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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thanks Dave! McCain would like to have this war as a multi-generational type of sacrifice of blood and treasure (or borrowed treasure, indebting generations for years to come).
Correction: (But, you're right: he didn't say 100 year >WAR< -- and neither are we).
You know what I don't understand? There are age limits for just about every job in America.
The most important job : PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES , and we don't have a age limit???
McCain is INSANE and should never be allowed to set foot in that office.
Note to Congress: set a age limit on the presidency
Um, there is an age limit to be President of the US. You have to be over 35.
So now you want to cap it to what? Between 35 and 65?
Insanity doesnt need an age to start, McCain was an insane insider trader 20 years ago, no one cared apparently, so now he gets to run as Prez as an "elder statesman" when he should have been laughed out of washington 20 years ago and sent to prison.
You were doing fine until you said this:
"I like John McCain. I commend him for his opposition to torture,..
uh, excuse me. McCain recently refused to support a bill banning torture, and then went light-years further by ENDORSING bush's VETO of that bill.
How. exactly, does that constitute "being against torture"?
Un-freakin
Honest to God, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS !!!!!!!!!!!
Give the author a break; despite McCain's recent actions that you cite, he had been very outspoken in his criticism of this administration's use of torture. You want McCain, you don't want to go after the author.
The poster's passion is understandable.
"despite McCain's recent actions that you cite, he had been very outspoken in his criticism of this administration's use of torture."
Flip flop, anyone? Actions are what counts, not words, especially in an election season.
This torture issue is disgusting our allies and empowering our enemies. And the release of the Woo memo this week confirms it comes from the top.
Torture must end or we have no credibility on the international stage.
You took the words right off my fingertips, rg.
This confused, erratic, short fused old man, needs a TelePromTer every time he opens his mouth. Maybe someboyd can design one pocket size for him. Otherwise, Lieberman will have to be at his side 24/7.
Mr. Tiffany, THANK YOU for writing this post. I have been mystified by the coverage of this, especially by those so offended by "context." Heard it in context, and have been clear on what he meant ever since.
Why is the US occupation of unlimited lands a topic of conversation in this election? John McCain is at least "straight talking" about his commitment to unending occupation and war in foreign lands.
The question is, is America interested in continuing this disasterous course? Or are we ready for some CHANGE yet?
Obama wants to not only GET US OUT OF THIS WAR, but also "change the mindset that got us into war."
CORRECTION: Why is the US occupation of unlimited lands NOT a topic of conversation in this election.
You heard it here first, folks! Straight from the horse's mouth!
On, McCain -- I liked him once, back in the day. (Gosh, five years ago seems like a long time!)
Will humanity be around in a million years so as to continue the Iraq war? just wondering
HuffPost's Pick
Dang, I wish people would get the "100 year" quote right! Even the guy who asked the question can't get it right. The transcript of the quote is clear. McCain said that U.S. troops may be in Iraq for 100 years ... JUST LIKE TROOPS ARE STILL IN KOREA AND GERMANY AND VIETNAM. It doesn't mean we are fighting there, it means we are keeping peace there. Despite what the liberals claim, he never said he wanted a 100 year war.
So, what peace are we keeping in Germany? Are we there just to make sure that if Hitler rises from the dead and tries to take over the world again, we'll be there Johnny on the spot to keep him in check?
I vacationed in VIetnam recently and I didn't see any sign of imminent danger whatsoever. I couldn't help wonder why the heck we still have troops there.
we still have troops in Vietnam?
I think Germany was chosen by the US not to keep peace in Germany anymore than a large naval presence, at Subic Bay , in the Philippines, kept peace there.
It appears with the breaking up of the Soviet Union that perhaps a country such as Poland may be the new staging ground for US forces, but not to keep peace in Poland.
I have no problem funding peace keeping forces in nations that feel threatened, but don't like the idea that our troops should ever be used as aggressors against countries that are not a threat to world peace and don't want us there in the first place.
Of course he didn't point out the five to ten years of intense civil war in Germany following our victory before peace came. Maybe that's because the German model (and the others) is entirely inappropriate.
Your interpretation is almost identical to Dave's, that once our army occupies a country, we don't EVER leave.
