McCain's century-long problem
By Steve Benen Wednesday Apr 02, 2008 4:40pmDemocrats seem to have found the one criticism that gets John McCain angrier than anything else — bring up his comments about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for “100 years.” Every time a high profile Dem (Clinton, Obama, Dean, et al) mentions this, he becomes enraged and insists his comments have been mischaracterized.
It’s true that McCain did not, as a point of fact, indicate that he wants to see the ongoing war continue until 2108, but rather, he envisions thousands of American troops “maintaining a presence” in the country for 100 years, after some semblance of stability has been established. They’re not, to be fair, the same thing.
As far as the McCain campaign is concerned, this realization should effectively end the controversy. Joe Klein argues that McCain’s confused about this, too.
The problem with John McCain’s 100 years in Iraq formulation isn’t that he’s calling for 95 more years of combat — he isn’t — but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. It may well be possible to station U.S. troops in small, peripheral kingdoms like Dubai or Kuwait, but Iraq is — and has always been — volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement.
Quite right. I’d just add, however, that McCain already knows this. In fact, he’s admitted as much.
The point seems to have been largely forgotten, but back in November, after months of insisting that Korea could be a model for a long-term troop presence in Iraq, McCain abandoned this position, saying he doesn’t want to use Korea as a model, and adding that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make withdrawal inevitable.
Soon after, McCain went back to his original position again, saying that a Korean model is entirely appropriate. So, for those keeping score at home, McCain 1) endorsed a multi-decade presence in Iraq; 2) denounced a multi-decade presence in Iraq; 3) re-embraced his first point; and 4) blasted those who agreed with his second point as being incompetent.
At the risk of sounding impolite, this guy is starting to make Bush look like he’s engaged and knowledgeable.
Login or Register to post comments.
Bush is John McCain's Rev. Wright.
OT: Please post the story about Randi Rhodes. I want to hear what C&Lers think.
Just as a discrete review of Bush's public statements brand him as a paranoid personality, McCain's show him to be suffering from pre-senile dementia.
Yeah, just wait until the big demonstration happens in Iraq next Wednesday that has just been called by Sadr:
http://english.alalam.ir/en-NewsPage.asp?newsid=031030120080403184120
I cannot WAIT to see the world's reaction when millions of Iraqi's take to the streets demanding that the U.S. get the F out of their country!
And I especially can't wait to hear John McCain and his slimy side-kick Lieberman's reaction to it all...."Humina, humina, humina, humina.....".
Lollimom @ 2:
My understanding is that she called Hillary Clinton and Ferraro "whores" when she was on her own time and off-air.
Unless her contract stipulates that she has given up her Constitutional right to free speech while off the air, I think they were wrong to suspend her.
I'm so sick of hearing that the problem with the 100 year occupation in Iraq statememt is misunderstanding Iraq, the Arab world, or Islam. The issue is the occupation. The occupation in Germany came upon the heels of WWII and the occupation was clearly not an attempt to colonize Germany or grab/control its resources. Daily life after a couple of years returned to a kind of normalcy. American troops in fairly short order didn't patrol the streets. Nor did the presence of American troops diminish from German sovereignty. Now I'm not a fan of a continued US presence in Germany. There is no reason ouside of an resupply outpost for US imperialism for the continued, if greatly diminished, troop presence in Germany. But even given the good reasons for the initial occupation--namely Nazi Germany--if this presence had turned into an occupation, Germans would have revolted, and understandably. Our troops in Iraq are there as an occupation. And they are there during an ongoing civil war. And they are there as part of a move to control Iraqi oil. It's not about the mysterious ways of these inscrutable Arabs, nor is it about Islam and its dislike of infidels. Stop the orientalizing crap. It's about the occupation!
Somebody needs to ask McCain to answer the real issue of this discussion. Nobody is ever asking how long we have peacekeeping forces or a base there. People want to know how long McCain thinks we can sustain 140,000 troups in Iraq fighting. That's the real question. McCain (and Bush) just cloud the issue when they say things like 'we're still in Korea'.
McCain's middle name must be cognitive dissonance: Korea and Iraq aren't similar.
