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

[JulieSA]

Here's non-partisan Factcheck.org: "There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a RANK FALSEHOOD for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

Here's the real danger for Dems: one of the only things Obama has going for him is the perception that he's a hopeful changy person who doesn't engage in old-style politics. And yet here he is, deliberately misleading with the 100 years of war thing. It makes him look an old-school mudslinger.

[Mormondude]

If anyone is advocating "endless war", it's Obama, not McCain.

Sure, McCain favors a permanent presence in Iraq, as we have had in South Korea, Germany, etc, and which have created stability in previously unstable regions of the world. But we aren't spending $300 billion per year in Germany. And we're not spending $300 billion per year in South Korea, either. McCain would reduce the war spending once that is possible.

Now Obama on the other hand has stated that he intends to take "the Iraq money" and spend it here! Yes, the same Obama who said we couldn't create prosperity on a Chinese credit card intends to use that Chinese credit card himself to implement all his spending. He intends to continue spending like we're at war, long after the war has ended. So in that sense, Obama is the one supporting 'endless war', or at the very least 'endless war spending'. NO THANKS!

[shamanbart]

Wow, back-to-back troll-speak by Mormondude and JulieSA.

To debunk JulieSA's comment -- McCain has continued to speak in favor of a continued occupation of Iraq with permanent military bases. Historically, Iraqis don't tend to be a welcoming bunch, so its unlikely fighting will stop anytime soon.

Obama has consistently stated he will get us out of Iraq, carefully, but OUT. The 100 years comment is McCains, not something made up by Obama, and represents accurately what McCain said.

Regarding MD's nonsense, the comparison to S. Korea and Germany is ridiculous. Our army is not kicking down doors in either country, arresting and killing its people. The US presence in those countries is with their consent, whereas our presence in Iraq is clearly against their will.

Obama said no such thing about taking the Iraqi money and spending it here. Also, if its "Iraqi money", how does it become a Chinese credit card? Have a source for that? Yeah, I didn't think so. I believe he suggested that what hasn't been done is to use revenues from Iraqi oil to pay for Iraqi reconstruction. But that's a ways off, since their oil business has yet to recover.

[ejay579]

I believe you slept through History and Economics 101 just as McCain did.

[SteveNearDC]

Your title/name says it all.
Now go back to being ignorant.

[jorge999]

Checking the 'facts' from Fact Check:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220002
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2005/08/factcheckorg_st.html
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib200
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802140013
Is it about getting the facts? Or is it just a good gig? ...and about getting a 'fat check'!

[WLA]

Ludicrous. Talk about taking words out of context.

[rwt1138]

Factcheck is wrong on this one, unless they are splitting hairs and mean that this singular comment is not sufficient evidence of his desire for endless war. It is clear from his public statements that McCain not only envisions continuing the occupation of Iraq long term, but also future conflicts as well. His campaign trail belligerence against Iran is woefully underreported in the press, but is ominous. Pointing out that McCain is a warmonger is not mudslinging, it's simply stating the facts as he himself presents them.
As for envisioning an occupation like South Korea, that's a ridiculous comparison, even more so in light of recent events. We are a hostile occupation force in the eyes of the Iraqis and will continue to be so until we quit occupying the country.
Any potential logic to our continued presence in Iraq was blown out of the water when Maliki stormed Basra, got handed his head, and all out open civil warfare was averted only with the intercession--of Iran. Someone aptly described this strategy as the Pony Strategy: Stay in Iraq long enough and a magic pony will appear.
McCain is a huge believer in the Pony Strategy. He's still angry we didn't wait long enough for the pony in Vietnam. He is determined, if he becomes president, to stay the course as long as it takes and whatever the cost in money and lives to get that pony.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the Pony Strategy.

[julieeiluj]

To watch the news is to NOT GET THE NEWS. To watch the news is to watch just what they want you to see, for ratings and the shaping of public opinion and indeed, even elections. To watch the news as it is called is to watch what corporate America wants you to see and hear. It is not news.

[zerostress]

"I commend him for his opposition to torture"

What opposition to torture? Didn't he vote recently against a bill proposing sweeping new restrictions on interrogation methods used by the CIA and ban a widely condemned technique known as waterboarding ?

[StrayTalk]

Thanks Dave, We all heard his answer...100 more years of Iraqis greeting us as liberators.

[gliderguy]

So, here we go again. Give some of us some credit. Maybe we do watch and listen to the news and understand it.

Just a few minutes ago I got a call from the Obama campaign asking who I was voting for in April (I'm in PA) and had another call last week from the Hill crowd. I told both my preference, but asked that they straighten out their candidate on this misquote. Both lose all credibility when they misquote like this...and then the Huff follows suit. Not impressed...please don't treat us like idiots. Yeah, I know it worked for Bush...maybe we're a tad more savvy?

