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
How long have we had a presence in Germany? 64 Years. In Japan? 64 Years. In Korea? In Cuba? In Kosovo? In Saudi Arabia? Kuwaitt? The United States has a presence all over the world so who is to say we may not have a presence in Iraq, a strategic point, for 100 years. In 36 years we will have reached that bench mark in Japan and Germany. I know the bumper sticker liberals get fixated on one channel of thought but we do have a world presence that is wanted and needed no matter how much you detest the military and this country.
One Country, One Language, One Culture, One Nation Under GOD Since 1776.
Since you love the military and this country so much, are you serving or have you served?
Also, how much more do we borrow from China for out 100 years in Iraq? BTW, we aren't occupying and propping up the governments of Korea, Germany, Cuba, Saudi Arabia (where Bush removed the bases that Bin Laden told him to move), or Kuwaitt (not sure about Kosovo). Hell, I agree with Ron Paul, close all those overseas bases and bring everyone home, save some money and pay the troops more and take care of them and pass Jim Webbs GI bill and pay them back for their hard work and service. I support the troops, I want them to live and see their kids grow up, while you want to send them off to an oil war. Who's more patriotic now? I can scream I love my country louder than you can.
The chief difference between the cases that you cite and the situation in Iraq is that after World War II and after the Korean War, American soldiers were not being killed regularly by the local population, as they have been in Iraq since Bush declared "Mission Accomplish
Our presence in Cuba is a result of the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903, which most Cubans have regarded as invalid since it was forced on them after the Spanish-American War. U. S. military presence in Saudi Arabia led to the bombing of the Khobar Towers and to the attacks of 9/11/01, since Osama bin Laden stated that having U. S. troops in Saudi Arabia was a desecration of sacred Islamic soil. In Kuwait, the U. S. has become the protector of a dictatorial royal family which still does not allow women to vote.
The U. S. overthrew an Iraqi government run by Sunnis (which was opposed to Iran), only to see it be replaced by a Shi'ite government favorable to Iran. The Kurds are a different ethnic group which wants its own country. To expect Americans soldiers to give their lives to pacify a three-way Iraqi civil war is unconscionable.
ONE LUNATIC!!!!
PS OTHER THAN GUANTANAMO
One planet, one people, many languages.
Are YOU going to pay for it? Are YOU going to shell out billions of dollars a day ad infinitum? Are YOU going to give up your tax breaks?
I know money isn't important when it comes to spreading democracy, but this OCCUPATION does have a real financial cost. We cannot afford it. This might be selfish, but I'd rather see us supporting America instead of Iraq.
Do you neocons EVER bother to fact check what your masters feed you? 70% of Iraqis want us out and have wanted us out for over 4 years now. Considering they're the ones that would be most affected by the disaster that will be unleashed when we leave, don't you think their opinion should be included? With no clean water, 2 hours of electricity each day, and a pool of sewage in the middle of Baghdad so large it can be seen from space, I'm sure they'll have plenty of motivation to speak up.
As for liberals detesting the military, I hope that little stereotype helps you sleep at night because reality would probably leave you with insomnia. The right has nearly broken the back of the military. Most Republicans voted AGAINST the Webb amendment to give soldiers equal time at home and in theater. When Abu Ghraib broke, this administration blamed individual soldiers for what we learned last week was a systematic program of abuse originating from the White House itself. That's support for the military? Sounds more to me like accusations of liberal treason were preemptive cover for the truly traitorous abuse of our armies.
Try reading a couple of Veterans For America reports as you prepare to receive your next propaganda delivery:
http://www
http://www
It's not so much that McCain will stay forever in Iraq, but the main thing is, the man's a back room crook. He'll be in the back pocket of ExxonMobile and for sure the OPEC boys!
A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush/Cheney!
KEATING FIVE, MCCAIN GOT $112,000, COST TAXPAYERS $3.4 BILLION, 9 FREE DREAM TRIPS CORRUPTION!