Oh, McGrampy just wants us to tell us how wunnerful he is and anything short of that makes his undies chafe. Just like a certain poo-chucking president I am thinking of at the mo'.
Man, talk about a guy who caves under pressure! Anything that makes him uncomfortable has him flying off the handle. And this kookmire wants to weight and responsibility of running a country??? Har! Methinks that McStubs sees the presidency more as some sort of a top-shelf carnival prize rather than a position that requires consistency and competence, to name a just a few personal attributes.
Abbybwood @ 5:
She was at an event co-sponsored by Air America. Story is at Huffington Post.
The reason McCain sounds so wishy washy is that he is trying to please everybody instead of just sticking to his guns and saying what he really believes. He is far from the intellectually inept person that W is, but is is equal in his dishonesty. Worse though, is his dishonesty is with himself, not just us.
I was a McCain man back in 2000. I would sooner vote for a can of soup now.
Lilybelle @ 6:
100% agree.
No W Now @ 11:
He can't remember what he truly believes.
If the Obama campaign runs a series of commercials of McShrub flipping and flopping on just about every issue with back to back footage of his completely contradictory positions, he is toast. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Obama should do his best to goad McShrub into losing his temper during the debates. Bring up the 100 year occupation, needle him about it again and again. Bring up the Keating Five. Ask him why he has dozens of lobbyists on his payroll.
All it will take is one on camera explosion from McShrub and he'll explode like a burning Bush. Heh.
Rachel Maddow had a quote from McCain in which he said we had no business being in Lebanon in 1983. FWIW.
I say we pound the hell out of the quote at every opportunity. They quote Rev. Wright's "goddamn America" and we come back with "100 years"... which do MOST people find REALLY scary?
Even here in the south: no contest.
I think its possible for the left to overplay the 100 years comment because it allows the McCain folks to legitimize the occupation of Iraq by comparison to Japan or Korea. These are totally different scenarios. Japan attacked us. Germany declared war on us. The Korean war, although I believe it was misguided, was a UN mission.
The occupation of Iraq doesn't even have the legitimacy that the Vietnam War purported.
Besides in the next sentence, McCain said he doesn't want to keep troops there if they are being shot at and killed. Well, John, it looks like they are being shot at and killed. What's plan B, Sen. McWe-Didn't-Learn-The-Lessons-of-Vietnam.
Lilybelle-
"... (b)ut even given the good reasons for the initial occupation–namely Nazi Germany–if this presence had turned into an occupation, Germans would have revolted, and understandably."
To put a finer point on it, the occupation of Germany also has a lot to do with the First and Second Schleswig Wars, the Six Weeks War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Agadir Crisis, WW I, and then the Nazis. That's 97 years of pretty shitty behavior by Germany towards their neighbors.
maby a little history on the korean war would be useful, at the end of ww2 russia held north korea and trained a communist north korean army under kim l sung, america held south korea and they devided korea up at the 38th paraell, in the south the leader was sigman ree, of the south korean people, it was decided that both russia and america would leave korea , the last troops to withdraw from south korea was the 7th infantry div! america trained the south korean troops , while the north koreans were left well armed with tanks and artillery the americans left the south with mostly small arms and little ammunitions, the reason for this was sigman ree had stated he would take back north korea by force so truman left the south at a disadvantage, anyway the war started after our secatary of state announced over the radio to the world that america would not defend any country in asia past the philillipenes and kim el sung invaded the south after hearing john foster dellius speak, after three yrs of brutetilising warfare a ceasefire was declared and it was decided the lines would be back at the 38th parraell , the south prospered the north remains a communist military state , i dont see the simularity between iraq and korea !thier can be no ceasefire battle lines !
Andy "George W. Bush has never been elected. The ‘Machine’ took it and gave it to him." K Jong Il @ 18:
Sure. But given all of that there still wasn't a long-term occupation of Germany. Nor was there one of Japan. The questions we have to press are why we're occupying Iraq and what the all-too-foreseeable effects of occupation are.
The truth is that McCain HAS been mischaracterized on this "Century in Iraq" comment.
Here is the actual FULL quote:
QUESTION (1/3/08): President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years—
MCCAIN: Maybe a hundred. We've been in South Korea. We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me.
