Reporting on Dems' "condemn[ation]" of McCain comment, Wash. Times left out McCain's inconsistency
SUMMARY: Reporting on Sen. John McCain's speech about the Iraq war, The Washington Times asserted that "Democrats have condemned Mr. McCain for his 100-year comment, though Mr. McCain was saying Iraq could become a nation like South Korea, where U.S. forces have been stationed for more than 50 years." But the Times did not mention that McCain has been inconsistent on whether U.S. troop's future presence in Iraq would be analogous to that in South Korea.
In an April 8 article discussing Sen. John McCain's April 7 speech on the Iraq war, The Washington Times reported that "Democrats have condemned Mr. McCain for his 100-year comment, though Mr. McCain was saying Iraq could become a nation like South Korea, where U.S. forces have been stationed for more than 50 years guarding the borders of a stable country without insurgents." But the Times did not note that in an interview prior to his "hundred" years remark during a January 3 New Hampshire town hall meeting, McCain dismissed the idea of South Korea being an analogy for a future U.S. troop presence in Iraq. As Media Matters for America noted, on the November 27, 2007, edition of PBS' Charlie Rose, McCain was asked by Rose if South Korea "is an analogy of where Iraq might be ... in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there." McCain replied, "I don't think so." Rose then asked: "Even if there are no casualties?" McCain replied, "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."
By contrast, as Media Matters noted, during the January 3 town hall meeting, a participant said to McCain: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years -- " and McCain interjected: "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 -- 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."
During the April 6 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) specifically criticized McCain for making contradictory statements on whether America's future troop presence in Iraq would be analogous to the U.S. presence in South Korea. Kerry cited McCain's interview on Charlie Rose and asserted, "So you have a different John McCain today when he talks about 100 years or a million years."
From the April 8 Washington Times article:
Mr. McCain's Democratic opponents in the presidential race are determined to widen his vulnerability on his close association with the war.
"John McCain was wrong about the war from the beginning," Mr. Obama said yesterday in response to the McCain speech. "He's wrong to call for more resources in Iraq while the American people are struggling, and he's wrong to support a 100-year occupation of a country that needs to take responsibility for its own future."
Democrats have condemned Mr. McCain for his 100-year comment, though Mr. McCain was saying Iraq could become a nation like South Korea, where U.S. forces have been stationed for more than 50 years guarding the borders of a stable country without insurgents.
McCain's assessment that Iraq could somehow in the future be analogous to the U.S. presence in Korea really shows off his rocker he is.
Korea is a border situation between two states. The deterrent U.S. troops serve a clear purpose that can be easily defined by looking at an Atlas. Whether you agree with the mission or not, it's at least crystal clear.
What will the mission of U.S. garrisons be in a supposedly stable Iraq? To guard the concrete walls of a base against a toxic mix of hidden militias, hoping that mortars don't start raining down at any moment?
Pete,
I'm of the opinion you need to update your obviously false assertions.
Rich Lowry makes the argument that 12 of the 18 benchmarks have been met and progress is being made on the other four.
He suggests the left move the goalposts and now start talking about the cost of the war.
http://townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2008/04/07/beyond_benchmarksI heard that the military didn't reach its benchmarks because word got out that there are liberals in America who don't support the troops and their mission. Upon hearing this news, the American troops were so demoralized, that they lost focus on the mission at hand.
Shame on you America-hating libs!!
And AA is fighting those liberals over here so we won't have to fight them over there.
Will you identify which 12 of the 18 benchmarks have been met? My reading of the Patreus materials and other govt. docs says only 25%-40% have been met. Thx.
I'm beginning to doubt that Mr. McCain actually meant to say "100 years"... the Old Man seems rather prone these days to "mispeaking" and/or brain-fades... he maybe didn't really have 100 years in his mind, when that's what his mouth apparently said.
As far as what the Old Man might have truly been thinking, when his mouth steered him into a ditch by saying "100 years", well who can say... who can search out the doughy matter of what's left of the Old Man's brain, and find out what's really there.
