10,000 Years

Funny video:

My understanding is that it's supposed to be unfair to charge McCain with having proposed that we fight a 100 (or, at times, 10,000) Years War in Iraq because he stipulated that Americans would stop getting killed (via magic!) during this indefinite occupation. Maybe so, but viewed in that light the comment merely reflects McCain's utter lack of strategic and diplomatic understanding. Such masters of nuance and sensitivity as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld all had the good sense to recognize that loose talk of perpetual American occupation of Iraq drives anti-American violence and gets US troops killed.

Comments

MY just can't handle the straight talk.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | February 11, 2008 11:44 AM

The weird Republican setup hurt HRC. If McCain had been the front runner from the beginning, she would have easily won the nomination by just running against McCain.

If the Dems can't beat McCain like a drum, they never deserve to win.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | February 11, 2008 11:47 AM

Awesome. Thanks for sharing that.

Posted by tinisoli | February 11, 2008 11:47 AM

You know, if you just took all the clips of McCain speaking in there and mashed them together, wouldn't it be about the most effective political attack ad ever? I mean, how much real campaigning will you have to do against a guy whose sole issue is supporting a war that 70%+ of people disapprove of?

Posted by Jack | February 11, 2008 11:48 AM

Honestly, more of this kind of videos have to be made (I think they should be made less funky, more direct and nuanced) and aired on TV (not radio).
We should define him in such a way that he can't but lose. Define the heartless son of a bitch I say.

Posted by Thomas P Jonathan | February 11, 2008 11:53 AM

My understanding is that it's supposed to be unfair to charge McCain with having proposed that we fight a 100 (or, at times, 10,000) Years War in Iraq because he stipulated that Americans would stop getting killed (via magic!) during this indefinite occupation.

No, it's unfair to charge McCain with having proposed that we fight a 100 Years War because he never said that, period. He was talking about maintaining a long-term military presence in Iraq, as we have in Japan and South Korea for 50 years, not a war.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 11:56 AM

Are you referring to our indefinite occupations of Japan and South Korea (and Germany), Mixner?

Posted by Fred | February 11, 2008 12:02 PM

because he stipulated that Americans would stop getting killed (via magic!) during this indefinite occupation

No, presuambly through hard work of both the Iraqis and the Americans. Or does Matthew think it inevitable that there will be a war in Iraq for 100 Years?

Moreover, Matthew inanely has the causation backasswards. It's: if we and the Iraqis are able to stop the violence, then we can remain in Iraq for 100 years. Not: if we stay in Iraq for 100 years, then the violence will magically stop. Duh.

Maybe so, but viewed in that light the comment merely reflects McCain's utter lack of strategic and diplomatic understanding. Such masters of nuance and sensitivity as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld all had the good sense to recognize that loose talk of perpetual American occupation of Iraq drives anti-American violence and gets US troops killed.

Now show me evidence that what John McCainsays has any effect on the level of anti-American violence. Oh right, because there ain't any. John McCain ain't exactly the President of the United States; Joe Iraqi isn't hanging on every word John McCain says.

One wonders why Matthew doesn't put more thought into his Iraq posts. This post isn't complete misleading BS like last night's Iraq post was, but, still, how hard is it to understand what McCain was talking about? It's like Matthew isn't even trying to understand it.

Posted by Al | February 11, 2008 12:04 PM

He was talking about maintaining a long-term military presence in Iraq, as we have in Japan and South Korea for 50 years, not a war.

It's not any better for McCain, because by that definition the clock hasn't started on the peaceful long-term military presence he wants. How much blood and treasure is the US supposed to spend to get to that point, assuming that it is even possible?

Posted by Killjoy | February 11, 2008 12:04 PM

I knew this was coming. I though it would be a Hillary video, but this works better.

Posted by Mike | February 11, 2008 12:04 PM

Mixner -

You're right, he's talking about a 10,000 year occupation, "so long as American troops aren't getting killed."

Last I checked, American troops were still getting killed in Iraq. So...where's the "occupation without war"?

