[Crowhaul]

Remember, people....this 'war' is not a war. It ceased to be a war when the Iraqi army was defeated and the Iraqi leaders overthrown and/or killed.

This is an occupation (an illegal one at that). We Dems need to begin calling it what it is.

[LizM]

But, you cannot dismiss the fact that the US has a major civil war on its hands in Iraq and it had better figure out a way to end it and fast...or it should withdraw completely (all troops, all US civilians, and all Iraqes who have risked their lives to assist coalition forces) and as soon as possible...in which case, we can only hope that there would not be a repeat of Saigon and that somebody has come up with a viable containment strategy to prevent a very unpredictable regional conflagration.

[LizM]

I've got news for you...neither of the Democratic candidates understand the first thing about ending the civil war in Iraq, either.

And, as for McCain...of course, you should know that I am no fan...but anyone with half a pea brain understood that, when McCain made that statement - the full version of which you have failed to include here - he was not talking about endless war! This is a clear case of people hearing what they want to hear while ignoring any facts that get in the way of that.

[lisakaz]

If it isn't endless war, what is it endless occupation?

Methinks you mischaracterize youreself re: McInsane.

[LizM]

To be honest, I don't think Iraq is anywhere near being on course to get to the situation that McCain talks about when he says US troops may have to be there for 100 years or more in some sort of peacekeeping capacity. In fact, that ain't gonna happen if we follow Senator McCain's "plan" for Iraq. But, that's fodder for a whole other post!

When McCain made that statement about US troops being in Iraq for 100 years, he did not mean 100 years of endless war! He meant - and actually explicitly stated - that troops could be in Iraq under conditions where there would be no US casualties...as has been the case in Bosnia for the last 10 years plus. Bosnia, by the way, is not identical to the situation in Iraq but it provides a much better example, for the purposes of this discussion, than either Japan or Germany.

My only point was that people need to start talking honestly about Iraq and this blogger is not contributing to an honest debate of the issue.

Besides, there is quite enough to criticize about John McCain's vision for Iraq, or lack thereof, without having to misrepresent what he has said about the issue!

[TimN]

Propaganda pooper.

[THEhillbilly]

It's pretty funny that you can't see the difference between presence and war. Okay, maybe you can; you studiously avoided almost all of McCain's comment. I'm not complainin­g--parajou­rnalism adds color to stories like this one.

[dgscol]

Jon McCain simply stated we are committed to stabilizing the situation in Iraq. It would be nice to pay a group of mercenaries to maintain order there. If that does not work, we need an established base like the green zone. In 20-40 years everyone can leave the region.

[dgscol]

If the enemy gangs up, we will need another surge, possibly every once in a while, like Israel.

[dgscol]

We could establish a yellow zone, around the green zone - with no Iraqis allowed for 50 miles..

[melonman]

He simply stated we will be there as long as it takes to achieve victory with honor, however he defines that nebulous goal. It's taking our military over the edge and helping ruin our economy, but what they hey, as long as we have honor, we have everything.

Unfortunately, we lost honor the moment we unilaterally invaded a sovereign country representing no immediate threat to us. Now, we're a rogue nation that can't be trusted in the international community.

And so tell me how Reverend Wright was so wrong about our chickens coming home to roost. Truth hurts, man.

[kravitz]

I smell several nervous GOP hacks trying to change the story. Which won't work this time...

[kravitz]

sounds like an obama ad coming on...

[RogerHWerner]

I do hope Mr. Tiffany realizes that McCain is no more a liberal conservative than George W. Bush (this is how Bush as touted in the MSM before the 2000 election--a new kind of conservative I seem to recall). McCain's publicly available voting record indicates a consistent hard conservative slant irrespective of the few times he has crossed the aisle. That he has bothered to cross the aisle at all is what makes him seem so odd for a Republican; it doesn't make him a liberal conservative. McCain promises more of Bush in virtually every area of government.

[nogop]

Sir,with all due respect-why haven't you contacted the major networks and newspapers in America to tell your story?? Why not contact Fox to refute Krautheimer's lies?? Here on Huffpo,you're preaching to the choir! try MSNBC-Abrams or Olbermann or Matthews!The" lie "is really rhe truth!!!

[maria1253]

The plan to stay in IRAQ is already created. Ed Schultz mentioned this on his show today (Secret US plan for military future in Iraq)so I looked it up:
"A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country."
Here is the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa

Yes, it means 100 years of the occupation of IRAQ.

[andyg]

you mean like the occupation of japan, korea and germany. stop lying.

[DouginCT]

Japan, Korea and Germany didn't have oil. Are you paying attention? This isn't then. It's now. Different players. Late in the game.

[ceu]

The US doesn't OCCUPY Japan, Korea, or Germany. (And it's SOUTH Korea where our troops are, BTW. There is no such country as Korea) They have their own governments, which are not headed by hand-picked US puppets, their own militaries, and if they asked the US to go, we'd have to go. American military personnel aren't armed in the streets or driving around in weapons-loaded armored vehicles.

[Lastamendment]

I think the biggest reason that the context McCain provides is not relevant is that postwar Iraq is not likely to look anything like postwar Germany or Japan. Indeed, given President Bush's statement that major combat operations ended on May 1, 2003, you could say we are supposed to be in postwar Iraq now, and it doesn't look peaceful at all yet.

Furthermore, from what I have read, the politics of Iraq make it seem more likely that 100 years of U.S. presence is almost the same as saying 100 years of war, since half the time our very presence is motivating many of the attacks against us, and the other half we are caught in the crossfire of a civil war. Neither was the case in Germany and Japan, so McCain is making a false analogy.

I think the Democrats should press this point strongly and should not shy away from pointing out that McCain's comparison doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[leftLibertarian]

But WWII ended over 50 years ago and there are still US troops in Germany and Japan.

WHY?

[Lastamendment]

That's a good question. But we are on good terms with Germany and Japan, and we do have strategic interests that make it necessary to keep some troop presence in those countries. We also need Germany (for better or worse) as a place to treat troops that return injured from combat in that part of the world.

In the end, I think the overall spread of our military should be addressed, but it is less an issue now than our ill-advised conflict in Iraq.

[RevMetheus]

short answer: The Red Scare

after WW2 the US was so preoccupied with those sneaky godless commies that we had to keep a presence on both sides of the Iron Curtain. We also needed troops to both quell opposition in Asia and to set up a strategic base against both commie China and commie Korea (good thing we did, since that set up staging bases for both the Korean and Vietnam wars.)

I guess the same idea would apply in theory to the Iraq bases being a staging area in case we have to go to war elsewhere in the Middle East, but unlike Germany or Japan, our presence there is making the problem bigger and more persistent.

[Roboto]

Frank Rich in last Sunday's NYTimes column, also claims McCain did not mean 100 years of war in Iraq.