Faulting Dems for "twist[ing]" McCain's "hundred" years comment from NH event, Wash. Post's "fact checker" Dobbs ignored McCain's evasions at same event

In an April 2 Washington Post "Fact Checker" item about Democrats' assertion that Sen. John McCain is "willing to fight a 100-year war in Iraq," staff writer and "fact checker" Michael Dobbs accused Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of "twist[ing]" Sen. John McCain's "words by claiming that he 'wants' to fight a 100-year war." Dobbs highlighted the fact that when McCain first made his "hundred" years remark in Derry, New Hampshire, he also stated, "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed then it's fine with me"; Dobbs then asserted that "whether the conflict is winnable is a separate question. But there is a difference between fighting a war and occupying a country." He assigned the purported distortion "two Pinocchios," which he says indicates "Significant omissions or exaggerations." But, while Dobbs noted McCain's "hundred" years remark and accused Democrats of "twist[ing]" McCain words, he did not note that during the same Derry, N.H., event McCain repeatedly avoided directly answering how many years he would be willing to fight a war in Iraq if Americans are "being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." Indeed, Dobbs gave no indication that McCain has yet to say on the record how long he does intend to continue fighting the war in Iraq.

By focusing on whether McCain " 'wants' to fight a 100-year war," Dobbs ignored McCain's refusal to answer the audience member's question and, more generally, the issue of how long McCain is in fact willing to fight in Iraq.

During the January 3 New Hampshire town hall meeting in which McCain made the "hundred" years remark, a participant initially asked McCain: "What I would like to know is, I've heard you say a million times all the reasons why we can't leave Iraq. But I've never heard you say what it is you hope to accomplish in Iraq and how long it's going to take. So if you could please address that in terms of specifics, I'd appreciate it." In response, McCain did not state "how long" what he "hope[s] to accomplish in Iraq" would take, instead stating: "I can tell you that it's going to be long and hard and tough. I can tell you the option of defeat is incredible and horrendous. And I can tell you and look you in the eye and tell you that this strategy is succeeding. And what we care about is not American presence, we care about American casualties, and those casualties, I believe, will be dramatically -- and continue to be reduced." After McCain's response, the participant again asked: "I want to know how long are we going to be there?" In response, McCain again did not specify a length of time. Later during the exchange, the participant asked McCain: "I want to go back to Iraq -- now, 50 years? What if U.S. soldiers are being killed at the same rate, one per day, four years from now?":

McCAIN: Oh, well, I can't tell you the ratio or what it is, but I can tell you I understand American public opinion, sir, and Americans --

WOMAN: [inaudible]

McCAIN: Yes, ma'am, and so I understand what's at stake here. That's why -- and I understand that American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed. Can I just --

QUESTIONER: So what I hear is an open-ended commitment? That's my last [inaudible]. An open-ended commitment? --

McCAIN: I have a, quote, open-ended commitment in Asia. I have an open-ended commitment in South Korea. I have an open-ended commitment in Bosnia. I have an open-ended commitment in Europe. I have an open-ended commitment everywhere [inaudible].

In subsequent remarks, McCain specifically avoided addressing how long he's willing to stay in Iraq if there continue to be American casualties. During a February 11 event in Virginia, McCain stated: "the argument is really almost insulting to one's intelligence to say, how long we're in Iraq."

Thank you for that question because, you know, this is -- anyone who worries about how long we're in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war. The question is not how long we stay in Iraq. The question is, is whether we're able to reduce the casualties, eliminate them, have the Iraqi military, as they are today, take over more and more of our responsibilities.

We have troops in Kuwait. I don't hear a single American say, get the troops out of Kuwait. Maybe there are, but certainly it hasn't affected American public opinion. We have a base in Turkey. We have -- we've had troops for 60 years in Germany and Japan. We've had troops in South Korea since 1950.

So, I mean, the argument is really almost insulting to one's intelligence to say, how long we're in Iraq. The question is, will we be able to succeed with this strategy, which is succeeding, and we withdraw American troops to bases out of harm's way, eliminate the casualties and have this counterinsurgency succeed, which we are on the path to doing. And compare that with the demands for setting a date for withdrawal, which in my view is how al Qaeda will trumpet that they've defeated the United States of America.