We know the man is willing to tank who/whatever he needs to. Imagin how much he's getting from the defense contractors? (Or, should I say, WILL get?)
Let's talk numbers.
Next year's budget is $2 Trillion, more than 50% of it estimated to be targeted for defense. Could be much higher but let's take 50%. That's $1 Trillion a year. First of all, you'll need a calculator that can handle a number consisting of "1 followed by 12 zeros." Now, do the math. Divide by 365 days, then 24 hours in a day, then 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute.
Every bit of this "so-called money" is, of course, "so-called borrowed." At this rate, how many seconds will it take to equal everything you'll make this year? In your lifetime?
Now multiply that by a hundred. ("You're a greedy b*stard" at heart, so why not?) Endless war mans endless money for you, all of it borrowed, obtained without bids and obtained without effort just as long as you keep Congress's palms well greased.
King Midas' wet-dream.
The implosion will eventually happen, of course, but you've thought that angle too. You've set up what you call a "multi-national corporation," which (with enough grease) you've caused to mean "we operate in each country with the full rights of any of its citizens, but we don't operate in any of them."
To understand the nature of the threat, think "sociopath
Just divide 1,000,000,000,000 by 300,000,000 and let's ask each citizen (man, woman, child) to voluntarily send $ 3,333.33 a year to the Iraq War Fund. Then we don't have to borrow from China. And those who really support the war/occupation will have the satisfaction that their very own money is safe in Halliburton executives' Swiss bank accounts.
If there is anything that drives the right wing insane with rage, it is having their own words used against them. It is one of their favorite tactics to use on opponents but they feel no one has the right to do it to them.
Mccain's idea that America should stay in Iraq for a century so long as no one is killing or maiming Americans is comforting but silly. If we had any idea of how to stop the deaths and maimings of Americans in Iraq we'd have done it by now or even years ago. (Of course if we left the area, there is a good chance the damage to American bodies in Iraq would cease.)
So you don't believe we've stayed in Japan for 60 years and Korea for 50 years? How about Germany? If there is one death in one of those countries, does it make what McCain said less valid? During WWII the surrender monkeys were making the same comments about making the deaths and maimings stop we would have done it years ago. The surrender monkey's solution to making it stop was to wave the white flag. Luckily America has ignored that advice on most occasions. In Vietnam when we didn't, the aftermath led to far more maiming and killings. Of course we could have save over 600,000 lives and millions of maimings if we had taken the "Copper Heads" advice during the Civil War.
didn't your lot lose ww2?i thought the allies won?
And of course, if you and McCain had had your way, and we had stayed in Vietnam, we could have had a few tens or hundreds of American deaths, and probably no army at all to invade Iraq.
Please, oh please, Resident Chimp, since you can't tell us about your military service, tell us ONE THING you have done to support the troops. The troops, not the brass, not Fearless Leader, but the troops. Anything. Blowing a soldier on leave will count.
And, of course, if they ARE killing Americans, we have to stay until the Victory Dance. It's a stay/stay situation.
McCain never actually debates anyone. He just keeps repeating that he "loves this country" and that he "tells the truth". That's it. Is his delusional characterization of real conditions in Iraq the truth? Are there enough willfully ignorant voters to implant this frightening old man into the White House?
it was straight talk.
100 years or until the oil is gone. at 5$ a gallon at the pump...
d
He's waiting to see who survives the mud fest on the Democrats side. It comforting to know that when Obama or Hillary finally take that three o'clock call, it will be from one of their advisors telling them that they lost the election.
What John McCain and his ilk are missing is that Iraq is not Germany or Japan. Iraq is a Muslim Country regardless of the infighting that is occurring today. The Shiites, the Kurds and the Sunnis all share the principals of Islam, they fight amongst themselves for power but they will fight the occupation until it ends. If anyone looks at history will see that John McWar’s Imperialistic aspirations will not work in Iraq. The sad part is Hil-liar Clinton is also a Warmonger.
