"One hundred years in Iraq? And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush," an announcer says in the most recent ad, run by MoveOn.org.
Here's the video, you've probably already seen it...
"You have seen an ad campaign that is mounted against me that says I wanted to stay and fight in Iraq and fight for 100 years," McCain told about 300 people at the Robert E. Loup Jewish Community Center.
"My friends, it's a direct falsification, and I'm sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion," McCain said.
"After we win the war in Iraq, and we are succeeding — and it's long and hard and tough, with enormous sacrifices — then I'm talking about a security arrangement that may or may not be the same kind of thing we had with Korea after the Korean war was over," he said.
Several very large problems here with McCain's answer. "After we win...".
This is John McCain's biggest problem. Win what? We don't even have an enemy to point to at this juncture. Shi-ites, the majority, are still engaging in a civil war. Which side should we take, you know, to help somebody win their own civil war? There's nothing really to win here, no enemy we can even really point to and say, yep, we beat 'em.
"After we win.." is so George W. Bush.
Americans realize now that the U.S. military is propping up a kind of patchwork dysfunctional Iraqi central government. Haven't we been told many times before that we are "succeeding" in Iraq? Haven't we also been told years ago by Donald Rumsfeld that "it's long and hard and tough?" And how many times have we heard the knee-jerk happy talk from Bush officials that we are "winning" in Iraq? How many backdrops have we been exposed to with the word "victory" splattered all over it?
If "leaving is losing", according to the current 27% popular president....and John McCain wants a never ending U.S. military presence inside of Iraq.....isn't McCain simply reinforcing Bush's slogan? It would seem that in order to "win", according to these two neo-conservatives, we would of necessity have to "stay" in Iraq permanently.
Secondly, "I'm talking about a security arrangement",....that is Congress's job not the president's. What McCain is talking about is a treaty, I guess with the winner of the Iraqi Civil War, that would involve permanent U.S. troops on permanent U.S. bases.....because that's what we have in Korea. This all means that McCain really does want American troops to be in Iraq for a long time, longer than 100 years.....forever. He says that he doesn't want our military to be fighting and taking casualties for 100 years, however, is there one American who has been paying attention who believes there will EVER come a time when American soldiers stationed permanently inside of Iraq won't be subject to attack?
At no time has George W. Bush given Americans any timeline for when our troops would not be invovled in fighting inside of Iraq. John McCain is now following Bush's lead. McCain has NO idea when American troops will no longer be fighting inside of Iraq, so he, like Bush, skips over the entire question. Instead he tells us what will happen WHEN the fighting all stops. We're staying.
Finally, one reason Islamic extremists target the U.S. is because we set up military installations, and now occupations, on Muslim lands. This cannot be denied. Even so, McCain mocked Ron Paul for raising that very point in the GOP primary debates. McCain simply laughs and dismisses any talk that takes into consideration radical Muslim viewpoints. McCain is doing a Bush. By answering 'a 100 years', McCain is simply repeating the stupidity of Bush when he blurted out..... "Bring 'em on."
John McCain may understand military tactics and strategy,.....but he surely doesn't understand the current middle east situation nor does he understand the nature of Islamic extremism. Americans are not voting for a Secretary of Defense......we're voting for a president, a national leader, not some die-hard, tunnel visioned militarist position.
Why would Americans want yet another neo-conservative CinC who would morph Bush's 8 year bad dream into a full blown, wake up in a cold sweat, nightmare? Why would Americans want another president who believes America should attack countries without provocation or threat? Why would Americans trust a man who wants to follow George W. Bush's Doctrine of Stay The Course?
And why would Americans choose a man for president who just yesterday said that he plans to free America from it's dependence on foreign oil, an impossibility, so we don't have to send our young men and women to fight over oil again? Is the 71 year old melanoma victim telling us Iraq really was and really is all about oil? One more question.....since McCain said the unilateral and pre-emptive attack against a previously sovereign country was about oil.....how will that fact be accepted by Muslims who believed in 2003 that America was attacking them for their oil?
Do you think those Iraqis will get out their chocolates and flowers now.....offering them up to a U.S military....permanently residing in their country......to liberate their oil?
About This Blog