On the February 14 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, host Larry King asked McCain about his "hundred" years comment, and McCain replied that "it's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's whether we succeed in Iraq or not." Additionally, on the January 6 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert, after noting McCain's January 3 response, asked McCain: "What kind of troop levels for the next 10, 20 years?" McCain replied: "I -- you know, that's very hard to say. But they -- but the troops would be out of harm's way. That's the key to it."

In her April 3 New York Times column, columnist Gail Collins wrote that McCain meant "that he's prepared to keep troops stationed in Iraq for 100 years as long as no one is 'injured or harmed or wounded or killed' in the process." She then added: "Estimates on how long McCain is prepared to stay if some injuring or harming or wounding or killing is involved are yet to come."

The April 2 Washington Post "Fact Checker" item:

The charge that Republican Sen. John McCain wants the Iraq conflict to become a "100-year war" has become a recurring theme in Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign. The Democrat has made the claim several times on the campaign trail, as has Susan Rice, one of his top foreign policy advisers. McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq. But he has talked about a prolonged U.S. military presence there, similar to the stationing of U.S. troops in Germany after World War II or in South Korea after the Korean War.

THE FACTS

Take a look at what McCain actually said in Derry, N.H., in January. Cutting off a questioner who talked about the Bush administration's willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, the Republican senator said: "Make it a hundred." He then mentioned that U.S. troops have been in Germany for 60 years and in South Korea for 50 years, and added, "That's fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Democrats seized on McCain's remarks. At one time or another, both Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have said that the presumptive Republican nominee is willing to fight a 100-year war in Iraq. When challenged about this assertion on Monday, Obama referred journalists to the YouTube version of the Derry meeting. But the YouTube clip does not back up his case.

Whether the conflict is winnable is a separate question. But there is a difference between fighting a war and occupying a country. World War II lasted nearly six years (3 1/2 years in the case of the United States), but a significant U.S. troop presence still remains in Germany.

McCain has also not been entirely consistent about his thoughts on a long-term U.S. military occupation of Iraq. Interviewed on "The Charlie Rose Show" last November, he rejected the Korea/Germany analogy:

ROSE: Do you think that this -- Korea, South Korea -- is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?

McCAIN: I don't think so.

ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?

McCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.

UPDATE Thursday 1:15 P.M.

McCain aide Mark Salter disputes my use of the term "occupation" to describe the U.S. military presence in Korea and Germany and, by extension, what the senator has in mind for Iraq. I think he has a point. An occupation carries a connotation of rule by the occupying power, and lack of full sovereignty on the part of the occupied. The formal U.S. military occupation of Germany ended in 1949, even though U.S. troops remained in the country. (Of course, there are gradations of "occupation." The U.S. continued to exercise great influence in West Germany, even after 1949.) Meanwhile Tom O'Hare, a social studies teacher at Stone Ridge school in Bethesda, called me to point out that World War II lasted three years nine months in the case of the U.S. (December 1941 to August 1945) rather than 3 1/2 years as I wrote. I stand corrected.

THE PINOCCHIO TEST

A more honest line of attack for the Democrats would be against McCain's support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whether he has a clear strategy for winning the war, and against the feasibility of a long-term U.S. occupation of a Muslim country. Instead of attacking him on these grounds, they have twisted his words by claiming that he "wants" to fight a 100-year war.

From the January 3 Derry, New Hampshire, town hall meeting:

QUESTIONER: I want to say at the outset that I'm not going to be voting for you. I'm going to be voting in the Democratic primary in order to defeat the senator from New York [Sen. Hillary Clinton], who I refer to as a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

I have -- I've listened to Hillary Clinton say probably a hundred times that she will end the war, and I've heard you say that we can't leave Iraq. In both cases, I think the devil's in the details. I have -- I looked at your website. I read everything on your website today, and I couldn't find any answers to my questions.

What I would like to know is, I've heard you say a million times all the reasons why we can't leave Iraq. But I've never heard you say what it is you hope to accomplish in Iraq and how long it's going to take. So if you could please address that in terms of specifics, I'd appreciate it.

