John McCain: Let’s Stay In Iraq For “100 Years”!

[braeden0613]

John McCain: Let’s Stay In Iraq For “100 Years”!
By: Nicole Belle on Friday, January 4th, 2008 at 9:01 AM - PST

vf7HYoh9YMM

At a campaign stop in New Hampshire with booster Holy Joe Lieberman, Republican presidential contender John McCain shows that he has his finger on the pulse of the national mood (2/3 of New Hampshire citizens poll that they want the troops home now) by telling potential voters that he’d like to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — ” (cut off by McCain)

McCain: “Make it a hundred.”

Q: “Is that …” (cut off)

McCain: “We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …”

Q: [tries to say something]

McCain: “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

[Mavtek]

Simple, he wants to maintain this Empire come hell or no more money....

[boutons_]

Having destabilized the M/E, enabled AQI and other terrorists into Iraq, empowered Iran, while exhausting US military and treasury, these militaristic motherfuckers now say the US must stay there for "US security". GFY, you asshole nutters.

You're dead meat, McCain, at least due to your support of the bogus Iraq war, overriding the majority of the democratically elected Iraqi parliament that has demanded a pullout schedule. Ignoring the Iraqi parliament's democratic wishes will certainly inflame more Iraqis against the US occupation.

Iraq was never about US security, never about spreading freedom and democracy, but only about the oil, for which the US taxpayer pays protection for the oilcos that never give the US taxpayers a break on fuel prices. What a deal.

How many $Ts to stay in Iraq for 100 years?

And how many 100 $Ks is McCain willing to pay out of his pocket to finance the oilco protection racket?

[AFBlue]

I'm pretty sure you are making a big deal out of nothing....

McCain was talking about maintaining a presence in the region, which would not entail a specific mission of training troops or rebuilding infrastructure. It would be a much smaller force than the one currently in Iraq.

And what McCain said about Japan/S Korea wasn't false. We have permanent bases in and around those areas today. The strategy of maintaining a "ready" force in an area of responsibility is not foreign to this military or to this country. So why should it be any different for Iraq and surrounding areas?

Nice way to stir things up though....

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm pretty sure you are making a big deal out of nothing....

McCain was talking about maintaining a presence in the region, which would not entail a specific mission of training troops or rebuilding infrastructure. It would be a much smaller force than the one currently in Iraq.

And what McCain said about Japan/S Korea wasn't false. We have permanent bases in and around those areas today. The strategy of maintaining a "ready" force in an area of responsibility is not foreign to this military or to this country. So why should it be any different for Iraq and surrounding areas?

Nice way to stir things up though....
I see, so it wasn't really about liberating Iraq so much as it was permanently controlling it?

[AFBlue]

I see, so it wasn't really about liberating Iraq so much as it was permanently controlling it?

How does the U.S. Military "control" South Korea while it monitors the North? How does it "control" Japan?

The military presence isn't about "controlling" any independent state or its people, it's about "monitoring" the region.

Again, this is nothing new. The U.S. Military has presence (both permanent and otherwise) all across the globe.

So why should Iraq be any different?

[Wild Cobra]

Remember Tony. Most people here have no critical thinking skills.

[AFBlue]

Remember Tony. Most people here have no critical thinking skills.

I like winning though...

It helps when you're right and someone is just making a big deal out of nothing.

I do think, however, that McCain's "matter-of-factness" on this issue and in general, could rub folks the wrong way. What I see as conviction some might see as stubborness.

I guess it all depends on the perspective....except on this, which I'm right about. :D

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

I like winning though...

It helps when you're right and someone is just making a big deal out of nothing.

It also helps people realize when they're wrong and maybe learn to stop griping about politics in a reactionary way. The title is already stupid in itself, as far as context goes. :lol


I do think, however, that McCain's "matter-of-factness" on this issue and in general, could rub folks the wrong way. What I see as conviction some might see as stubborness.
I agree with this.
I think McCain might be guilty of assuming that people (lay people) will just go with what he already sees (given the United States' military history/knowledge.) in saying statements like that. Which has less to do--with those simplistic assertions of more U.S. "imperialism",--and really has more to do with military pragmatism.

[Budkin]

Good thing McCain doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming president.

[remingtonbo2001]

I like winning though...

