He has neocons on his advisory staff that he inherited from Mr.9-11. I think it's safe to say he wants more war.

"Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran!"
-John McCain

/Not missing vital caveat

He doesn't think it will be like South Korea anymore either.

This guy's a little late with the spin himself.

Politics broken down to the 4 gods of chaos:
McCain= Blood for the blood god!
Hillary = Corruption, decay, and despair.
Obama= Change and hope.
Huckabee= Decadence, Excess, Pain, Pleasure and Self-Indulgence (you know he has to have some freaky shiat in his closet to be that fundie.

EwoksSuck: McCain on Iraq = Straight Talk Express off the Track, in The Ditch, Upside Down

Ha, that's good.

Also I hear McCain claimed he invented the internet.

McCain vs McCain (new window)
With how quick some of those flips were he's gotta have alzheimer's

I've seen the original context, and there is nothing wrong with how Clinton and Obama have been using McCain's statement.

/DRTFA
//probably won't either

it's pretty obvious mccain isn't ready for the presidency yet. still, what with his 500 year old zombie mom, there might be time for him to run again

democrats always jump to conclusions on the wrong information

that's what they do...

"lower taxes" = more taxes, but all of them lower
"health care" = building government agencies to spend taxes, instead of covering your hospital bills
"peace" = not protecting security

Sandelaphon: Politics broken down to the 4 gods of chaos:
McCain= Blood for the blood god!
Hillary = Corruption, decay, and despair.
Obama= Change and hope.
Huckabee= Decadence, Excess, Pain, Pleasure and Self-Indulgence (you know he has to have some freaky shiat in his closet to be that fundie.

You forgot Nader.

This is so biased it's sickening. McCain wants to blow Iraqi people up for the next 1000 years, no if's, and's or but's about it. He wants to blow up your face, too, especially if you have oil! When did Fox buy AP?? BOO!!

Well, that was interesting.

I'm saddened to see that Obama did that. I had hoped he would be different.

Descartes

Yeah, because when someone says something stupid and is trying to make it into a semantics argument so that he can dodge the point of the question, then no one should call him on his bullshiat.

1/6/2008:
"The point is it's American casualties. We've got to get American's off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years."

"It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars.... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

And just for laughs, more from the straight talk express:

11/29/02:
"We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we're not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies."

Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

First, McCain says they can stay 100 years as long as none are fighting. What are they supposed to do? Hide in the basement? Why have them over there if they aren't fighting? Spending tax money?

Second, the idea that Al Q is a threat to America is fearmongering, plain and simple, and McCain and the rest of the Republican Paty needs to be called out on that.

Third, and perhaps worst, McCain obviously doesn't have any kind of realistic plan about what to do about the volitility in the region.

Context is only important when a democrat says something.

Bacontastesgood: Yeah, because when someone says something stupid and is trying to make it into a semantics argument so that he can dodge the point of the question, then no one should call him on his bullshiat.

I'm sorry, when did I say that McCain never said anything stupid in the past?

This discussion is about whether or not McCain wants troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years. I've now seen the video on You Tube and it is obvious that he was saying "who gives a shiat how long they are there if they are safe." It is equally obvious that Obama and Hillary had deliberately distorted his position.

Descartes: This discussion is about whether or not McCain wants troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years. I've now seen the video on You Tube and it is obvious that he was saying "who gives a shiat how long they are there if they are safe." It is equally obvious that Obama and Hillary had deliberately distorted his position.

The point is, they are NOT safe.

So how long is Big John gonna keep 'em there, dying, in the middle of a hot civil war?

I agree -- context is important. And the context here is that John McCain is the biggest boo-yah pro-war cheerleader of the remaining presidential candidates. And he thinks that's going to be his ticket to the White House. The Straight Talk Express may want to actually someday take a trip through a little place called America. While he's at it, he should leave time for a quick excursion to Reality.

i've got to say, if you watch the video, mccain says "make it a hundred" in a really worrying way. a kinda "see if i care" way, a bit like his bomb iran song, then seems to try to mop up what was a thoughtless answer a bit, eventually relying on the al qaeda boogeyman

the most worrying things for me, is the idea that he is relying on there being an al qaeda presence, in a country where prior to invasion there was none, for one hundred years. i guess some supporters will buy anything though, so long as it makes them feel good about themselves

Descartes

I'm sorry, when did I say that McCain never said anything stupid in the past?

This discussion is about whether or not McCain wants troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years. I've now seen the video on You Tube and it is obvious that he was saying "who gives a shiat how long they are there if they are safe." It is equally obvious that Obama and Hillary had deliberately distorted his position.

this looked like another gaffe to me, though, which he tried to bluster his way out of. in fact, he seems really quite gaffe-prone when asked to think on his feet

NewsTalk: The point is, they are NOT safe.