Posted by Trigger | February 11, 2008 12:06 PM

Toughness isn't defined by your willingness to start a war, but by your ability to defend America. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference doesn't deserve to be president.

Posted by mk | February 11, 2008 12:06 PM

McCain finished fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and is a gaffe machine. I can't wait to run against him.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 11, 2008 12:14 PM

"McCain finished fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and is a gaffe machine. I can't wait to run against him."

You're launching a third party bid, Kervick? I think it's a little late for you to run in the Dem primaries.

Posted by Fred | February 11, 2008 12:25 PM

If Obama outlasts Hillary I predict a Democratic landslide of historic dimensions in November.

Posted by Bill | February 11, 2008 12:25 PM

"If Obama outlasts Hillary I predict a Democratic landslide of historic dimensions in November."

It will be like 1976 all over again. We will be respected around the world, and prosperity will reign again.

Posted by Fred | February 11, 2008 12:28 PM

Trigger,

Last I checked, American troops were still getting killed in Iraq. So...where's the "occupation without war"?

First, "war" does not mean "troops getting killed." Second, McCain never said that no troops are getting killed. He said that a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq would be okay with him as long as troops are not getting killed or injured, in the same way that we have a long-term military presence in Japan and South Korea.

Try responding to what the man actually said, and stop attributing to him statements he never made.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 12:41 PM

He said that a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq would be okay with him as long as troops are not getting killed or injured,

But this is nowhere near to happening. And it will not happen as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq.

McCain has said that he never wants to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. There is absolutely no prospect of U.S. troops not getting killed in Iraq. Therefore, McCain wants American troops to be killed in Iraq indefinitely.

For McCain to talk about a long-term military presence without U.S. troop deaths is irrelevant, since that's not going to happen. Either you want the troops out, or, like McCain, you are a cheerleader for American deaths.

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 12:46 PM

You're launching a third party bid, Kervick? I think it's a little late for you to run in the Dem primaries.

I reject the stale Beltway consensus that says only a "candidate" who "runs" in the "primaries" can represent the Democratic Party in November. That just locks us into the same old politics of pandering and sound-bites that failed in 2000 and 2004. That blind devotion to empty buzz-words like "choice" and "representative government" will never inspire the American people to back a strong and decisive leader. My friends, WE are the authoritarians we've been waiting for!

Posted by JB | February 11, 2008 12:48 PM

What makes this video great is the incredible timing of the jokes and the clear respect for the source material. I love the reaction shots and one-offs (b-b-b-baby, you ain't seen nothin' yet, etc.) I hope this gets wide distribution outside of the blogosphere. Anyone forward this to Olbermann yet?

Posted by drjimcooper | February 11, 2008 12:49 PM

MA

But this is nowhere near to happening.

McCain didn't say it's close to happening.

McCain has said that he never wants to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. There is absolutely no prospect of U.S. troops not getting killed in Iraq. Therefore, McCain wants American troops to be killed in Iraq indefinitely.

Yet another lie. McCain specifically stated that he would support a long-term military presence as long as troops are not getting killed or injured. And you do not know that "there is absolutely no prospect of U.S. troops not getting killed in Iraq." You have no idea what the situation will be in Iraq a year or two years or five years from now, so stop pretending that you do.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 12:58 PM

"Moreover, Matthew inanely has the causation backasswards. It's: if we and the Iraqis are able to stop the violence, then we can remain in Iraq for 100 years. Not: if we stay in Iraq for 100 years, then the violence will magically stop. Duh."

So he's saying that if the violence doesn't stop we'll leave? I think McCain would want to argue with you on that one. The question was "How long are we in Iraq?" His intended answer was clearly not: "Well, if the violence stops, then a really long time." The answer was "Maybe a really really long time, but don't worry, our troops won't be getting killed that whole time." Hence the apparent assumption of some yet-to-be-achieved end to violence.

Posted by Colatina | February 11, 2008 1:02 PM

The question was "How long are we in Iraq?" His intended answer was clearly not: "Well, if the violence stops, then a really long time."