It helps when you're right and someone is just making a big deal out of nothing.

I do think, however, that McCain's "matter-of-factness" on this issue and in general, could rub folks the wrong way. What I see as conviction some might see as stubborness.

I guess it all depends on the perspective....except on this, which I'm right about. :D

Kinda of like the confidence of genuine Texan is viewed as arrogance.

[exstatic]

How does the U.S. Military "control" South Korea while it monitors the North? How does it "control" Japan?

The military presence isn't about "controlling" any independent state or its people, it's about "monitoring" the region.

[ :rollin ]

Again, this is nothing new. The U.S. Military has presence (both permanent and otherwise) all across the globe.

So why should Iraq be any different?
Because it's in the Middle East, home of the Muslim religion, a religion that says do not abide occupation by the infidel?

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm pretty sure you are making a big deal out of nothing....

McCain was talking about maintaining a presence in the region, which would not entail a specific mission of training troops or rebuilding infrastructure. It would be a much smaller force than the one currently in Iraq.

And what McCain said about Japan/S Korea wasn't false. We have permanent bases in and around those areas today. The strategy of maintaining a "ready" force in an area of responsibility is not foreign to this military or to this country. So why should it be any different for Iraq and surrounding areas?

Nice way to stir things up though....

I agree. I saw the clip and I didn't think it was a big deal. McCain also said that he would only doing it as long as it didn't result in US casualties. Given that condition, what is there to complain about?

[exstatic]

I agree. I saw the clip and I didn't think it was a big deal. McCain also said that he would only doing it as long as it didn't result in US casualties. Given that condition, what is there to complain about?
It's an unrealistic condition. There will be medium to heavy US casualties as long as we're there.

[Nbadan]

Yep. the U.S. didn't 'liberate' north Korea or Japan through pro-active war...completely different circumstances....but the U.S. strategery plan has always been a permanent military presence in the region, in this context, McCain's statement isn't surprising at all...

[Nbadan]

Good thing McCain doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming president.

A few months ago no one gave Huckabee a chance in hell, except for a few choice posters here, of course....

:hat

[Nbadan]

...besides, as we speak, McCain is getting swift-boated by the same guys who swift-boated John Kerry in 2004......http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

[boutons_]

the slimebag bastards never went away, and they'll be telling even more vicious lies in 2008

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/hayes

Return of the Swift Boaters

by CHRISTOPHER HAYES

[posted online on January 2, 2008]

More than three years after John Kerry's bitter defeat, at the dawn of what looks like a far more promising campaign cycle for the Democrats, the party is still haunted by the specter of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Once upon a time, "Swift boat" denoted an obscure military vessel, but thanks to the activities of this group it has come to represent movement conservatism's penchant for ruthlessly (and effectively) smearing any and all political opponents, from a sitting senator and war hero to an 11-year-old boy with a cranial fracture.

Research by The Nation into Federal Election Commission records of the group's top twenty donors reveals that they've been remarkably active in this cycle, contributing and bundling nearly $200,000 to presidential candidates. This does not bode well. During the last presidential campaign, the wealthy backers of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--now rebranded as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth--didn't do their real dirty work until the general election, where as a tax-exempt 527 group they operated outside the restraints of direct campaign contributions. We may wish we were done with the Swift Boaters, but they aren't done with us.

In 2004 the top twenty donors all gave (with one exception) at least $50,000 to the group. The top three--Houston home builder Bob Perry, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens and billionaire drugstore impresario and investor Harold Simmons--gave a combined $9.5 million ($4.45 million, $3 million and $2 million, respectively). Calculating the influence of these and the slightly less wealthy Swift Boat donors during this cycle is a touch more complicated than simply adding up their contributions. Each one exerts far more influence as a bundler, given the federal restrictions on individual giving, which limit donors to a maximum of $4,600 per cycle. So The Nation looked not only at the contributions of the donors themselves but also at those of their family members and employees. It's an imperfect method, since some employees are clearly contributing of their own volition (such as one employee of a Simmons company who gave money to Hillary Clinton), but it gives a rough estimate of who's backing whom and to what extent.