The fact is, they are not safe.
The point is, he was misinterpreted.


21-7-b: this looked like another gaffe to me, though, which he tried to bluster his way out of. in fact, he seems really quite gaffe-prone when asked to think on his feet

I think in this case, he said what he meant. He's done so many gaffes that they seem more obvious when he does them.

ilambiquated: First, McCain says they can stay 100 years as long as none are fighting. What are they supposed to do? Hide in the basement? Why have them over there if they aren't fighting? Spending tax money?

I believe that the theory is that the American military is supposed to train up a new Iraqi police force and national guard.
Be DI's, observers, and Logistics personnel, basically, plus some ceremonial duties with low risk to take the place of Iraqi soldiers/policemen so that they can go and shed their blood for America's oil war instead of the heroic victims that are the American troops.

Yay AP for more of that sweet ,sweet liberal media bias.

Descartes

I think in this case, he said what he meant. He's done so many gaffes that they seem more obvious when he does them.

i think he said what he meant, too. but, i think that was a gaffe. to me, it looks like he gets himself so pumped up for these audience q & a sessions that he just says the first thing that comes into his head - which, because he's got himself pumped up, seems to quite often be either an aggressive or dismissive one-liner - a la bush

ilambiquated: First, McCain says they can stay 100 years as long as none are fighting. What are they supposed to do? Hide in the basement? Why have them over there if they aren't fighting? Spending tax money?

LOL! Dude, that's YOUR (you the libs) argument for why it's OK to have troops in Germany and Japan for 60 years -- that it's OK, not a problem mon [insert sound of bubbling bong water], because they aren't fighting.

Cearly McCain's original comments were meant that we would have troops and bases there for years to come in the same way that we still have bases in Germany and Korea 50 years after those conflicts.

The problem is, McCain's statement assumes that we will soon reach a point in Iraq where our troops will not be under fire and in danger of losing their lives. It assumes that the American people will be able to put up with years (how many more, 5, 10, 20?) of our troops being in danger until we reach that point so that it will be parallel to Germany.

The American people are not against troops in Iraq per se, the context is very important. McCain is not being honest and forthcoming about the amount of time, money, and lives he expects to have to lose before we reach that point that parallels Germany and Korea. If that could be achieved in 6 months and the rest of the troops brought home, most Americans would embrace it. If that will take 10 years to achieve, most Americans are simply not willing to accept that.

Can someone tell me - Did McCain actually "sing" about bombing Iran at some point? Was he serious? I keep seeing references to it, but I'm not familiar with the story. And - most important -is it on the You Tubes?

Theseus: The problem is, McCain's statement assumes that we will soon reach a point in Iraq where our troops will not be under fire and in danger of losing their lives.

And he has no plan to get us there.

Descartes: The fact is, they are not safe.
The point is, he was misinterpreted.

No, the point is that they are not safe (an average of one U.S. military death per day in February of 2008) but McCain is talking like they are. He wants to keep troops there indefinitely (obvious on its face, since he's never offered any type of plan for getting them out of there), and then tries to explain away that stance by basing it on an imaginary premise -- that they won't continue to be targets in the middle of a hot civil war.

If McCain really isn't planning to have our troops in that shooting gallery for the next 100 years, he needs to explain his strategy for when and how he will get them out. Until then, his comments are absolutely fair game.

21-7-b: Teela

Thanks. I guess I could have searched for that myself, but . . . it's early.

That article was crap.

Hillary or Obama will have fun tearing Old Man McCrazy apart in the debates.

It's going so well in Iraq that we need to stay for 100 years?
Or is it going so badly that we need to stay in Iraq for 100 years?

kuhns_m: It's going so well in Iraq that we need to stay for 100 years?
Or is it going so badly that we need to stay in Iraq for 100 years?

Those in charge here are priviledged and have no one
that THEY care about in iraq, so they don't CARE.

Either way is good for them.

Alien Robot: ilambiquated: First, McCain says they can stay 100 years as long as none are fighting. What are they supposed to do? Hide in the basement? Why have them over there if they aren't fighting? Spending tax money?

LOL! Dude, that's YOUR (you the libs) argument for why it's OK to have troops in Germany and Japan for 60 years -- that it's OK, not a problem mon [insert sound of bubbling bong water], because they aren't fighting.

I think we should withdraw immediately from Germany. The troops were only there to lose a war against the Soviets and trigger a nuclear war. That made it too dangerous to invade Germany.

American presence in Korea ditto. In Japan, pointless. In Iraq, pointless.

starsrift: I believe that the theory is that the American military is supposed to train up a new Iraqi police force and national guard.

