The Real Winner

Is, of course, perpetual war and perpetual occupation as John McCain outhawks Rudy Giuliani 100 years of war in Iraq.

UPDATE: Here it is:

The hundred years' war....

Comments

We have a rapidly dwindling manufacturing sector. The high school drop out rate is atrocious. One thing we do well is manufacture weapons and other items of death and destruction. Maybe employing 1/4 of the adult population in the military would work out. We just invade every nation on the planet incapable of repelling us and stay forever. Millions of kids having no business going to college would forgo the stigma of being a loser. You wouldn't even see them, they'd be overseas oppressing someone unfortunate enough to have smaller guns and no nukes. Whatever natural resources were there we'd get first dibs. You don't like it you can dig a ditch for you and your family to lie in before we shoot you. McCain is on to something. Screw 100 years, let's go for 1000. Only we'll make it work this time around. For sure. HOORAH!!!!

Posted by steve duncan | January 3, 2008 9:54 PM

I know that this is going to sound crazy, but if we are to accept the highly laughable proposition that our soldiers wouldn't be threatened daily in Iraq for a good chunk of eternity, then I wouldn't be against this. Or that the Iraqi government wouldn't kick us out at the first indication that they could do so safely. I don't care where the Army sends our boys, if they aren't doing any killing or dying.

Posted by gerontion | January 3, 2008 9:57 PM

That was Leiberman on the stage with McCain. Leiberman is going to support McCain in the general election if he wins the nomination. Obama endorsed Leiberman and campaigned for him against his own party's nominee. This is not a good development.

Posted by ken | January 3, 2008 10:05 PM

Yeah - Matt. It wouldn't be called "war" with the conditions that McCain specifies - if no Americans are being killed are harmed. Way to overreact.

Posted by Raoul | January 3, 2008 10:06 PM

ken, that's pretty disingenuous. Obama supported Lieberman in the primary; he supported Lamont in the general. This isn't exactly awesome since Lieberman is, well, Lieberman. But it's not like it puts Obama in rare company among Senate Democrats, either. In fact, I'm fairly certain it applies to the other three Senators in the race as well.

Posted by jhupp | January 3, 2008 10:16 PM

NEver mind that MCcain said only if Americans aren't still being killed and injured.

Posted by Adam Herman | January 3, 2008 10:25 PM

Obama endorsed Leiberman and campaigned for him against his own party's nominee.

Obama did not campaign for Lieberman after the primary in '06.

Bill Clinton did. And seeing that odious POS literally standing behind McCain as he spews this drivel is just enough to make this Edwards supporter feel a little bit better about tonight's results.

I hope Obama is paying attention, though: This is what triangulation and chasing the Broder vote gets you.

Posted by Jim | January 3, 2008 10:28 PM

Well, triangulation is better than making only your base happy. No one wins elections just by pandering to their base. Independents and moderates still decide Presidential elections.

Posted by Adam Herman | January 3, 2008 10:43 PM

NEver mind that MCcain said only if Americans aren't still being killed and injured.

Well, that is what he said, but that ain't saying much, you know? I mean, yeah, if no soldiers are getting killed, sure. But hey, why not invade China, if no soldiers are getting killed? It's a meaningless statement with that qualifier.

Posted by Freddie | January 3, 2008 10:50 PM

I stand corrected. Thanks. But the fact that Leiberman is a turncoat and that Obama is his close buddy is not good for America.

Posted by ken | January 3, 2008 10:51 PM

Ken,

Anything at all to back up the idea that Barack and Joe are good buddies? Anything? . . . Well, I'm sure you'll dream up something.

Obama is a solid Democrat that looks like a moderate. Joe is right-wing independent that paints himself as a moderate. There is an ocean of difference between them.

Posted by Ben | January 3, 2008 11:01 PM

McCain's an idiot. Anybody who would say we stay in Iraq for a hundred years "if no soldiers are being harmed" is an idiot.

Even if no soldiers WERE harmed - and this is a fantasy you have to be in an advanced state of ketamine addiction to believe - it would still be a stupid statement.

Where's the BENEFIT, McCain?

He's a moron. That anybody with later than a first grade education could consider this fool a serious candidate for President is beyond me.

Somebody in another thread say McCain could be senile by summer. He was late by years, if not decades.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 11:54 PM