The most notable recipient of Swift Boat largesse is John McCain, erstwhile front-runner and Stand Up Guy. When the Swift Boat ads were first unleashed, McCain was alone among his Republican colleagues to condemn them. A fellow Vietnam veteran, a good friend of Kerry's and a former target of smears about his own service, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable," a "cheap stunt," and he urged Bush to condemn them. But in pursuit of the GOP nomination, McCain ditched the mantle of maverick for that of hack, and his once-floundering, possibly rejuvenated campaign has been aided along the way by $61,650 from Swift Boat donors and their associates. "There is such a thing as dirty money," said Senator Kerry in a statement, after The Nation informed him of McCain's FEC records. "I'm surprised that the John McCain I knew who was smeared in 2000 and thought so-called Swift Boating was wrong in 2004 would feel comfortable taking their money after seeing the way it was used to hurt the veterans I know he loves." (McCain's office did not return calls for comment.)

McCain's Swift Boat bounty is exceeded only by that of Mitt Romney, who has raked in $70,550. Romney's success with Swift Boat donors is significant because he has surpassed even McCain in his demonstrated willingness to do or say anything in pursuit of the presidency and because he has emerged as the GOP establishment's favored candidate. Last year, when McCain held that position, the Arizona senator received significant backing from Swift Boat donors. But many have subsequently switched their allegiance. Pickens, who donated to McCain in June 2006, is now an enthusiastic Giuliani donor and fundraiser (Giuliani ranks third in Swift Boat funding, with $47,950). Perry, who also recorded several donations to McCain's PAC in 2005 and 2006, is now a major donor and fundraiser for Romney. If the list of top Swift Boat donors is expanded to fifty, Romney's fundraising edge is even more pronounced. (Neither Romney nor Giuliani's campaign returned calls for comment.)

Also noticeable among the recipients of Swift Boat largesse is one who received only a single donation: Mike Huckabee. Despite meager fundraising and little national name recognition, the former Arkansas governor has experienced a bubble-like expansion of support and media attention, taking the lead in Iowa and approaching a steady lead in national polls. But the lack of Swift Boat contributions lends credence to the claim that Huckabee is viewed warily by the money men who call the shots in the modern GOP. Despite proposing a radically regressive tax change and taking Grover Norquist's antitax pledge, he's been attacked savagely by the Club for Growth and eviscerated by columnist George Will for "comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs," among them "free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity."

This all supports the notion that the people behind the Swift Boat operation are chiefly concerned with the continued upward redistribution of wealth that is, more or less, the contemporary GOP's raison d'être. In 2006 Perry ponied up $5 million to start the Economic Freedom Fund, a 527 group devoted to attacking Democratic incumbents, and landed a large donation from prominent Swift Boat donor Carl Lindner. All of which is to say that the Swift Boaters aren't some kind of side show, a coterie of vicious mudslingers operating at the edges of respectability. They are the show. They are modern conservatism's core funders and beneficiaries. With conservatives staring straight into the abyss, their activities in this election cycle could very well make the Swift Boat smears look tame by comparison.

This report was produced with support of The Nation Institute Investigative Fund. Additional research was provided by Nicholas Jahr.

[AFBlue]

Because it's in the Middle East, home of the Muslim religion, a religion that says do not abide occupation by the infidel?

We're already in Turkey and Qatar. We might as well be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And we don't base our military strategy on the beliefs of radical Islamic fundamentalists.

[AFBlue]

It's an unrealistic condition. There will be medium to heavy US casualties as long as we're there.

Someone is a fortune teller... :rolleyes


As long as we're making predictions, I might as well throw mine into the hat...

The level of violence has decreased significantly since the troop surge and real progress has been made towards Iraq becoming a viable state.

The violence will continue to diminish and once the "training" mission is deemed complete by military commanders on the ground in Iraq, you will see a massive pullout of troops and a small contingency left behind at a permanent base. The massive pullout of troops will signify that the "occupying" force has left.

Truth is....nobody knows to what extent (time and level of intensity) we'll see the violence trend in the future.

[temujin]

So what's the difference between "controlling" and "monitoring"?
Can you control by monitoring?
Or monitor by controlling?

What action has being going on behalf of bloody foreigners
on VIETNAM soil, since 1975?

Monitoring or controlling?

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

We're already in Turkey and Qatar. We might as well be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And we don't base our military strategy on the beliefs of radical Islamic fundamentalists.
I agree. Whether or not someone agrees with certain military strategies, it is a strategy that McCain is alluding to...applying that same historical approach to regions we've been looking to neutralize in the past.

