The McCain 100 year war..

JAD_333 · 03-29-2008, 00:58 AM

When politicans lie it isn't usually this obvious.

Quote:

A RANK FALSEHOOD
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 28, 2008; Page A19

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The United States (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.

Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for the vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.

The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq war, McPeak (an Iraq war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)

Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.

As McPeak himself said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate." One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point -- it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.

Alternatively, one might advocate simply bolstering our presence in Kuwait, a choice that would minimize risk, albeit at the sacrifice of some power projection. Such a debate would be fruitful and help inform our current negotiations with Baghdad over the future status of American forces.

But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.' "

The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:

• "He says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

• "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

• "He's willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

• "What date between now and the election in November will he drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us . . . that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).

As Lenin is said to have said, "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.

Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee news release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. . . . Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "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."

The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.

Charles Krauthammer - 'A Rank Falsehood' - washingtonpost.com

**Ironduke** · 03-29-2008, 01:09 AM

Obama especially, his message of a "new kind of politics"... nah, not really. As time goes it becomes more obvious that he represents nothing new. For him to say these things is nothing but a complete and utter lie. I remember you saying that you want Obama to lose, but not because of Reverend Wright.

For this type of lie, he deserves the worst that sticks to him from the Reverend Wright scandal and the worst of the worst his political opponents hurl at him. What goes around, comes around.

JAD_333 · 03-29-2008, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Obama especially, his message of a "new kind of politics"... nah, not really. As time goes it becomes more obvious that he represents nothing new. For him to say these things is nothing but a complete and utter lie. I remember you saying that you want Obama to lose, but not because of Reverend Wright.

For this type of lie, he deserves the worst that sticks to him from the Reverend Wright scandal and the worst of the worst his political opponents hurl at him. What goes around, comes around.

This on top of that little story about him horning in on McCain-Kennedy's press conference after their meeting last year (which he missed) to hammer out the language for the immigration bill kind of makes you wonder. I expect it of Hillary and the "never check" media, but Mr. Clean...

**Ironduke** · 03-29-2008, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

This on top of that little story about him horning in on McCain-Kennedy's press conference after their meeting last year (which he missed) to hammer out the language for the immigration bill kind of makes you wonder. I expect it of Hillary and the "never check" media, but Mr. Clean...

I think I read something about that... he all the sudden showed up and they told him to shut it.

JAD_333 · 03-29-2008, 11:05 AM

That was the second meeting when he showed up late and started asking questions that had already been discussed.

The one I was talking about was earlier. He had come up to the senators as they were leaving the meeting room and learning a press conference was about to be held ,asked if he could tag along. I don't know how he actually got a turn at the mike--probably a reporter asked him a question, anyway the other senators' jaws drop as he starts thanking them for the bill which "he and senator ? had prosposed" (notice 'proposed' not 'introduced').

By deliberately lying about McCain's 100 years comment he joins the mere mortals at the foot of Mt Olympus. I am shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

Had I been his campaign manager I would have looked around at all the others lying about McCain's meaning and told him to expose the lie at the first opportunity...thus, Clinton looks bad and he looks good.

2DREZQ · 03-29-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Had I been his campaign manager I would have looked around at all the others lying about McCain's meaning and told him to expose the lie at the first opportunity...thus, Clinton looks bad and he looks good.

Couldn't be done. The slightest deviation from the rabid anti-war line of those who believe in him as the Messiah, and they turn on him quicker than the crowd in Jerusalem turned on their Messiah when he didn't deliver the goods the way they expected him to.

2DREZQ · 03-29-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

Couldn't be done. The slightest deviation from the rabid anti-war line of those who believe in him as the Messiah, and they turn on him quicker than the crowd in Jerusalem turned on their Messiah when he didn't deliver the goods the way they expected him to.

Hmm...
"The way of salvation is through Victory! Stay the course!"

"We will have no king but he who retreats immediately!"

JAD_333 · 03-30-2008, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

Couldn't be done. The slightest deviation from the rabid anti-war line of those who believe in him as the Messiah, and they turn on him quicker than the crowd in Jerusalem turned on their Messiah when he didn't deliver the goods the way they expected him to.

His anti-war bona fides wouldn't suffer one iota if, say, Clinton started carrying on about McCain's "100 year war" and he said, that's not what McCain said. He could put it like this..."not that I agree with McCain on Iraq
in any way, but he never said it might go on 100 years. He said...."

By doing that, Obama would score in the truth department. That never hurts a candidate, even a Messiah.

03-29-2008, 01:09 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ironduke Burgomaster Join Date: 08-02-03 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 6,800 Country:	Obama especially, his message of a "new kind of politics"... nah, not really. As time goes it becomes more obvious that he represents nothing new. For him to say these things is nothing but a complete and utter lie. I remember you saying that you want Obama to lose, but not because of Reverend Wright. For this type of lie, he deserves the worst that sticks to him from the Reverend Wright scandal and the worst of the worst his political opponents hurl at him. What goes around, comes around. __________________ The Buck Stops Here

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
‘US had designs on Iran before Iraq invasion’	Ray	The Iranian Question	10	05-01-2008 12:29 PM
Pakistan Economy	Neo	Political Discussions	3653	11-06-2007 10:30 AM
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
Principles of War for the Battlefield of the Future	Ray	The Field Mess	2	11-05-2006 10:42 AM
Guerilla Warfare	troung	The Staff College	13	04-05-2006 02:25 AM

03-29-2008, 11:05 AM	#5 (permalink)
JAD_333 *Defense Professional* Join Date: 04-15-07 Location: Virginia Posts: 2,691 Country:	That was the second meeting when he showed up late and started asking questions that had already been discussed. The one I was talking about was earlier. He had come up to the senators as they were leaving the meeting room and learning a press conference was about to be held ,asked if he could tag along. I don't know how he actually got a turn at the mike--probably a reporter asked him a question, anyway the other senators' jaws drop as he starts thanking them for the bill which "he and senator ? had prosposed" (notice 'proposed' not 'introduced'). By deliberately lying about McCain's 100 years comment he joins the mere mortals at the foot of Mt Olympus. I am shocked, I tell you. Shocked! Had I been his campaign manager I would have looked around at all the others lying about McCain's meaning and told him to expose the lie at the first opportunity...thus, Clinton looks bad and he looks good.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)