It wasn't a question, it was a comment, and McCain's response was that it would be okay with him for the U.S. to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq as long as our troops were not getting killed or injured.

It's obvious that you have no serious response to what McCain actually said, which is why you resort to lying.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 1:14 PM

And you do not know that "there is absolutely no prospect of U.S. troops not getting killed in Iraq." You have no idea what the situation will be in Iraq a year or two years or five years from now, so stop pretending that you do.

You have NO IDEA what will happen if I shoot this fragile glass figurine out of a cannon at a concrete wall. You don't know the figurine will be smashed! Maybe the figurine will be fine! Maybe it will be reverse smashed, even less smashed than before! Maybe! You don't know! Stop pretending that you do!

America's right has the same emotional ability to deal with reality as a bunch of toddlers.

Posted by 23456 | February 11, 2008 1:15 PM

Fred writes:

It will be like 1976 all over again. We will be respected around the world, and prosperity will reign again.

You just keep on thinking that.

"At least we Republicans don't give a shit about having respectable Presidents who are respected."

Posted by Bill | February 11, 2008 1:16 PM

JB--"My friends, WE are the authoritarians we've been waiting for!" Even this Obama supporter cracked up at that one. Fine job.

Posted by danimal | February 11, 2008 1:34 PM

It wasn't a question, it was a comment, and McCain's response was that it would be okay with him for the U.S. to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq as long as our troops were not getting killed or injured.

So McCain is okay with the US occupying Iraq for a hundred years, so long as US troops aren't being killed or injured. But McCain is *also* okay with US troops staying in Iraq until the point where US troops are not being killed or injured.

Sounds like a good formula for US troops staying in Iraq no matter what the fuck happens...

Posted by McKingford | February 11, 2008 1:42 PM

Mixner and AI: Let's conduct a little experiment. Why don't you two go to Iraq and get together a room of 20 ordinary Iraqis, a cross section of the population. Make sure there are no US solidiers in the room. Then tell the people there that you think that there would be nothing wrong with an American military presence in their country lasting 100 years or even 10,000 years, so long as no Americans are killed. What do you think the reaction of the Iraqis would be? Do you think your comments are likely to make them 1) more appreciative of the Americans or 2) more willing to support a nationalist insurgency?

Posted by Jeet Heer | February 11, 2008 1:48 PM

Joe Iraqi isn't hanging on every word John McCain says.

"BAGHDAD, April 2 (Reuters) - The crack of shots fired by unseen snipers echoed on Monday through Baghdad's wholesale Shorja market, a day after U.S. Senator John McCain held up his visit there as one sign of improving security in Baghdad."

Can't say it isn't just post hoc, but it sure looks bad.

Posted by Njorl | February 11, 2008 1:53 PM

McCain's response was that it would be okay with him for the U.S. to maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq as long as our troops were not getting killed or injured.

But McCain also says that he refuses to pull our troops out until they're not getting killed or injured. Therefore, he doesn't care if the troops get killed in Iraq for 100 years; he's happy to see Americans die for 100 years as long as we don't pull out.

For your interpretation of his words to make sense, McCain would have to advocate pulling our troops out at some point if it becomes clear that they're not going to stop getting killed. He doesn't. Because that would be "surrender," and even though McCain knows perfectly well that it's in the U.S. interest to leave, he would rather leave U.S. troops there than admit that the invasion was a mistake (which is what he means by "surrender").

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 2:15 PM

But McCain is *also* okay with US troops staying in Iraq until the point where US troops are not being killed or injured.

No, he didn't say that either. Stop making up statements and attributing them to McCain. Stop lying.

But McCain also says that he refuses to pull our troops out until they're not getting killed or injured.

No, McCain did not say that. Stop lying.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 3:57 PM

No, McCain did not say that. Stop lying.

What are you talking about? McCain has said that pulling the troops out is "surrender." He has said he won't pull them out until we "win." And he has defined "winning" to mean that our troops aren't getting killed there anymore.

