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.

And yet McTORTURE fails to explain how he’s gonna bring us into that peaceful 100 year occupation.

What..?

“Stay the course”?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…

.

Listen 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.

Shayne, 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.

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”.

Please!

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.

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.

OK, OK, I’ll just settle for PREMISEcheck.org…

I would just as soon no one checked my premise(s)

Which has about as much chance of happening as a peaceful US occupation in Iraq.