[WLA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Here is the video.

[ldjnews]

Are you kidding? McCain's original statement is not hard to understand. No one is splitting hairs. McCain said he'd stay in Iraq provided that no Americans were harmed or killed. What's is so hard about understanding the phrase "provided that"? Herztberg's interpretation may be what Hertzberg would like to believe, but it is NOT what McCain said. McCain did not say "until." There is a difference between "provided that" and "until." So what's McCain's plan? His 100 years begins on his first day in office, if he becomes president. Does that mean that after the first American who is hurt or killed, he will call for the immediate exodus of all American troops? How about if we ask McCain and let him answer the question.

[ResidentChimp]

It's amazing that HuffPo is even carrying this canard. Even Obama and his people have admitted McCain was taken out of context. The clearest indication is that you don't hear it in any of Obama's speeches any more. Obama was nailed for lying about what McCain had said. Old Dave doesn't seem to get out much or hear too clearly.

[NightRider]

Was Rev Wright comments taken out of context?

It's amazing how context becomes relevant now.

He said "100 years". Enough said.

[ldjnews]

The Obama campaign and the Clinton campaigns focused on the 100 years part. They claimed that McCain said he planned to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He called foul and lies. The "provided that" phrase refers to how long troops will stay. That's the context! That was his position about Bush's statement in which he said we'd be there for 50 more years. The statement lacks judgment. It bends into duplicity. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he’s just confused after all. And now he's confusing us! In the controversial statement he promises to withdraw all troops if any American gets hurt. Later on he said he meant after the war. The war is ending? Did he skip a step? Does this statement divert the issue of taking a position on the war today? Does he think Iraq is in a similar state today as is Korea? Which is it? We really need to ask him before we get even more confused.

Here on YouTube he is saying it's fine with him to stay in Iraq "as long as" Americans are not harmed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

And here it is in transcript.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/01/mccain-on-iraq1.html

[SupremeIdiot]

If McCains statement means that we'll stay in Iraq "provided" no Americans were harmed or killed then he's advocating leaving right now.

[mgsorens]

No reasonable person could possibly believe that McCain was suggesting the war should continue for a hundred years. That much is crystal clear.

Obama could have been more honest and still criticized McCain's remark if he disagreed with it, but instead he claimed that McCain endorsed a continuation of the war, the spending, and the casualties that we have seen over the last four years.

That seems to fit the definition of a lie.

[SupremeIdiot]

Bull.

First. There is no war in Iraq. The war is over. It is now an occupation.

Second. What McCain is advocating is a continuation of the exact same situation that now pervades Iraq. That much is even more crystal clear.

Third. As the writer states above, McCain seems to be unconcerned at how many American lives are lost and how much money is spent and doesn't even contemplate what it will mean to have permanent bases in Iraq that will be attacked at regular intervals.

Now tell me what exactly about that is a lie.

[indie17]

Americans are still being killed. There is no working exit strategy. What we are doing is still resulting in death. McCain has no plan, other than forseeing an ongoing occupation.

All we can assume at this point is that with McCain we will see a continuation of the war, the spending, and the casualties. That much is crystal clear.

[shamanbart]

mgsorens comments miss two basic facts:

1. Any reasonable person would conclude from McCain's answers (as well as other recent speeches) that he would fight indefinitely until "we won", and then he would establish bases there (thereby continuing an occupation) permanently. So the occupation could conceivably last 100 years or more.

2. Obama has said in past speeches "McCain would have us in Iraq for 100 years" -- which agrees with the principle of McCain's policy.

So is McCain lying when he said he'd be there for 100 years? Or is it more macho bluster?

[lynnn]

I wish you could get on TV, or do a viral video, this needs to be heard.

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

You gave is McCain New Hampshire, dont worry Republican Crossover will give the Democrats Hillary!

Rush Voter: 021217162871

[ejay579]

I am curious. Do you live in one of the state in which crossing over merely to creat havoc in the Democratic primary is voting fraud?

[TheIndependenceParty]

Thank you, Dave! Folks like "KCG" above would have us believe there is a justification for an "Empire" such as BushCo had imagined, ... to have a base, ... an American Military foothold in every nation in the world. How else can one explain the construction of the embassy in Baghdad, ... reportedly the largest in the World? Who will defend it? Our Iraqi friends?, ... Blackwater? Or will this man from the bottom of his class at the USNA commit his brothers in the US Army to defend this latter day Tower of Babel that Bush built?