McCAIN: Yes, sir, and thank you for coming tonight and thank you for your frankness and candor. May I just say that this is the classic counterinsurgency we're engaged in right now. This is not a new strategy -- General [David] Petraeus has updated it -- but the fact is it's a classic counterinsurgency.

And you get areas under a secure environment, and that secure environment then allows the economic political and social process to move forward. In case you missed it, New Year's Eve, people were out in the streets in Baghdad by the thousands for the first time in years. That's because we provided them with a safe and secure environment. Is it totally safe? No. I talked earlier about the suicide bombs and the continued threats.

But -- and then what happens is American troops withdraw and they withdraw to bases and then they eventually withdraw, or we reach an arrangement like we have with South Korea, with Japan. We still have troops in Bosnia. But the fact is, it's American casualties that the American people care about, and those casualties are on the way down rather dramatically.

And the option -- and I'll say this again because you've got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I'd look you in the eye and tell you I know that Al Qaeda would have -- would have said we beat the United States of America. If we'd gone along with [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] and said the war was lost to Al Qaeda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East, and I am convinced of that, and so is General Petraeus as well as others.

So I can tell you that it's going to be long and hard and tough. I can tell you the option of defeat is incredible and horrendous. And I can tell you and look you in the eye and tell you that this strategy is succeeding. And what we care about is not American presence, we care about American casualties, and those casualties, I believe, will be dramatically -- and continued to be reduced. Please follow up.

QUESTIONER: Thank you. I do not believe that one U.S. soldier being killed almost every day is success. There were three U.S. soldiers killed today. I want to know how long are we going to be there? Are you, are you --

McCAIN: How long do you want us to be in South Korea? How long do you want us to be in Bosnia?

QUESTIONER: Nobody is -- there's no fighting going on in South Korea --

MCCAIN: The fighting, I guarantee you --

QUESTIONER: Let's not talk about South Korea. Let's come back to Iraq.

McCAIN: Thank you, sir, and I can look you in the eye and tell you that those casualties tragically continue, as I made very clear in my opening remarks. But they are much less, and they are dramatically reduced, and we will eventually eliminate them. And again, the option of setting a date for withdrawal is a date for surrender, and we would then have many more casualties and many more Americans sacrificed if we withdraw with -- with a setting a date for surrender.

Now, you and I have an honest and open disagreement, but I can tell you that six months ago that people like you who believe like you do said the surge would never succeed. It is succeeding. And I've been there and I have seen it with my very own eyes. You want to follow up again?

QUESTIONER: Yes, please. President Bush has talked about our --

McCAIN: Please, please, please start over.

QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years --

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.

QUESTIONER: Is that -- is that --

McCAIN: 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 --

QUESTIONER: So that's your policy?

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

QUESTIONER: By the way, I forgot to say that I hope that you kick Mitt Romney's butt back to Massachusetts --

McCAIN: I knew there's a reason why I called on you.

QUESTIONER: -- or Utah or Michigan or wherever he is. That man does not -- cannot lie straight in bed. But I want to go back to Iraq. I want to go back to Iraq -- now, 50 years? What if U.S. soldiers are being killed at the same rate, one per day, four years from now?

McCAIN: Oh, well, I can't tell you the ratio or what it is, but I can tell you I understand American public opinion, sir, and Americans --

WOMAN: [inaudible]

McCAIN: Yes, ma'am, and so I understand what's at stake here. That's why -- and I understand that American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed. Can I just --

QUESTIONER: So what I hear is an open-ended commitment? That's my last [inaudible]. An open-ended commitment?

McCAIN: I have a quote open-ended commitment in Asia. I have an open-ended commitment in South Korea. I have an open-ended commitment in Bosnia. I have an open-ended commitment in Europe. I have an open-ended commitment everywhere [inaudible].

QUESTIONER: Thank you for going on record. Thank you.

McCAIN: Thank you, sir, and thank you for this exchange because --

WOMAN: [inaudible]

McCAIN: Yes, ma'am, thank you. God bless. This kind of dialogue has to take place in America today, and I thank you for expressing your views and I appreciate it.