Nation building?

ilambiquated: starsrift: I believe that the theory is that the American military is supposed to train up a new Iraqi police force and national guard.

Nation building?

Indeed.

Isn't it worth considering, even if we DO accept this bullshiat article's assertion that McCain was only talking about a hundred years of PEACETIME troop presence, that one of the reasons Osama Bin Laden gave for the Sept.2001 attacks was that they were in retaliation for continued American presence in Saudi Arabia?

Do the hawks EVER learn from history?

ilambiquated: "I think we should withdraw immediately from Germany. The troops were only there to lose a war against the Soviets and trigger a nuclear war. That made it too dangerous to invade Germany.

American presence in Korea ditto. In Japan, pointless. In Iraq, pointless."


Agree. The U.S. military should be used for one purpose only: to defend U.S. soil from attack. -- Not "Nation building" or "peacekeeping" or "humanitarian relief"

It's time the Europeans, South Koreans, Japanese, etc. started worrying about their own defenses instead of thinking that we are going to ride to their rescue if North Korea or China or Russia gets twitchy.

We've got enough problems to worry about back here without going around finding problems in the Middle East, Darfur, Bosnia or whereever.

We do not need a military presence in the ME, in facts it's counterproductive.

I saw the film of the first time he said we'd be there 100 years, and he didn't say anything about being safe. He said, at least I understood him to mean, that we would be fighting terrorists in the middle east from bases in Iraq for the next 100 years.

It seemed like a fair assessment of the situation to me, assuming that we continue to be stupid enough to think we can defeat a tactic.

jcooli09: I saw the film of the first time he said we'd be there 100 years, and he didn't say anything about being safe. He said, at least I understood him to mean, that we would be fighting terrorists in the middle east from bases in Iraq for the next 100 years.

It seemed like a fair assessment of the situation to me, assuming that we continue to be stupid enough to think we can defeat a tactic.

Well, after 35 years, we're this close to having that whole drug problem licked.

Stopheles
Isn't it worth considering, even if we DO accept this bullshiat article's assertion that McCain was only talking about a hundred years of PEACETIME troop presence, that one of the reasons Osama Bin Laden gave for the Sept.2001 attacks was that they were in retaliation for continued American presence in Saudi Arabia?

Do the hawks EVER learn from history?

Dec. 7, 1941, do the idiots ever learn from history? Just because somebody has an excuse to use for attacking you doesn't make them right, doesn't make you wrong, and not standing up may be the worst mistake you can make. I cannot express the true depth of my disdain for the poor excuse for logic you just demonstrated.

Wasn't he a POW?

Ummm...he was caught by the Vietnamese. How does this count as credibility as a Commander in Chief?

I don't dispute his service or his valor in what he endured. I don't see how this adds any insight to a position far above his at the time.

/I'm serious.
//Serious question.
///For years I have liked him on Tuesday. Only to find out he says the opposite on Thursday.

Descartes: Well, that was interesting.

I'm saddened to see that Obama did that. I had hoped he would be different.

Sure you did.

/Original clip of McCain here.

See, the problem with what John McCain said was that he posited a non-existent condition in order to justify his stance. How long do we have to stay there in a situation where we are losing men and wasting huge portions of our national treasure on destruction before we get to his peaceful Japan-like state.

He wasn't addressing the issue that the questioner posed, he created a fantasy world to justify his current belligerence.

I guess just about everyone made the point I just made above, before me and better than me.

See, this is why you read threads before posting.

People think our troops are safe in South Korea and Germany? Perhaps you would have liked the Eastern Front? Those deployments were made precisely because those are danger zones. In retrospect its easy to see them as luxury vacations for highschool kids to get some scholarship money but back in the day people actually thought the soviets would fire up their armor brigades and perhaps launch a couple short range nukes. Our expectation in S. Korea is that the whole peninsula will be shelled and Seoul would be leveled in about 15 minutes flat.

What can a bunch of pissed off dirt merchants do in comparison? A couple improvised explosive devices? "The self-mastery of Percival becomes the self-masturbatory of the bourgeoise"

Sandelaphon: Politics broken down to the 4 gods of chaos:
McCain= Blood for the blood god!
Hillary = Corruption, decay, and despair.
Obama= Change and hope.
Huckabee= Decadence, Excess, Pain, Pleasure and Self-Indulgence (you know he has to have some freaky shiat in his closet to be that fundie.

That's the single nerdiest thing I have EVER read on Fark, and I'm counting Tron-Guy pics in that statement. When my hangover is gone, remind me to buy you a month of TF.

/Nader is just a rouge Warhound on the battlefield. He may inflict damage, but in the end not enough to matter.

Nader is an injun?