Personally, I'm not sure if our approach of old' will apply to the current situation (radical Islamic groups) but I can see McCain making a valid case for those who aren't convinced that 'getting out' is the correct decision.

[AFBlue]

oh yeah

the troops in europe and asia aren't a huge financial burden and aren't practically useless

You can't compare the two costs because one is for a permanent "monitoring" station and the other has a specific mission of squashing escalated sectarian violence and training Iraqi troops.

I would assume the cost of maintaining a "monitoring" force in Iraq would be comparable to those bases in Europe and Asia.

[Mavtek]

Awesome, how are we going to pay for yet another useless "presence" somewhere else in the world?

Can we please have a section on my paycheck where they take my money that says this amount is for foreign bases? That would be nice.

[AFBlue]

So what's the difference between "controlling" and "monitoring"?
Can you control by monitoring?
Or monitor by controlling?

What action has being going on behalf of bloody foreigners
on VIETNAM soil, since 1975?

Monitoring or controlling?

"Controlling" is actively training Iraqi troops, participating in rebuilding of government structures, and being a part of the Iraqi election process.

"Monitoring" is simply having a presence in the region to rapidly respond to major escalations of violence if necessary.

Right now the military is playing a very active role in Iraq to get the country jumpstarted, which is obviously the source of contention. But the second phase in which we move from a "controlling" to a "monitoring" strategy in Iraq is something I wouldn't doubt most, if not all, candidates assume will take place.

For one more time...McCain didn't say anything new or controversial.

[AFBlue]

Awesome, how are we going to pay for yet another useless "presence" somewhere else in the world?

Can we please have a section on my paycheck where they take my money that says this amount is for foreign bases? That would be nice.

It's a GLOBAL war on terror and our military needs to have strategic positioning to respond...GLOBALLY.

For the record, we have FAR less overseas "presence" than we had during the Cold War. Do you realized how many bases closed down after the fall of the Soviet Union?

Forget it, it's useless trying to explain military strategy to someone who obviously has no idea what he/she is talking about.

[Wild Cobra]

It's an unrealistic condition. There will be medium to heavy US casualties as long as we're there.
Well, some is expected. Just like Germany for years after the end of WWII.

[Wild Cobra]

the slimebag bastards never went away, and they'll be telling even more vicious lies in 2008
That statement tells me all I need to know.

Another lie about honerable veterans.

[Wild Cobra]

oh yeah

the troops in europe and asia aren't a huge financial burden and aren't practically useless
Do you know why you are wrong?

Sure, transportation costs add some to the equation. However, we are going to maintain a certain level of military troops. Does it matter if it is here of there?

As for useless? Hell no. The strategic positions have proven useful for several reasons to include humanitarian aid, outside of war duties.

I wonder. Do you ever use critical thinking skills, or for you always go off, half cocked?

Sorry, but I am one veteran who is proud to have served.

[spurster]

At this point, I think the US could keep Iraq relatively calm with the numbers of troops we have there now. I have to give credit to the "surge" working along with being pragmatic with the Sunni sheiks. However, this is really a long-term money hole with not much help from anybody else and with Pakistan and Afghanistan not far from the edge. I wish Pakistan would go a little bit more out of control so we could go and take out the Taliban strongholds and at least chase around OBL for a while. This is where the problem is and we are (appropriately) fearful of making any moves in a nuclear country. Iraq is an expensive diversion from the real problem.

[AFBlue]

At this point, I think the US could keep Iraq relatively calm with the numbers of troops we have there now. I have to give credit to the "surge" working along with being pragmatic with the Sunni sheiks. However, this is really a long-term money hole with not much help from anybody else and with Pakistan and Afghanistan not far from the edge. I wish Pakistan would go a little bit more out of control so we could go and take out the Taliban strongholds and at least chase around OBL for a while. This is where the problem is and we are (appropriately) fearful of making any moves in a nuclear country. Iraq is an expensive diversion from the real problem.

Iraq, if not handled correctly, could in fact intensify the issues in Pakistan and Afghanistan making the cost to the American public for continued support of deployed operations in the region even greater.