Well, actually, de Gaule threw us out.
And none of you consider how YOU would feel about a foreign army occupying the United States for decades. And you whine, "Why don't they like us?"
Why is this comment a "huffpost pick"? It's incomplete and misleading.
As Mr. Tiffany noted, McCain will stay in Iraq as long as it takes, no matter how many Americans are killed pacifying it. When the American's stop dying, well then we'll just stay. Americans keep dying, we fight on.
And why isn't the US military occupation of the world an appropriate topic for discussion?
This is not a strategy for war. This is an OCCUPATION. We are an empire now, occupying other countries for our own gain.
Even our Allies are starting to fear us. This is a dark, dark situation. We need to get out. Now.
The way this war is going with no end in sight, we will be there for 100 years. The point the post is trying to make is that McCain is a WAR MONGLER. He lives and breathes it and if you don't agree with him he will throw a hissy fit. He is known to have a open trash mouth and if people don't agree with his policies he dosen't give a shit. Now , who does that sound like? The current ass of a president, perhaps?
The other point is that Iraq will never be stable, it was never stable to begin with. The only glue that held that country together was Saddam. Like the man or not, there has never been more bloodshed than today after he has hung. There are plenty of bad people in the world that run countries. Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld had a bug up their ass for a long time to envade that country. Now we have a total mess and no easy answer to get out of that country. When Bush is back on the RANCH we will still be in this freaking mess he created. He should be thrown over there to fight in this war. They are accepting older folks now after all.
I don't want my kids going into THEIR CIVIL WAR, and that is exactly what it is.
Since the war is over (remember Mission Accomplished!?), and we are technically in an occupation -- then, that means your interpretation is incorrect. We are objecting to the notion of the possibility of 100 years of >occupation< in Iraq. Therefore, your logic buys into the possibility of a 100 years of occupation in Iraq -- which is the issue of the year. (But, you're right: he didn't say 100 year >year< -- and neither are we).
Another fallacy: U.S. troops presently in Viet Nam? Show me the evidence, please.
Also -- who says we should still be in Korea and Germany -- I don't, for one!
(HuffPost, you think this comment was spot on? LOL)
Well done - except the "like John McCain" part. Anybody else notice McCain's eerie resemblance to Dr. Evil"?
I agree. He had me on his side....un
That'll get the democats elected...
Maybe. But I think what will get them elected is this mess of a war and the current mess of an economy.
Wake up there, Hemingway.
McCain has changed his mind on what you call his "opposition to torture." He now favors it.
How anyone can say he "works for peace" but likes McCain is puzzling. Do "Independent" voters stand for anything?
In 2005, McCain led the effort in the Senate to pass the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which made the use of torture illegal. While claiming that he had succeeded in passing a categorical ban on torture, however, McCain meekly accepted two White House maneuvers that diluted his legislation to the point of meaningless: (1) the torture ban expressly applied only to the U.S. military, but not to the intelligence community, which was exempt, thus ensuring that the C.I.A.--th
Thank you. That was a great clarification.
And the only way to test the legality of Little Caesar's "signing statements" is, of course, for Congress to bring criminal charges against him. Otherwise, the prinicple that the President can break any law he likes has a precedent for, say, a Democratic President to use when he wants to, say, jail Republicans without that "quaint" habeas corpus.
Right on, Citizen54. McCrazy is just one more Republican lunatic. The press is at fault for never challenging his persona of good guy.
Mr. Tiffany, working for peace means working for the Democratic Party. You'll never get peace, justice, and the American way (with apologies to Superman) with Repukes in office.
I'm a Democrat and working for peace does not necessarily mean working for the Democratic party; check out the number of Democrats who voted for the Iraq authorization bill (not just Hillary) and who continue to fund the war (including Obama). To tie the search for peace to one political party is to limit the chances of working towards peace.
Can you imagine McCrazy, who approves of torture, having one of his outbursts? I wonder who is the brave soul willing to run for VP.
No, McCain, like Bush, have an agenda to keep. How long they will remain in the middle East will be directly related to how much longer the oil will last.
If they cite 100 years, I suspect their oil buddies have indicated that is how much longer they think they can bleed oil out of the sand. In Iraq it was never about terror other than that felt at the prospect of losing oil profits.
