FactCheck Buys Into McCain’s Fantasy Of ‘100 Year’ Peaceful Presence In Iraq
FactCheck Buys Into McCain’s Fantasy Of ‘100 Year’ Peaceful Presence In Iraq
At a townhall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire on Jan. 3, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) infamously exclaimed that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years.“ McCain clarified his comments, saying “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me.” Watch it:
This past weekend, the Democratic National Committee released an ad featuring McCain saying, “[M]aybe a hundred. That’d be fine with me,” accompanied by images of the war in Iraq.
Yesterday, FactCheck.org weighed in on the ad, complaining that even though the ad simply uses McCain’s own words, it “doesn’t mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence” and leaves “a clear impression that McCain proposes to allow a century more of war.”
FactCheck.org is claiming that any mention of McCain’s “100 years” cannot be associated with war fighting, but McCain’s peaceful fantasy is necessitated on continuing to fight in Iraq until his unlikely scenario somehow takes shape.
In its rush to defend McCain, FactCheck.org never grapples with the unanswered questions underlying the premise of McCain’s wishful thinking about an essentially permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq that is “peaceful”:
How do we transition out of a wartime presence? How long is McCain willing to wait for that presence to be possible? Is there a point in time that he will consider leaving Iraq if casualties continue?
Here are a few examples of why McCain’s scenario is so impracticable:
- The Iraqi people do not want permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. In Oct. 2007, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak “put the U.S. on notice,” telling Vice President Cheney that “The people of Iraq, the parliament, the council of representatives and the government of Iraq, they all say no, big fat no, N-O for the bases in Iraq.”
- If Iraq were to host U.S. bases, some factions in Iraq will always “resent their mere presence for the blame that they cast upon America,” according to CNN’s Baghdad correspondent, Michael Ware. Ware also says that a long-term presence in Iraq “could actually ferment further resentment” against the U.S.
- In the past, even McCain has said that a peaceful “South Korea” like presence is not feasible because of “the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects.”
As the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg — who was at the townhall in New Hampshire — says, “the context shows…that yanking that sound bite out of context isn’t really all that unfair” because McCain is essentially saying that he is willing to stay in Iraq indefinitely until casualties stop and then he’s willing to stay for 100 more years.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Details details.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pmMcCain on staying in Iraq: “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me.”
- – And then McCain hopped on his dove-white unicorn where he was instantly transformed into a young, muscular, flowing golden locks, Adonis, and as his steed flew off into the sunset, McCain sprinkled the adoring crowd with lavender lollipos and butterscotch flatulence.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:18 pm#2: damnit, lollipops.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:19 pmMcCain is a clueless fool.
Even if American military stays (which they will because theres no way they’ll just abandon those townsized megabases theyre building), and American casualties are reduced to zero, the mere presence of American troops and American interference in Iraqi politics (to force them to stay friendly to US not Iran) is the main destabilizing factor in the region.
Few people in Iraq or the ME trust the US, for very good reasons. And as long as US stays in Iraq the different factions will blame eachother for working with the Americans. And the American presence will also continue to attract terrorists to Iraq, while increasing Arab resentment towards the US as well as Israel.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pmEveryone wants us out of Iraq except the contractors who are paid very well, by our troops who are not paid well to protect them. How do we do it ? By giving the Iraqis a deadline, you stand up because we are out. Not one more dead American for a country that will not fight for itself.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:27 pmWhy in the hell would you need troops if there was no violence?
More of John Sidney McCain III’s circular flush.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:31 pmNow, if they were to do a FATcheck, specifically on John Sidney McCain’s head, that’d be news!
April 30th, 2008 at 6:36 pmOK, OK, I’ll just settle for PREMISEcheck.org…
April 30th, 2008 at 6:36 pmI hadn’t realized factcheck.org was for sale.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pmA permanent US military presence in Iraq that is peaceful – yeah, right. When there is nobody left to kill, it will be very peaceful, indeed.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:43 pmWell, gee, if I was realllllly thin, I could wear a size 2.
Which has about as much chance of happening as a peaceful US occupation in Iraq.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pmSo we’re talkin’ what….about 97 years after he kicks the bucket?