Actually, the latest developments in countries other than Iraq serve as good reason to have a permanant presence in the region.

[temujin]

When your worst enemy is in deep trouble,
has dig a deep deep hole,
right in your own backyard,
the last thing you want him to to do is run away,
just because he FINALLY hears voices that maybe he should just climb out.

So you release the pressure, for a little while,
to make sure,
to make VERY sure,
in a key decisions making year,
that those voices are not heard anymore.

[JoeChalupa]

The US will be in Iraq for years to come.

[exstatic]

Someone is a fortune teller... :rolleyes


As long as we're making predictions, I might as well throw mine into the hat...

The level of violence has decreased significantly since the troop surge and real progress has been made towards Iraq becoming a viable state.

The violence will continue to diminish and once the "training" mission is deemed complete by military commanders on the ground in Iraq, you will see a massive pullout of troops and a small contingency left behind at a permanent base. The massive pullout of troops will signify that the "occupying" force has left.

Truth is....nobody knows to what extent (time and level of intensity) we'll see the violence trend in the future.
You can make a pretty good guess, though. Unlike the stock market, with Islamists, past performance IS an indicator of future returns. They've been doing it since Mohammed.

[boutons_]

"The level of violence has decreased significantly since the troop surge"

.. so you've bought the WH spin that surge caused the lowered violence? sucker.

The ethnic cleansing of Baghdad was completed during the surge (Sunnis out, , not because of the surge. Baghdad is now sub-divided by numerous barriers and walls and fiefdoms, with 100s of checkpoints to enforce the balkanization of Baghdad.

Petreaus is throwing 10s of $Ms of money and arms at Sunnis and provincial leaders to buy them off, give them "jobs", create CLCs, and allow them to enforce their local sovereignity. Maliki and other Shiites hate this tactic of the US empowering/subsidizing the Sunnis.

Petraeus has stopped having his bully boys kick in doors to 1000s of homes looking for insurgents, therefore the intense anger and desire for violent revenge from having your home violated is less. They aren't kicking ass, they quit kicking doors.

ALL the US military say the relative calm now is extremely fragile, meaning it's not stable or assurable. The pot is still at full boil, and the US new tactics and $$, not the surge in numbers alone, have turned the temp a little,but the lid is still ready to blow.

"and real progress has been made towards Iraq becoming a viable state."

The surge has failed in its primary objective, to allow reconciliation. And notice how the US and Mailiki keep delaying "democratic" provincial elections.

Iraq is not a functioning state, the cabinet and paliament are horribley divided or resigned, electricity and sewage don't work, unemployment is 50% or more, Maliki is cutting food rationing that 1000s of families depend upon, and the US and its Maliki puppets absolutely refuse to honor the vote of the democratically elected parliament for the US to set a date for withdrawal. The Iraqi parliament and the majority of Iraqi want the occupation to end, to get the fucking foreigners out of their "country", just like the US super patriots would want to get fucking foreign occupiers of US territory, and just like the VN never wanted (and didn't get) ChiCom occupying their country.

Iraq is a fucking disaster totally created by dubya's and dickhead's incompetent oil grab.

If Iraq was costing American citizens out of their monthly checkbooks, there would be no talk of long-term occupation. Especially the govt-hating right-wingers would absolutely refuse to pay out of their pockets to pay for the Iraq fiasco.

While the right-wing despises govt and is doing its best to destroy it while milking it for 100s of $Bs, the right chooses to believe every fucking word and all the spin and myths about Iraq from ... the despised govt.

Try some counter-spin:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-schwartz/the-top-eleven-myths-abou_b_79891.html

And don't worry about ponying up your $20K or more. dubya's creating his own bubble of funny money to pay for the Iraq fiasco. And you know you can trust dubya with money, proof being the sub-prime crisis that is shittin on his last year of legacy pumping.

[AFBlue]

"The level of violence has decreased significantly since the troop surge"

.. so you've bought the WH spin that surge caused the lowered violence? sucker.

The ethnic cleansing of Baghdad was completed during the surge (Sunnis out, , not because of the surge. Baghdad is now sub-divided by numerous barriers and walls and fiefdoms, with 100s of checkpoints to enforce the balkanization of Baghdad.