The last part of the quote is kind of important. Plus, this is the kind of sensless quote-out-of-context crap that Democrats have been hammered with for years. Dems don't need to play that game too. Let's be better than that.
There are more important problems with McCain than this issue or his age. How about his inability to remember if Al-Queda is working in Iraq or Iran? How about his cozying up to Right Wing Extremists (like Hagee)? How about his flip-flop on torture? Let's concentrate on those issues, ok?
Permanent U.S. bases in the Middle East? Aren't they one of the main reasons Islamic terrorists attack us in the first place? Brilliant, McCain, brilliant. So your plan to keep America safe is to enrage as many Arab Muslims as possible while spending trillions more tax dollars in the process. Just great. If I had trillions of dollars to spend, I'm pretty sure I could think of a smarter way to make the world a better place.
Lillybelle-
Sure. But given all of that there still wasn’t a long-term occupation of Germany. Nor was there one of Japan. The questions we have to press are why we’re occupying Iraq and what the all-too-foreseeable effects of occupation are.
I'm not disagreeing with you about Iraq: we had no legit casus belli to begin with, thus no legit reason to occupy it.
But the occupations of both Germany and Japan continue, 62+ years after the end of WWII. No, our troops don't police the streets of those nations, but we're there. And we had those countries write up their constitutions in a way that severely limited their ability to arm themselves.
And, btw, the Brits & French really wanted to continue WW I. The German government played it smart, appealing to Wilson to end that war. Wilson was willing to accept Germany's surrender. Without a US force, the Brits & French would have been unable to continue the war by themselves. What the Brits & French would have preferred, at that time, was the dismemberment of Germany back to it's pre-Franco-Prussian(even pre-Six Weeks) War componet states(something along the lines of Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover & Saxony) as well as occupation.
Thank Woodrow Wilson's short-sightedness for WWII.
(apologies to the monitors for going off on this tangent)
ChrisM70 @ 21:
No, this quote is important and fundamentally hasn't been taken out of context. This is an occupation. It's not comparable to the American troop presence in South Korea or Japan. Plus the Iraqi populace REALLY doesn't want us there. Ipso facto there will be American casualties, and our presence worsens the situation, not to mention the slaughter of Iraqis. Does McCain not get this--scary enough--or is he muddying the waters with a false comparison?
haven't read through the thread or comments...
just heard on XM campaign report that today in florida, mccrazy thanked all the people who helped take care of his "family" while he was away on his "extended deployment" (from that base)...
um... could he be referring to the wife and children that he later abandoned for his younger rich new wife?
Get ready for president McCain. Here is what will happen.
1.) War with Iran.
2.) Complicit corporate media.
3.) Ignorant fat stupid afraid American public.
Get used to it. It is the best America can do now.
ChrisM70 @ 21,
I believe the alleged misquote you cite has been dealt with in this and other threads.
The fundamental point is this is an occupation of a country that does not want us there. Do you think we'd be in Germany or South Korea if people there were killing each other in a civil war and their citizens demand that we leave. The situation is hardly comparable.
Beyond that, McShrub says,"...as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed". When, exactly, will that be? 5 years, 10 years, 20? When was the last time an American soldier was killed in Germany or South Korea?
No, McShub is doing the pea shell game and he's being called on it. It's only a matter of time before he loses it on camera when someone calls him on his bullshit.
No, my friend, he said what he said and now he has to stand by it.
There is absolutely no reason that the United States should have ANY troops in ANY other countries...THEY do not have bases here, nor station THEIR troops here, nor would we allow them to. Enough of this bullshit. If they want a revolution in Iraq or East Buttfuck, LET THEM HAVE IT and we'll deal with whoever emerges on top! We are NOT the world's babysitter nor the world's policeman.
Daisy @ 16:
if the choice of vote is between reverend wright or McCain, then I would say its a tough choice. But if it is Obama or McCain, then Obama would be my choice, because I don't care for what Reverend Wright says. I don't what so scary about voting for the third degree. You all voted for Bush and they had direct ties to the Nazis in Germany. That to me is very scary and my fears have all been realized.
All I was pointing out was that it wasn't like McCain said he wants America to be FIGHTING A WAR for 100 years.