So when will McCain pull out the troops, if he won't pull them out until we "win?"

Face it, McCain has made it clear that he would rather see American troops die indefinitely than "surrender." If you want to dispute this, give me a scenario under which a President McCain would pull troops out of Iraq even though we haven't "won" yet.

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 4:11 PM

Mixner, what is it that you think McCain thinks about Iraq? Here's what's on his website today:

"A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary..."

Let's review some facts 1. American troops are currently dying in Iraq 2. McCain has said he wants to add troops and 3. Has said he is OK keeping troops there for 100 years or more under certain conditions and 4. The Iraq War is already about the 4th longest war in American history (Revolutionary, Phillipines, Vietnam); 5. McCain has said that setting a definite withdrawal date is surrender (the last debate with Romney is the most recent example.)

(Note: I count the Phillipines past 1902, but not the Cold War and not Afghanistan (given the small committment of soldiers and the fact that there are more non-American soldiers than American ones)).

Your anger at the idea that McCain wants to keep American troops there indefinitely is simply spleen, without any evidentiary support. He doesn't want to set any date for withdrawal at any time, troops are still dying, we've been there for 5 years, he's not opposed to a 100-year or more presence...what am I missing? You can call people liars because they cannot point to a McCain quote where he says he wants to keep soldiers there no matter what happens, but that's because he, like you, appears to be pretending that there is a realistic chance that American combat deaths in Iraq will simply stop at some point. He isn't going to acknowledge the possibility that American combat deaths will continue.

Posted by JoshA | February 11, 2008 4:38 PM

He has said he won't pull them out until we "win." And he has defined "winning" to mean that our troops aren't getting killed there anymore.

Before we go into this further, you need to substantiate your claims. Where has McCain said this? Quote him. His exact words. With a citation.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 4:46 PM

Your anger at the idea that McCain wants to keep American troops there indefinitely is simply spleen, without any evidentiary support.

Huh? I'm not angry at what McCain said at all. I agree with him. I don't find the idea of an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq any more objectionable than the idea of an indefinite U.S. military presence in Japan or South Korea. As he pointed out, we've already been in Japan for 60 years and in South Korea for 50.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 4:51 PM

While I'm looking for the exact quote, Mixner, here it is again:

1) John McCain says it's OK for us to stay in Iraq indefinitely as long as our troops aren't getting killed there.

2) John McCain says that we should not pull our troops out of Iraq while they're getting killed there, nor set a timetable for withdrawal, because that would be surrender.

So where is your evidence that McCain isn't OK with the troops getting killed in Iraq indefinitely? If we have to stay until we "win," that means that he doesn't care that our troops are getting killed or for how long.

To disprove this, you would have to find a quote from McCain saying that he would pull the troops out of Iraq if they were getting killed there for a certain amount of time. He has not said that. Instead he's lied to the American people by pretending that there's a prospect of U.S. soldiers not getting killed during the occupation, when there is no such prospect. But he has made it very clear that he doesn't want to leave Iraq, and if he doesn't want to leave Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground, then McCain is indifferent to American troop deaths (not to mention the many Iraqi deaths occurring as a result of the occupation and the civil war it set off).

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 4:58 PM

Then what the hell are you talking about? You keep calling people liars b/c they say that McCain wants to keep American soldiers in Iraq no matter what. If you're contending that's not true, point to some evidence. If not, then I really have no idea what your issue is with that comment.

And, for that matter, is there any support for the idea that American combat deaths will simply stop in Iraq at some point?

Posted by JoshA | February 11, 2008 5:01 PM

MY - My understanding is that it's supposed to be unfair to charge McCain with having proposed that we fight a 100 (or, at times, 10,000) Years War in Iraq because he stipulated that Americans would stop getting killed (via magic!) during this indefinite occupation. Maybe so, but viewed in that light the comment merely reflects McCain's utter lack of strategic and diplomatic understanding.