Is it really possible that people like you actually think that little word games like "John McWar" and "Hil-liar Clinton" are clever and funny? The biggest threat to the US today has to be just how debased the dialogue has become. Like 3rd graders scuffling in the school yard. No one is interested in real discussion or solutions, just hurting the other side. Meanwhile, as you point out, the Muslims (anti-gay, anti-women, anti-abortion, anti-secular, tribal, hateful, puritanical, pro-oil - you know - everything you claim to hate), are united in the cause to wipe us out.
You certainly see the glass 1/2 empty. It is much easier to complain than offer real solutions. As for your opinion of Muslims. It is not nice to lump all people into one group. That, junior, is what we call racist. Thought I should frame that thought at a third grade level.
Thank you for the post. It needs to be repeated, to argue against the lies coming from the right.
In my opinion, there is no context in which "100 years in Iraq," or "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," make any sense whatsoever. But then, what do I know. I'm just an average voter, who is tired of lies and wars of agression.
mccain has spoken against torture but he voted for it at the latest opportunity i think thats what counts.is there any other "free"country where merely saying that you are opposed to torture makes you a liberal.he didn't even vote against it.
Well, there's an easy way to clear this one up. After all, we have video of McCain's 100 year remarks. Obama should just make an ad. A voice can say: McCain says Obama's lying about how long McCain wants us to stay in Iraq. Well, don't take Obama's word for it, watch for yourself then YOU make the call: Then cut to the videos of McCain saying 100 years, 10,000 years, a million years!
You can end it on the picture of McCain hugging the president.
That ought to do it
Thanks! Good post too!!
I think I speak for Democrats everywhere when I say THANK YOU DAVE !!!!! for asking that question. With your questions, you completely exposed McCain's illogical, unsustainable, ridiculous policy on Iraq.
You should get a honorary vote as a Democratic superdelegate.
If the media doesn't do it, I hope Obama's supporters rip McCain a new one, and playback his past speeches, Senate hearing comments, etc., to show Americans what he really stands for and against. Against veterans GI Bill benefits, VA funding, children's healthcare funding, pro-war, pro-taxbreaks for the rich, etc., ad nauseum.
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!
his opposition to torture, not
This is one point many of you have failed to realize:
Even if the Dems are taking the 100 years war out of context and McCain only wants troops stationed at an army base in Iraq, what American family do you think really wants to be stationed in Iraq? McCain is willing to sacrifice, not only our troops, but also the families of the troops for 100 years. There is no denying that fact. If troops are stationed there indefinitely, those that have families will also have to be stationed there. If McCain is elected, those families, and more to come, will surely have to make an unpleasant sacrifice none may be willing to commit to.
For all of you who defend McCain's words, let me ask you, how many of your wives, husbands and kids are willing to be stationed in Baghdad for 3 or 4 years? Can any of you imagine having 2 army brat teenagers being told they will have to move yet again? This time, they will be stationed in an army base in Baghdad or Fallujah? This will continue for 50 to 100 years according to McCain.
No, there is no mistaking about what McCain said. He said 100 years and he meant 100 YEARS.
Thank God guys like this were a minority back in WWII. Otherwise America would be in its 60th year of Nazi rule.
Yes bc the British were able to subdue Iraq in just 40 short years....o
Thats a good point, western nations have been trying to subdue muslim nations for years, and they can't. You can't go into another country, over throw it, kill hundreds of thousands of people and expect the population to thank you. No, you killed their family and friends, so they want to kill you. We kill them, they kill us, it is a never ending cycle. And don't tell me about WW2, we were fighting against Germany, Italy, and Japan who wanted to "TAKE OVER THE WORLD" and had already invaded several countries. Who are Iraqis invading? Nobody, we are the invaders and occupiers and we have no allies.
As if there is any comparison between what transpired during and after WWII and what is now going on in Iraq.
Save for the fact that a sovereign country was invaded and occupied.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