I don't like McCain and I think keeping him from the presidency is really important, but trying to spin this quote into something more sinister than how it was meant isn't really the right thing in my opinion. I can dislike McCain and still try to be objective.
I think focusing on his BREAKING THE LAW regarding his campaign finance is an issue.
I think his lack of knowledge about the economy is a HUGE issue
I think his close relationship to lobbyists is an issue.
Because for every "100 years" comment that helps the Dems, there will be a "pregnancy punishment" comment that hurts. Let's not worry about these one-time comments and worry about the candidate records and their patterns of behavior.
I think to stay 50 year in another country that we first have to implement the Marshall plan. But 2 things that concern me, and that we have a long history of a religious war against Muslim in the crusade and we nearly wipe them out. The other is that Iraq had no ties to the 9/11 attack, and that we are the aggressor in this war against the Iraqi people.
Does that makes sense to say to the country, "we have attack your country for no reason and now we are going to stay here to keep the peace from ourselves to your country?"
ChrisM70 @ 31,
I understood what you said the first time. If you've been following politics for the last 10 years you must realize that one of the favorite techniques the Republic party uses is 10 second sound bites reiterated over and over again, enough so that the complacent American people understand and remember it. Trying to nuance policy has its place, but this method seems to work remarkably well. Don't you remember the ten second clip of Kerry testifying before Congress when he was a VietNam Vet Against the War? How about the "I voted before the bill before I voted against it"? I'm not saying wonkish policy statements don't have their place. I'm just learning from the past campaigns. Use what works.
I'm afraid, my friend, if past experience is any indiction, in your way lies defeat, my friend.
What's best about that video is the two people in the front row, on the left side, literally stare, their mouths open wide in astonishment . . .
Wait just a minute! McCain mentioned a "long-term presence," and "where al Qaida is training".
In practical terms John McCain really IS talking about 100 years of combat, because a country full of Muslims is not going to stand by and be bossed around by a bunch of Christian soldiers. Al Qaida or not, Iraqis will continue to shoot and blow up American troops until we leave.
Of course, every Iraqi that shoots at the American occupiers is al Qaida, because we know all the regular Iraqis want America to stay there forever...
Chalmers Johnson's book Blowback should be required reading for anyone who thinks that military bases are benign presences around the world.
Pardon me, but they *are* the same thing. McCain says US troops should be in Iraq keeping the peace "for 100 years if necessary". In other words, if the puppet regime is unstable for for 100 years, then US troops should defend it for 100 years.
It'd be one thing if he'd made a nuanced point that was being twisted, but that's not the case at all. His meaning was clear, and while people may exaggerate it, they are not mischaracterizing it.
Daisy @ 16:
That's the thing that pisses me off about this, one is about someone the candidate knows said, instead of what is said by the ACTUAL CANDIDATE.
Can we actually talk about what a candidate says and how it will affect his policy, instead of just finding whatever random unimportant information to try to stir up trouble?
When there was the talk about McCain's lobbyists ties, it wasn't about the lobbyist, it was about the possibility of him improperly being influenced by lobbyists while denouncing that sort of governing. I don't care what anyone's preacher says, it doesn't matter.
ABBYBWOOD@1 What a stupid analogy. Who, and how many has Rev. Wright murdered, bombed or tortured? What laws has he broken, or whose rights has he pissed on? What high office entrusted by the people has Wright violated? Dumb, simply dumb.
Old Billy Hussein @ 17:
I am not disposed to giving McCain a pass on this, and as far as I'm concerned as a good Democrat and U.S. citizen who is horrified at the turn of events since 2001, I am inclined to TWIST THE FUCK OUT OF THIS KNIFE in his back. He opened his fucking stupid mouth and uttered these words, and I'm going to make them mean exactly what I want to.
Did these assholes give Gore a pass regarding his Internet legislation? Did they give Kerry a pass regarding his Purple Hearts?
FUCK THEM. FUCK JOHN MCCAIN. IF THIS IS BOTHERING HIM HE SHOULDA KEPT HIS FUCKING STUPID MOUTH SHUT.
/rant
ChrisM70 @ 22:
No it isn't. Which Americans was he referring to? Republicans regularly cite the Iraq occupation as the reason that we haven't suffered another 9-11. Current military casualties only make him more determined to keep forces in Iraq... so I'm inclined to think he wasn't referring to soldiers.