April 30th, 2008 at 6:50 pmJohn McCrazy has no problem with our soldiers dying today…just not in 50 to 100 years, you know, when he’s dead and gone. Basically, McCrazy with our soldiers being hurt when he’s alive.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:50 pmCorrection on #14: “Bascially, McCrazy IS FINE with our soldiers being hurt when he’s alive”
April 30th, 2008 at 6:51 pmRUCerious Says:
OK, OK, I’ll just settle for PREMISEcheck.org…
I would just as soon no one checked my premise(s)
April 30th, 2008 at 7:00 pmNot to mention McCain (and factcheck.org) is hiding behind the ‘peace time’ fantasy to justify the current American military presence in Iraq -which is far from peaceful.
If McCain were not talking from both sides of his mouth, he would support troop withdrawal now, then propose their possible return to a peaceful Iraq; assuming Iraq ever becomes peaceful and Iraqis welcome American military presence.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pmWill somebody please tell me when this 100 years of peace will begin?
April 30th, 2008 at 7:26 pmQuoth the Nevar NevarMore!
April 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pmOkay, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I agree with FactCheck. McCain did indeed say that 100 years was fine with him if nobody is being injured or killed. Everyone — myself included — is pretty sure that’s impossible. But the fact remains that the quote in question was qualified in that way.
The solution to all this is simple: Someone needs to ask McCain to clarify. You said this. How long are you willing to keep troops in Iraq if they are getting killed? (Which is almost certainly what will happen.)
The fact is, McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq until the violence stops (i.e. forever), then keep them there for 100 years after that. This is pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it, so someone in the press, please ask: “Sir, how long will you keep troops in Iraq as long as they are getting injured or killed?”
Once he answers, we won’t have to keep fixating on this previous quote, which unfortunately is not as definitive as everyone thinks.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:59 pmListen Thinkerton. Nobody has to ask McCain anything. He said it exactly and then when everybody gasped he started to backtrack. He’s running for the highest office of the land as we are told about Obama constantly. If the old coot can’t stand the heat then he better get out of the kitchen.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pmPlease let McCain go back to Iraq and catch one of those roses which are lovingly thrown toward him.
Please!
April 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pmwell, call me a tetrapyloctimist if you must, but…
if we’re not in a “war” against iraq right now, but the repubs refuse to concede that it’s an “occupation” because they would prefer to imagine it as a “war on terror” (apparently by *throwing* a war in iraq and simply inviting the terrorists), while at the same time knowing that it’s the presence of the US in the ME, perhaps, that was the original impetus for UBL’s attacks, then at what point do we stop taking casualties? when we build bulletproof cyborg soldiers? who will work on contract for half a million a year?
remember, there is no “US” in “ME”. Only “ME”.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pmShayne, respectfully, I don’t even know how those last two sentences are relevant. Here’s what McCain said exactly:
“That’d be fine with me, so 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.”
I’m on your side. I can be 100% sure of what he meant, but as long as the meaning of the exact quote can be interpreted differently by other people, they will remain unconvinced. You don’t need to convince me, you need to convince those other people. McCain can say, “I said 100 years was okay as long as troops aren’t being wounded or killed.” That’s a true statement. He could just as easily have said “100 years is okay with me as long as al Qaida is serving our troops tea and giving them back rubs every afternoon.”
My point, which you missed, is that if we don’t want to have this argument with other people (e.g. “the Right”) about what McCain meant, then the solution is easy. Ask for a unambiguous clarification. I wish the news media would do more of that.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:17 pm.
And yet McTORTURE fails to explain how he’s gonna bring us into that peaceful 100 year occupation.
What..?
“Stay the course”?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:52 amso let me see..what mccain really meant to say was “if the violence continues we will leave sooner than 100 years”…doesnt that count as cutting and running?
May 1st, 2008 at 2:55 amtest
May 1st, 2008 at 9:09 amtest
May 1st, 2008 at 9:09 amThe solution to all this is simple: Someone needs to ask McCain to clarify. You said this. How long are you willing to keep troops in Iraq if they are getting killed? (Which is almost certainly what will happen.)
The fact is, McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq until the violence stops (i.e. forever), then keep them there for 100 years after that. This is pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it, so someone sony vgp-bp2ea battery,sony pcg-gr100 battery in the press, please ask: “Sir, how long will you keep troops in Iraq as long as they are getting injured or killed?”
Once he answers, we won’t have to keep fixating on this previous quote, which unfortunately is not as definitive as everyone thinks.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am