Actually, MY, it is the old Lefty Magic you refer to. That you can somehow cut and run, and then nothing horrifically bad happens it our vital national interests or humanitarian interests - through magic. Or, if something does go horrificaly bad like S Vietnam collapsing with the stab to the back or Cambodian genocide that your Jewish and Gentile hard left friends in the media can blame it on "evil oil companies" or "we Americans caused the genocide with out warmongering!!"

McCain - for his many flaws - has a far better understanding of what cut n' run leads to than naive fools like Obama and Richardson.

McCain finished fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis, and is a gaffe machine. I can't wait to run against him.
Posted by Dan Kervick

The US Naval Academy is a highly competitive school. One of the most exclusive in admissions. Almost as good as the Air Force Academy. And it has a mix of true scholars along with very smart warriors who show up at MIT or Stanford or Yale as much as leading SEAL squads. Some are better scholars than warriors. McCain was a better warrior and because of that a real credit to the Academy.
Less than 4% of a Naval Academy class advance to Captain. McCain was one of them. He did it on courage and guts, colossal strength of character - and a slightly above average intelligence. Don't underestimate him. Plenty of other great Americans were great on matters of character, not brains. Think FDR, MLK, Truman.
And Kervick...I doubt you had the stuff to make it through a service academy, so you start from a position of being inferior to a John McCain. If that grates on you, too bad.

******************
The argument of staying in Iraq long term is not predicated on a new "absolutely no deaths or casualties" Lefty goalpost. America stayed in the Philippines about 100 years. Most of that was peaceful, but between nationalists, commie Huk guerillas, Marcos violent opponents, and Muslim Moros we lost at least a few Americans almost each year, sometimes a few hundred...
That was managable.
We obviously can't stay indefinitely in a country where we lose thousands and bleed off hundreds of billions in treasure. But we can easily "bear" a Philippines-like presence.

Posted by chris ford | February 11, 2008 5:01 PM

While I'm looking for the exact quote, Mixner, here it is again:

Sorry, that was unclear; "it" was the situation, not the exact quote...

Anyway, the reason I'm having trouble finding an exact quote from McCain on what "winning" means is, of course, that he never defines what "winning" means. Nor does any other Iraq hawk. But I'll keep looking. Maybe he defined "winning" by accident sometime.

And while I'm looking, Mixner, you find me a quote that shows that McCain would ever pull the troops out of Iraq to stop them getting killed.

You won't find it. There isn't any. Because he wouldn't. Because he, like Bush, is happy to see Americans die for as long as it takes to validate the failed war and the failed surge. If you view a timetable for withdrawal as "surrender," then you are committed to the idea that Americans should die for as long as it takes.

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 5:04 PM

The argument of staying in Iraq long term is not predicated on a new "absolutely no deaths or casualties" Lefty goalpost.

That's not a Lefty goalpost, that's McCain's goalpost. He's the one who said that Americans would accept an indefinite occupation of Iraq if American casualties didn't accompany this occupation.

And he's right. Except, Americans are going to die in Iraq for as long as we're there. So McCain is, like all advocates of the failed surge, talking about happy pony fantasies instead of getting down to America's interests in the real world, which require us to leave Iraq.

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 5:07 PM

M.A. - So where is your evidence that McCain isn't OK with the troops getting killed in Iraq indefinitely? If we have to stay until we "win," that means that he doesn't care that our troops are getting killed or for how long.

M.A. - But McCain also says that he refuses to pull our troops out until they're not getting killed or injured. Therefore, he doesn't care if the troops get killed in Iraq for 100 years; he's happy to see Americans die for 100 years as long as we don't pull out.

One of the more disgusting things members of the Armed Forces see, that we Vets see, is Lefties that despise the military and seek to block recruiting getting all fake weepy-eyed about US casualties. Then using that fake concern to attack pro-military leaders as "uncaring, happy to see troops die".

We don't fall for that phony concern, M.A. It is a despicable Lefty tactic aimed at demoralizing people immune to such manipulation because soldiers and their friends and family know the Left is NOT motivated by best interests of America or best interests of our servicemen and women.