"It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement."
Ah, too bad the powers that be didn't figure this out before we built a $592 million dollar base, er, embassy in Iraq, no? McCain doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
capnmike @ 29:
Well said! We are NOT the world's policeman. Do you assholes get that?
Exactly how did McCain get the nickname "Straight Talker"? The man changes, retracts and reissues statements so often, it's like he's wandering through a verbal corn maze!
I don't know what you guys are so worried about. After all, we've had troops in Alabama for 143 years since the end of the Civil War, and nobody is shooting at them.
McCain's only 100 year problem with his Iraq stance if he became President is how to pay for it.
From the looks of his financial advisers, the wealthiest amongst us won't get tapped for it...........
Just glancing at the title (wiithout looking further, as yet) is the "century problem" his age, the number of years he wants to stay in Iraq, or both?
Korea is NOT Iraq.
Keep repeaing the 100 years in Iraq meme. It's raises his blood pressure, and the more you repeat it, it BECOMES TRUTH. (Right out of their playbook.)
ChrisM70 must be new to this game. do NOT LISTEN TO FOLKS LIKE CHRISM70.
Carry on explaining to people that John McCain wants America to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Mc Cain needs to admit he worded his thoughts poorly and amend his statement: "We will only continue to occupy Iraq untill the oil runs out. The Democrats are twising the meaning of my previous statement."
McCain says he doesn't want to keep troops there if "they are being shot at or killed."
Think about that for a second.
The only reason to keep troops somewhere is in case of shooting and killing. So one clown takes a shot at a soldier and McCain brings 'em all home?
Great plan, Johnny boy.
The fact of the matter is, if we keep troops in Iraq they will be shot at for as long as they're there. Presumably McCain knows this, but he wants to have it both ways, like he does with everything.
We wanted to make sure that today when Senator McCain speaks, you and your friends and family know who's talking.
McCain will bring his "Service to America" tour to Memphis on Friday, but many people don't know the service he touts includes voting against the federal holiday honoring Dr. King. In August 1983 he fought the holiday, voting to block a piece of bipartisan legislation honoring him that was supported by even conservative Republicans--including Dick Cheney--and signed into law by President Reagan.
McCain went on to resist recognizing a King holiday in his home state of Arizona. When Arizona's state legislature failed to pass a bill recognizing a holiday honoring Dr. King, the governor at the time, Bruce Babbit, created the holiday by executive order. Babbit's successor, Gov. Evan Mecham rescinded the order as his first act in office, doing away with the holiday. John McCain's response? He defended the governor, not Dr. King. (After undoing the holiday, the same governor went on to publicly support referring to Black people as "pickaninnies").
In 1990, seven years after his initial vote, McCain went along with establishing a King holiday. On the campaign trail in 2000, facing questions about his history on this issue, McCain declared he had "evolved."
Looking at the rest of McCain's public record, even recently, it's hard to see much evidence of an "evolution". In fact, McCain has consistently opposed a civil rights agenda:
He voted an amazing FOUR times against the Civil Rights Act of 1990--a bill designed to make it easier for employees to prove job discrimination and imposing harsher penalties on bosses who discriminated.
In 2004 he opposed affirmative action in college admissions--a key component of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is among King's key legislative victories.
He has voted at least 8 times against raising the minimum wage.
And as recently as last month, he argued against federal intervention to help Americans, disproportionately Black Americans, who have faced foreclosure during the housing crisis.
If John McCain has evolved, he hasn't evolved much. Instead, we see a consistent and troubling pattern. From campaigning against Dr. King's holiday to undermining important civil rights laws, John McCain has not stood side by side with King's vision, he has stood in its way.
Today, we hope that everyone will take a moment to pause and remember Dr. King's legacy, recognizing his contributions of words, deeds and ultimately his life. And we hope that all can see past political posturing (regardless of who it comes from) and embrace the bold, challenging vision that King actually projected. We believe that in doing so, we honor both his legacy and his sacrifice.
-- James, Van, Gabriel, Clarissa, Mervyn, Andre, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
April 4th, 2008
Login or Register to post comments.