They like to talk about "liberating" oppressed people and removing tyrants from power but that is just hollow rhetoric. A cover story. After all what have we done to remove tyrants from Africa? Nothing...
I've said it before. http://www
Mr. Tiffany states, "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."
. . . "until no more Americans are getting killed" Is this the "definition: of win? What about Iraqi's getting killed? Or as suggested above, when the oil runs out? Is this the "definition: of win? Or is it which ever of these scenarios occur first?
The definition of "win" like all words used by the neocons and their dupes (McCain) is a moving bar. When they use a word it means what they want it to mean... this time.
QUOTE:
"Dave Tiffany is a politically independent activist working for peace in the Southern New Hampshire area."
TRANSLATION:
"I live off the taxpayer tit, sucking everyone else through Social Security, welfare and food stamps. That way, I can chase after kooky, non-productive things in life, while you pay for it."
Even if what you say is true, how much are we "paying" Mr. Tiffany? Does it come anywhere near the trillions of dollars we are paying for the war in Iraq? I thought not.
How much are we paying the mercenaries to fight in Iraq? Something like a hundred and forty thousand a year apiece? How much do we pay our military, the ones Mr. Cheney says "volunteered" to be sent by a pack of chickenhawks into a war against a country that did nothing to us, a war based on presidential lies, a war that GREATLY rewarded the corporations of both his VP and his secretary of defense?
I suppose you think it is a mere coincidence that we got the heads of Bechtel and Halliburton and now---all of a sudden--we are embroiled in a war that has sent their corporate profits soaring...
And 4 more years of this and worse if McCain is elected.
Yes Smartey, he pursues kooky non-productive things in life like peace. Your right, he could make a lot more money getting into the War business. Well played sir :)
Hmm, politically independent peace activist = welfare recipient. More inane logic: you qualify for a job with the neo-cons. What's that? You already have one? That figures!
Smartey, your handle is definitely not descriptive of you! I flagged your message as abusive. Please don't spread slime like that on this site.
I have likewise flagged your denial of my freedom of speech as equally "abusive".
Other than that, eat me.
Yeah, no chance he earned any of that through fifty years of hard work, "Smartey".
MORE WAR; MORE WAR! A vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same. Maybe the October Surprise will be Georgie suspending Constitutional Law, AND the election, and stay around until the end of the Iraq War. Cool, huh?
MY question for old Johnny baby is this: Why wait until you're elected to go get Osama? If you know where and how to get him buddy-boy, you get off your ass and get him now! Or shut-up about it. Or maybe THAT's the October Surprise; Osama bin Laden's capture. hmmmm... But if they get him now, they show they've known all along, and used it to make a campaign viable. You know: kind of like Iran in 1980. Makes me wonder what these 'chuzzle-wits' WOULDN'T do to elected.
Perhaps they will make him a special guest at the Republican Convention in Minneapolis. Once all the delegates have found their way from the airport men's room to the convention floor, McLame can bring out Osama in chains and say, "I want to thank the man who has done so much for the Republican Party and helped to enrich so many of your wallets."
Mr. Tiffany, I think you are confused about who McCain really is. The McCain you describe in your last paragraph is a previous incarnation of McCain - you know, the person he used to be before he sold out to the neo-cons and the religious right. McCain is now all for torture, now wants the Bush tax cuts permanent, has caved on immigration, and now eagerly seeks the support and endorsements of right-wing religious extremists like Hagee - the same religious leaders who in 2000 McCain called "agents of intolerance". McCain sold his soul to the Republicans for the nomination, and in the process turned his back on every moral stand that he once had. McCain as president is now a terrifying prospect. Like Bush and his cronies, McCain is completely clueless to the realities and truth of the problems we face here at home, in the Middle East, and around the world. The only truth they know is the one that they hope if they repeat often enough will become truth. As far as McCain being "willing to engage in debate with those who disagree with him" - well, that is the biggest laugh of all. McCain is infamous for his temper and his inability to engage in a coherent conversation with people of differning points of view without resorting to foul language and insults. Maybe you hope McCain is the person you describe; maybe he once was. But that is certainly not the person he is today.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