Lincoln and Lee were not "happy to see troops die". Nor were Truman and FDR. Nor did the Presidents that fought the Cold war, from Truman to HW Bush, frame their commitment as "happy to see troops die" no matter how long the Soviet Union and the red Army and the Soviet Strategic WMD Force existed. In that struggle, the annual "peacetime" death rates of troops in Eisenhower's, JFK's, and Carter's time exceeded the deaths per year of any of Bush's snce we went into Iraq. It was sustainable, and troops had to train in hazardous ways and accept deaths - because that is what it took to deter the Soviets, NORKs, and Chicommies.

None of those Cold War presidents, especially Truman, Eisenhower,Nixon, and Ford - who all personally hauled dead GI's bodies out of wreckage or off fields where the enemy took them out - were "happy" losing men on their watch. All cared. I suspect even Carter and Clinton weren't overjoyed when an Italian avalanche took out 13 men training in mountain warfare or a helo crash took out 20 Army...

Of the current candidates, only Mccain has seen close friends and comrades die in combat, in training accidents, from being beaten to death by communists in POW camp, from the Forrestal fire.

He is the last person to "be happy" or "not care" if troops under his command might be killed. But better than vacuous Lefties that want "the children home safe with their nannies" , McCain understands honor. He understands duty. He understands that even in peacetime, honor and duty will require troops to sacrifice their lives, train in danger. And that the country's vital national interests will require that men will have to possibly be put in harm's way for the sake of the security and safety of the citizenry of Our Country.

Posted by chris ford | February 11, 2008 5:36 PM

Chris Ford, then you're saying the country can bear constant loss of American troops for the next 100 years, right? After all, they all volunteered.

You don't understand national security, Chris. Troop deaths have costs beyond the individual life. They have cost to families, the government, and national morale. Sometimes the cost is worth it, but it's the nation that decides what's worth it, not the troops.

And that's the point. The troops aren't fighting for their own sake; they're fighting to protect the national interest. If the nation decides that it is not in the national interest for the troops to be in Iraq, then the honorable thing is for the troops to leave.

You and McCain have reversed this: you think that even though it's in our interest to leave Iraq (and since you can't pretend that it's in our interest to stay except by making up lies about how we're really "fighting Al Qaeda" in Iraq and such), we should stay there because we need to "let the troops win." You know nothing of national security, nor of honor. It is bad for America for troops to keep dying in Iraq. That may be OK for the troops who die, but if you don't hate America, you want the troops to come home.

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 5:50 PM

JoshA,

Then what the hell are you talking about? You keep calling people liars b/c they say that McCain wants to keep American soldiers in Iraq no matter what.

I'm calling you liars because you keep attributing to McCain statements he has not made.

If you're contending that's not true, point to some evidence.

You're hilarious. It's up to you to produce evidence that McCain said what you claim he said. You haven't done that. Because you're LYING about what he said.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 6:09 PM

You're hilarious. It's up to you to produce evidence that McCain said what you claim he said.

Actually, no. McCain said that we have to stay until we "win," and he hasn't defined "winning." From that I take it that he's OK with Americans getting killed indefinitely, because he's said we have to stay as long as we're not "winning."

As I said, I'm looking (in vain) for a McCain quote where he defines winning. But it's up to you to produce evidence that McCain would not be willing to stay indefinitely, when he's already made it clear that staying indefinitely is preferable to not "winning."

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 6:14 PM

M.A. two hours ago:

[McCain] has defined "winning" to mean that our troops aren't getting killed there anymore.

M.A. now:

McCain ... hasn't defined "winning."

Your self-contradictory drivel is too stupid to bother with further. You obviously have no interest in what McCain actually said, or what McCain actually believes.

Posted by Mixner | February 11, 2008 6:28 PM

Your self-contradictory drivel is too stupid to bother with further.