For McCain to say that it is fine with him if America remains in Iraq for 100 years, is an acknowledgent by this failing old fool that he is clueless what to do to end our engagement there in that country, ... the makings of his partiy's predecssor in the office he says he wants.

Lord knows if he can't tell which side is which, he sure as hell won't know how to lead our troops out of Iraq with honor! God save us from this Old Dunderhead!

[civitat]

I was at this town hall meeting and completely agree with the questioner's account. (I also remember the questioner and his "Ernest Hemingway" appearance!) I attended the townhall because I was interested in McCain and wanted to hear what he would say. I was impressed by his demeanor and many of his remarks during the forum. But I heard his "100 years" comment and was shocked by it. It was clear to all of us in the room that McCain did not mean he would simply maintain peacetime bases in Iraq: He meant that he would keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. It was a serious remark and people in the room took it seriously. Some agreed and some disagreed. McCain, like any candidate, can change his views; I think deliberation and reconsideration are good things in a politician. But to claim that others are lying about what he said is immoral--it is the very worst of what politics has become.

[JulieSA]

"He meant that he would keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years if necessary."

That's not what he said. It's on video. What is so hard to understand here?

[ianrey]

What's hard to understand is the doublespeak. The logical fallacy of arguing from false premise. "Provided that" there are no casualties? Someone should tell him that there are casualties, and they continue to mount. That gives the lie to his argument. "Gives the lie", by coincidence, is the first bullet point in George Bush's resume, and John McCain lists Bush as his first reference. Here's some more exercises on that same riff:

Provided that Republicans always tell the truth, it's OK to give Bush the authorization to invade.

Provided that Saddam Hussein has WMD, he is a huge threat to America.

Provided that George Bush is a military genius, the war should go fine.

Provided that the neocons rely on commanders on the ground, the fighting should end quickly.

Provided that we have no ulterior motives in our occupation, the people will greet us as liberators.

See what you can do when you argue from false premises? McCain is an untrustworthy, two-faced warmonger who will continue Bush's quagmire until we pry it from his cold, dead hands. What is so hard to understand here?

[booksnmore4you]

Look, it is just completely wrongheaded and legalistic to think McCain was meaning 100 years in some literal sense. Obama should stop using the quote - actually, he should use it as McCain meant it: our commitment there is open ended.

[Economike]

see above

[NCYvonne]

Thank you for speaking up! It's hard to deny you said what you said when there's videotape!

[Thorn]

Yes, there is video. And it utterly contradicts what you're trying to paint. If you're under the illusion that the Columbia Journalism Review, for example, is a right-wing publication, get help. As to the author of this post, who is obviously thrilled for his nine seconds in the limelight, good luck with your goal of securing peace in southern New Hampshire. You're climbing the mountain, my friend.

[NightRider]

The whole country heard "100 years".

The whole country heard Dick Cheney "So".

They are playing with our military. I am hoping for a military coup in this country.

[kingcityguru]

Why must you Libs believe you must lie to win?

McCain's point was that like Japan or Korea the US could be in Iraq for many years if there was a situation where US lives were not being lost. How many soldiers have been killed in South Korea this year?

[JSquercia]

Obviously you did not read the article the 100 years was after he was asked about Bush's 50 years .BTW you want to know how make sure no American's are killed in Iraq GET THE HELL out End the occupation . It is really rather Simple .
How many did we lose in our Occupation of Germany and Japan ?

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

sometime 4000 plus in one month

[edgeways]

Really? Where does he say that? Or are we suppose to just infer it, from a man who has repeatedly shown he has very little grasp on the issues surrounding Iraq.

[TheIndependenceParty]

55 Years after the fact? Come on KCG! Would you tell your granddaughter there was a decent living to be made along the Military Demarcation Line as an army grunt? Or should we outsource that to Blackwater, too?

[apogee2perogee]

You obviously know little about the Korean situation either. The North Koreans have shot across the DMZ at our troops and South Korean troops many times since the end of the so called police action. North Korea has also continued to tunnel beneath the DMZ in the past 55 years. Maybe no US soldiers killed this year, but it has happened in the past along the DMZ.

The DMZ is the most heavily armed border in the world. In the period between 1953 and 1999 sporadic outbreaks of violence due to North Korean hostilities has killed over 500 South Korean soldiers and 50 U.S. soldiers along the DMZ between 1953 and 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone

[lynnn]

I'm waiting for Young Republicans across the country to join up and help are dwindling armed forces so we don't have stop loss.

I'm still waiting on the Yellow Elephants to man up.

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

I did my time (Airwing Marine 2 MAW) so what did you do while fueling the 5th Column?