Petreaus is throwing 10s of $Ms of money and arms at Sunnis and provincial leaders to buy them off, give them "jobs", create CLCs, and allow them to enforce their local sovereignity. Maliki and other Shiites hate this tactic of the US empowering/subsidizing the Sunnis.

Petraeus has stopped having his bully boys kick in doors to 1000s of homes looking for insurgents, therefore the intense anger and desire for violent revenge from having your home violated is less. They aren't kicking ass, they quit kicking doors.

ALL the US military say the relative calm now is extremely fragile, meaning it's not stable or assurable. The pot is still at full boil, and the US new tactics and $$, not the surge in numbers alone, have turned the temp a little,but the lid is still ready to blow.

"and real progress has been made towards Iraq becoming a viable state."

The surge has failed in its primary objective, to allow reconciliation. And notice how the US and Mailiki keep delaying "democratic" provincial elections.

Iraq is not a functioning state, the cabinet and paliament are horribley divided or resigned, electricity and sewage don't work, unemployment is 50% or more, Maliki is cutting food rationing that 1000s of families depend upon, and the US and its Maliki puppets absolutely refuse to honor the vote of the democratically elected parliament for the US to set a date for withdrawal. The Iraqi parliament and the majority of Iraqi want the occupation to end, to get the fucking foreigners out of their "country", just like the US super patriots would want to get fucking foreign occupiers of US territory, and just like the VN never wanted (and didn't get) ChiCom occupying their country.

Iraq is a fucking disaster totally created by dubya's and dickhead's incompetent oil grab.

If Iraq was costing American citizens out of their monthly checkbooks, there would be no talk of long-term occupation. Especially the govt-hating right-wingers would absolutely refuse to pay out of their pockets to pay for the Iraq fiasco.

While the right-wing despises govt and is doing its best to destroy it while milking it for 100s of $Bs, the right chooses to believe every fucking word and all the spin and myths about Iraq from ... the despised govt.

Try some counter-spin:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-schwartz/the-top-eleven-myths-abou_b_79891.html

And don't worry about ponying up your $20K or more. dubya's creating his own bubble of funny money to pay for the Iraq fiasco. And you know you can trust dubya with money, proof being the sub-prime crisis that is shittin on his last year of legacy pumping.

You can believe that a sequence of complex events not related to the troop surge has led to decrease violence or that it was something as simple as putting enough troops on the ground to confront the two missions (security and training of Iraqi troops).

EITHER WAY, YOU CANNOT DENY THAT THERE HAS BEEN DECREASED VIOLENCE IN IRAQ.

So the "viable state" issue is a legitimate concern. I did not say that Iraq was there yet, but that some progress has been made in that regard. Forming a legitimate government and working out policies for its governing is not an easy or quick process.

However, I am willing to admit that timetables for a pullout based on the sufficient training of Iraqi troops (as determined by commanders on the ground) would most likely put pressure on the Iraqi government to hasten the process.

Still, whether you believe the troop surge and decrease in violence to be coincidentally linked chronologically or that there is a causal relationship between the two, you HAVE to admit that violence is down.

[boutons_]

'YOU CANNOT DENY THAT THERE HAS BEEN DECREASED VIOLENCE IN IRAQ.'

I can/not deny whatever the fuck I want to.

I never denied there was a decrease in violence, only that the cause(s) for the decrease are not exclusively or even primairly due to the surge.

=================

Here's McCain caught flip-flopping on long-term occupation:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-permanent-bases/

And McCain's speaking self-servingly about what "The American People" want is about as credible as Christian militants/supremcists/hucksters speaking for/knowing the mind of God.

[Mavtek]

My only question for the bastard McCain is how does he want to pay for it? Oh I can answer my own question he'll just get together with his buddy Ted Kennedy and enact some more taxation.

[Wild Cobra]

My only question for the bastard McCain is how does he want to pay for it? Oh I can answer my own question he'll just get together with his buddy Ted Kennedy and enact some more taxation.
My answr is this. The constitution allows for military spending. It does not allow for social spending. Therefore, we reduce and eliminate some social programs.

[Mavtek]

My answr is this. The constitution allows for military spending. It does not allow for social spending. Therefore, we reduce and eliminate some social programs.


HA HA McCain would never do that! McCain and the Nanny state go hand and hand!

According the constitution: Article 1

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Somebody better figure that one out.

