In an April 8 post on Time magazine's Swampland blog, reporter Jay Newton-Small purported to examine the back-and-forth between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain over McCain's January 3 comments that the U.S. might be in Iraq for “a hundred” years and that he would “be fine” with a Korea-like U.S. troop presence there "[a]s long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." Newton-Small quoted Obama asserting that he “can stand up to John McCain with credibility and say no to a 100-year occupation of Iraq,” and then wrote that Obama's “continued reference to a '100-year occupation' in Iraq must have the McCain campaign grinding their teeth. Fearing a Kerry-esque I-actually-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it moment, McCain's folks have been doing their best to debunk his comment made at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January.” Newton-Small added: “McCain has since said he meant a presence like the one the U.S. maintains in Korea which helps maintain peace though the war ended decades ago.” However, while writing about the McCain campaign's supposed “fear[]” of a flip-flop moment, Newton-Small failed to mention that McCain actually has flip-flopped: While McCain said he's “fine” with a Korea-like U.S. troop presence in Iraq, he had dismissed the idea in November 2007.

As Media Matters for America has documented, 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, during a January 3 town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, 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.”

Newton-Small's April 8 Swampland post:

Obama this morning addressed the Communications Workers of America's annual conference in Washington. He gave his usual spiel to unions highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq, his credentials to take on lobbyists and his days as a community organizer in Chicago. The 600,000-member CWA has yet to endorse a candidate and Hillary is also expected to address the group today (fair disclosure, I was a member of this union for two years when I worked at Agence France Presse).

Obama also didn't miss the opportunity to take a swipe at McCain. “I opposed this war from the start. I've opposed it each year it's been going on,” Obama said. “And that's why I'm the one candidate who will offer a real choice in November because I can stand up to John McCain with credibility and say no to a 100-year occupation of Iraq, and no to a third Bush term. It's time to bring out troops home.”

Obamas' continued reference to a “100-year occupation” in Iraq must have the McCain campaign grinding their teeth. Fearing a Kerry-esque I-actually-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it moment, McCain's folks have been doing their best to debunk his comment made at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January.

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 Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

McCain has since said he meant a presence like the one the U.S. maintains in Korea which helps maintain peace though the war ended decades ago. And, clearly, given the transcript, it is what he meant. So is it fair that both Clinton and Obama continue to hit McCain for these comments? Obama was careful today not to say that troops would be at “war” for 100 years, just an occupying force (though in an email entitled “THE NEW POLITICS OF DISTORTION” the RNC was quick to point out that as recently as Saturday Obama did use the combat phrasing). Obama defended his remarks on the Today Show this morning: “We can pull up the quotes on Youtube,” Obama told Meredith Vieira. “What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.”

That's not entirely accurate either as it would likely come as news to most South Koreans that U.S. troops are occupying their country. The GOP has been quick to accuse Obama of crossing the politics-of-hope line in the sand with his continued use of this line. Perhaps they have a point. It is because of the Bush campaign's daily flip-flop attacks that no one actually remembers what Kerry meant when he made that infamous statement: that he'd voted for the $87 billion war supplemental when it was offset by getting rid of Bush's tax cuts to the very wealthy.