And here I thought I was doing what you wanted, not attributing things to McCain that he didn't say. I was extrapolating from his remarks that his definition of "winning" was "no American casualties." But you're right, he didn't say that directly. He's never said what "winning" is at all.

So tell me, what's McCain's definition of "winning?"

And again, what's a scenario where McCain would pull the troops out even though they're being killed? Let's say we're still there in 2016, and troops are still being killed. Would second-term President McCain pull them out?

The answer, by his own statements (we can't pull out if we're not "winning") is no. Which means that McCain is happy to let Americans die in Iraq indefinitely. You're lying if you pretend he's ever said otherwise. The only thing he's ever said to the contrary is that Americans will be OK with an indefinite occupation if there are no U.S. casualties. But that will never happen. So who cares? In the real world, U.S. occupation of Iraq = U.S. casualties, and McCain will happily let Americans die in Iraq indefinitely in order to hand a victory to Al-Qaeda (since if we're in Iraq fighting Iraqis and pretending they're "Al-Qaeda," the real Al-Qaeda wins).

Posted by M.A. | February 11, 2008 6:35 PM

As usual, Mixner and the other assorted right wing nuts here miss the entire point about McCain's comment.

As I've pointed out here a dozen times, McCain is wrong to speak thus because after what the US has done to Iraq, no US individual will be safe in Iraq for the next couple of Iraqi generations, at least.

Therefore, what is stupid is to speak of the notion of a time when US soldiers will NOT be killed in Iraq as a matter of course.

That time may come, of course - and 100 years from now might be a reasonable estimate.

But the notion that US troops can stay in Iraq from here on out is just completely imbecile.

But, no, the right wing nuts would rather parse McCain's statements as if reality doesn't apply here - as usual.

Mixner, go back to trolling for torture. You just embarrass yourself on other topics - well, actually, you embarrass yourself on torture, as well, but at least that's amusing.

Ford: "One of the more disgusting things members of the Armed Forces see, that we Vets see, is Lefties that despise the military and seek to block recruiting getting all fake weepy-eyed about US casualties. Then using that fake concern to attack pro-military leaders as 'uncaring, happy to see troops die'.

I don't get "weepy-eyed" over US casualties. I couldn't care less.

What I complain about is asshats like you who don't give a shit how many people die - civilians and soldiers - as long as it justifies your war mongering bullshit.

And, yes, that includes fucktards like Bush, Cheney, and the rest of those criminals.

As I've said before, most generals in the US military are not "combat proven" and except for some period of time when they were lieutenants probably never saw direct combat. They are career military officers whose function is to brown nose and gain rank while satisfying their urges to control masses of people and kill other masses of people on orders from politicians who don't give a shit about anybody.

McCain doesn't understand "honor" or "duty". He has a known reputation going back to his college days of being a violent freak, ready to fly off the handle at any provocation. He's a jerk who wants to impose his notion of life on everyone else, by force if necessary, fatally if necessary. He doesn't care about anything but being top dog - and he'll kill you or anyone else who might interfere with that.

Of course, he's smart enough not to simply join a gang and be a drug dealer. But he wasn't smart enough and had no family history of being a corporate CEO. So he became a military officer and then a politician - the natural progression.

And you're his bitch.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 6:49 PM

Don't feed the trolls.

Posted by eriks | February 11, 2008 7:21 PM

M.A. - You and McCain have reversed this: you think that even though it's in our interest to leave Iraq (and since you can't pretend that it's in our interest to stay except by making up lies about how we're really "fighting Al Qaeda" in Iraq and such), we should stay there

No, that is just what Mixner was saying about you being a dishonest liar. You insert your conclusions into the beliefs of others, then say that that makes them the liars.
When it is just you, using clumsy rhetoric and deceit.

Posted by chris ford | February 11, 2008 7:47 PM

Ah, I had not realized you were just a troll, Mixner. But since you've decided to say I lied about what McCain said (and would you please quote MY words which you claim to be lies), I'll simply say I regret wasting both our time...well, really, mine much more than yours.

Posted by JoshA | February 11, 2008 8:14 PM