[Wild Cobra]

HA HA McCain would never do that! McCain and the Nanny state go hand and hand!

According the constitution: Article 1

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Somebody better figure that one out.
That's why they appropriate the money on a regular basis.

[boutons_]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_I_would_have_started_Iraq_0106.html

The guy is fucking crazy.

If the US "hypothetically" occupied Iraq for decades, NO deaths or casualties? GMAFB.

And what about $200B+/year or whatever to maintain the occupation? Americans don't care abouth the $2T wasted in Iraq because nobody has sent them a bill of higher taxes.

McCain sounds like the Iraqis have no say, through their "freedom and democracy" system that dubya is so fucking proud of, about the Americans destabilizing, defacing their country with an occupation of any term.

[01Snake]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_I_would_have_started_Iraq_0106.html

The guy is fucking crazy.

If the US "hypoethetically" occupied Iraq for decades, NO deaths or casualties? GMAFB.

And what about $200B+/year or whatever to maintain the occupation? Americans don't care abouth the $2T wasted in Iraq because nobody has sent them a bill of higher taxes.

McCain sounds like the Iraqis have no say, through their "freedom and democracy" sytem that dubya is so fucking proud of about the Americans destabilizing, defacing their country with an occupation of any term.

You really are fucking stupid aren't you?

http://smartkidsstore.com/store/catalog/images/hooked-read-names-1.jpg

[boutons_]

trash talking typos? go fuk yosef

[Nbadan]

It's McCain who seems to have gone off the deep end...


According to presidential candidate John McCain, only the handling of the Iraq war was a mistake -- not the war itself.

"It's not American presence that bothers the American people, it's American causalities," said McCain in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday.

When Russert asked him if, like Bush, McCain would have supported the Iraq war even if no weapons of mass destruction were believed present in Iraq, McCain seemed to dismiss the question as irrelevant.

"If frogs had wings ... we can talk about lots of hypotheticals," he said. "The point is if we had done it right, you and I wouldn't even be discussing it now."

Rawstory (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_I_would_have_started_Iraq_0106.html)

like father, like son..


YjXPOxnu2N8

[AFBlue]

It's McCain who seems to have gone off the deep end...



Rawstory (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_I_would_have_started_Iraq_0106.html)

like father, like son..


Yeah, not sure I like that answer.

Seems to me he's taking a de facto position of supporting "preemtion" as it relates to Iraq.

Still, I have a hard time believing any of the candidates would have turned the tragedy of 9/11 into the pursuit of hostile action against the Iraqi government....especially when there had been little to no provocation.

The Iran situation will serve as a decent litmus test for the candidates as to how they'll respond to a potential crisis.

[Nbadan]

The Iran situation will serve as a decent litmus test for the candidates as to how they'll respond to a potential crisis.

Yes, I also think moreso, the current situation in Pakistan...and on that front, Huckabee failed miserably...

[ShadowFalcon]

With regards to his statement on Iraq - taken way out of context.

I agree with him completely. As long as no harm is done, who cares if Americans are in Iraq?

They've been in Cuba for 100 years...

[Red9]

With regards to his statement on Iraq - taken way out of context.

I agree with him completely. As long as no harm is done, who cares if Americans are in Iraq?

They've been in Cuba for 100 years...

You may not care, but you should acknowledge that the Iraqis do care. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want U.S. troops out of their country. John McCain's insistence that they should stay in Iraq clearly shows his blatant disregard of the Iraqis' wishes for the complete withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq.

As for Cuba, I really don't see how this is applicable to Iraq given that the situation between those two countries are completely different.

[Red9]

I would expect better from someone who has fought in a war.

South Korea has a clearly-delineated border secured by thousands of U.S. troops, backed up by the defending army who were sympathetic to the U.S. troops, and hundreds of thousands of mines to keep the sides apart. How is that model similar to Iraq?

Japan's military and government were soundly beaten down and ultimately surrendered after massive sacrifice and expense. There was dissent among some of the population about whether to accept surrender, but there weren't dozens of religious/tribal/sectarian factions looking for an opportunity to wipe out their competitors by civil war or ethnic cleansing. Again, how does he see this situation as proof that occupation will be peaceful?