So the Old Man did it again... again he misidentifies who it is that's trying to topple, by bomb and gunfire, the democratically elected government of Iraq.
MCCAIN [At today's Hearing, questioning Gen. Petraeus]: "Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?"
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: "It is a major threat. Though it is certainly as not as major a threat as it was say, 15 months ago."
MCCAIN: "Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shias overall?"
PETRAEUS: "No, sir."
MCCAIN: "Or Sunnis or anybody else then?"
It's usually at this point in the Old Man's life, when it's become evident to all that the Old Man has finally slipped his gears, for good... this is when a well-meaning family member ushers the Old Man off the public stage, and retires him to the safety and comfort of his home, where he can spend the remainder of his days, watching Fox News Channel.
Do John McCain or conservative republicans respect the moral foundation of this country? The U.S. Constitution was actually designed, among other things, to protect the people of America from misguided government.
U.S. Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion
Right now, for the first time ever, your tax dollars are funding religious groups you may not agree with. To add insult to injury, conservative judges have ruled that taxpayers do not have a right to challenge this expenditure.
Amendment IV - Search and seizure
Under the guise of court action against abortion, Conservative republicans had John Ashcroft subpoena all the medical records of literally thousands of women just like you and members of your family. Conservative republicans are invading your privacy every day. Unfortunately for all of us, they don't appear to care about our U.S. constitution, or by extension, the people of our great country.
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People
John McCain and conservative republicans have tried consistently to overturn States Laws. They used your tax dollars to destroy the will of the people of Oregon, and the famous "Death with Dignity" law; they lost, but undoubtedly will try again. Conservative republicans and John McCain do not respect States Rights.
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment
Would you rather die, or support a government which supported and sanctioned torture? The founding fathers would rather have died, and in fact they were proud to fight and die for our government: A government which specifically outlaws cruel and unusual punishment for very important reasons.
I am one of millions of people that view this straying from our moral foundations as very bad news for our country. I urge you to keep this in mind in the coming election.
For all practical purposes, Iraq is our shiny new colony... or to paraphrase Colin Powell... we broke it; now we own it.
The ugly truth is that Iraq is a boiling pot, and Saddam was the lid on that pot. Now our troops are the lid on that pot, and it's still boiling. THANKS, President Numbnuts!
"Gramps"? This was a term I heard used on the Stephanie Miller (or "Unfunny McHorseface" as she's known) program. I saw a billboard and thought that the horse show was coming to town. Then I realized that it was really a picture of Steph Miller.
"Gramps" is about as "funny" as it gets on that sad little radio show.
Let's be honest, Notta... as an actual McCain supporter, I'm troubled by the use of the slur "Gramps", especially by hateful ageists like Worrierking, but I'm going to have to give everybody a pass who has used it.
The only one whose feelings could be hurt are The Mavericks. First of all , he's probably not going to hear the insult, unless he's holding that big cartoon-style hearing-hirn up to his ear as he says "eh? eh?", and even if he hears it, he'll probably forget it within a few minutes, what with him being so old and disoriented.
http://www.a-1video.com/W.C.%20Fields%20-%20It's%20A%20Gift%20ad.jpg
McCain has not once been inconsistent regarding the fact that he wants troops in Iraq to remain for 100 or more years "as long as US troops aren't being killed or injured".
He has said that he did not want a "significant" troop number to stay in Iraq. But this is not an inconsistency, unless you find just one instance of him saying that he would like to keep a "significant" troop presence there.
You're completely and totally off the mark. I suggest you read it again.
The inconsistency that MMFA speaks of does not concern troop numbers, it concerns whether or not a future U.S. troop presence in Iraq will be analogous to that of Korea.
I'm sure we could all sit down with him and an adult beverage, discuss this till we get a little drunk, and have just the best time. Till we have to pry our tongues off from our teeth the next morning.
He has said something about the incombatibility of withdrawl and winning. The bigger issue is who he'll put up as a supreme court nominee(s). I can't see him putting up anyone except Roberts and Scalia clones. No thank you.