[ShadowFalcon]

You may not care, but you should acknowledge that the Iraqis do care. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want U.S. troops out of their country. John McCain's insistence that they should stay in Iraq clearly shows his blatant disregard of the Iraqis' wishes for the complete withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq.

As for Cuba, I really don't see how this is applicable to Iraq given that the situation between those two countries are completely different.

I said 'as long as no harm is done'. If the Iraqis feel genuinely oppressed, and if America has no need to be in Iraq, then I would want them out, too. But right now the Iraqis aren't genuinely oppressed, and America needs to be in Iraq. So keep them there. And before you say that I support the war, I'm Canadian. I remember watching CNN the day Baghdad was bombed and remarking at how it was the behavior of a war-monger.

As for the Cuba thing, the situations aren't entirely different. America has been in Iraq for four years. America's fourth year in Cuba, they had recently finished fighting a war there. Perhaps the Phillipines are a better example. I believe that America left in '91, but that's still a good 92 years of American presence in the Phillipines. And Wikipedia tells me that the first 14 of those years had war.

[Uncle_Tbag]

You may not care, but you should acknowledge that the Iraqis do care. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want U.S. troops out of their country. John McCain's insistence that they should stay in Iraq clearly shows his blatant disregard of the Iraqis' wishes for the complete withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq.

As for Cuba, I really don't see how this is applicable to Iraq given that the situation between those two countries are completely different.

If you actually believe that, you're oblivious.

Of course the people of Iraq wish we eventually withdraw from their nation and that's all the ridiculous polls will confirm, but they also are considerably appreciative of the help we continue to provide. We work with them, volunteers from both sects who wish to repel foreign fighters, insurgent forces, from Iraq. They also want as much help as they can get, restoring infrastructure we helped decimate, whether it's electricity, running water, sewage or trash removal. These basic services have often been disrupted and sabotaged by insurgents; and we continue to restore and protect them.

The greater majority of Iraqis are concerned that we will just ditch them and leave their country in shambles after we've torn it all apart. Most do fear we'll leave the nation a chaotic battlefield for insurgent forces to fight out in their city streets. Immediate withdrawal not only would confirm their fears, but at this point, would be an egregiously stupid move, after the considerable successes we've had in the past year.

The violence levels in Iraq have returned, in most areas, to levels in 2003. The stability is still tenuous, but we have been able to reduce our presence and return partial or full responsibility to Iraq's own security forces in many areas. Our surge has been a success, but we're by no means all through, where we can pack up and leave and expect that peace to continue.

[Uncle_Tbag]

I would expect better from someone who has fought in a war.

South Korea has a clearly-delineated border secured by thousands of U.S. troops, backed up by the defending army who were sympathetic to the U.S. troops, and hundreds of thousands of mines to keep the sides apart. How is that model similar to Iraq?

Japan's military and government were soundly beaten down and ultimately surrendered after massive sacrifice and expense. There was dissent among some of the population about whether to accept surrender, but there weren't dozens of religious/tribal/sectarian factions looking for an opportunity to wipe out their competitors by civil war or ethnic cleansing. Again, how does he see this situation as proof that occupation will be peaceful?

Where do you get the idea that the people in Iraq are hostile towards us and vice versa?

[Wild Cobra]

Where do you get the idea that the people in Iraq are hostile towards us and vice versa?
Isn't it obvious?

Red is a Koolaide drinking Lemming. Information provided by the Alphabet News Networks, and liberal blogs.

[temujin]

All is going well in the most wonderful of the worlds.

After restoring peace and democracy in Saudi Arabia,
where the same family had ruled for 80 years,
in Kuwait,
in Somalia,
in Egypt (33 years of the elected Mubarak),
Morocco (can't remember),
Jordany (could be Michael Jordany, if he so wished),
after fighting that famous islamist criminal of Massoud,
who dared kicking the friendly and democratic soviets out of Afghanistan,
as the precious pakistani pashtun democrats suggested,
to restore the democratic regime of the Taliban (inch'allah, by the way)
american troops are peacefully, calmly and steadily restoring law, order -and democracy obviously- in Irak.

All this by patronizing a semi-state in Kurdistan,
democratic of course,
to the great joy of the islamist-turned-democratic state of Turkey.

The American popolation gratefully cheers.
And pump the resulting oil.

Great is the confusion under the stars.
Situation excellent.