100 Years

To back up something Josh Marshall's been pounding, the idea that there's something unfair about the "out of context" use of John McCain's line about being willing to stay in Iraq for 100 or 10,000 years is pretty silly. Obviously, it's hard to quote anyone or refer to anything without taking it a bit out of context. But the context in which McCain is saying this stuff, is a context in which McCain genuinely believes that there is no level of resources which would be too great for the United States to invest in his futile quest for some ephemeral concept of "victory" in Iraq. There's no amount of money that's too much to spend, there's no amount of time that's too long, and there's no amount of American deaths that's too many.

Of course McCain hopes it doesn't take 100 to achieve that end state. But since his vision of the end state is utterly unrealistic (and includes a fantasy vision in which we peacefully organize a 10,000 basing agreement or something) it might as well. Clearly in a literal sense President McCain can't commit us to anything more than eight years of additional war in Iraq, but he's given us no indication that he would pull out any sooner than that, and no reason to believe he can succeed any faster than that. Maybe the DNC and the RNC can reach some kind of agreement in which both parties stipulate that we won't discuss the year 2108, but McCain will admit that he'll gladly have our troops still fighting in Iraq in 2016. But probably not.

And so as long as the hawks persist in not presenting to the public what they're actually talking about, the doves are going to have to use the footage available -- which is McCain talking about 100 or 10,000 rather than eight -- to make the point that in their more candid moments the hawks do concede that they're talking about a long hard slog in Iraq.

Comments

The level of bad feith among Republicans is so high that nothing they say about Iraq has any meaning. Unfortunately, as long as we have the current crop of cowards and DINOs in the Democratic Party leadership, we're not going to be able to push the issue.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 9, 2008 10:04 AM

Matt, Can you at least once - just once - be intellectually honest and say that Obama is slandering McCain. Just do this:

Pretend Obama said that and McCain is repeating the out-of-context/wrong/totally off-base line.

You would be on Countdown with ugly/arrogant Keith Olbermann shouting that McCain should apologize.

Always: Do the Following: Pretend the roles are reversed: Wear other people shoes. Life can be suddenly different: You will be a better blogger.

Posted by eorse | April 9, 2008 10:08 AM

This is what Obama has failed to do. Obama's just sort of banged on the "100 years", soundbite part and not the "look at how he doesn't have any idea about when we'd leave or what constitutes victory".

It's one of the relatively few times that Obama has failed to elaborate and present nuance, but nonetheless, there's more to the McCain "100 years" comment and Obama hasn't nailed that home. Maybe there's good that will come out of the spotlight that's on Obama about this now: maybe the network news will report when Obama does link the 100 years comment to McCain's total lack of a plan (other than an endless amount of surges).

Posted by socctty | April 9, 2008 10:15 AM

'Taken out of context' is silly? Oh stop. You can go through logic gymnastics to twist what McCain said into plea for a 'hot' active war for a hundred years, but the fact remains the plain meaning of what he said was it's perfectly fine to station troops in a historically volatile area of the world in order to maintain peace and stability provided it is achieved.

One can argue he believes the current 'hot' war in Iraq is important enough to devote sizable resources for the time being, but his statement does not mean he supports troops there under the current scenario for a hundred years.

Posted by Tommer | April 9, 2008 10:15 AM

'Taken out of context' is silly? Oh stop. You can go through logic gymnastics to twist what McCain said into plea for a 'hot' active war for a hundred years, but the fact remains the plain meaning of what he said was it's perfectly fine to station troops in a historically volatile area of the world in order to maintain peace and stability provided it is achieved.

One can argue he believes the current 'hot' war in Iraq is important enough to devote sizable resources for the time being, but his statement does not mean he supports troops there under the current scenario for a hundred years.

Posted by Tommer | April 9, 2008 10:16 AM

As I would put it, this is fair game unless and until McCain comes up with a plausible exit strategy and at least a tentative timetable for when that exit strategy will be achieved. Because whether you are willing to admit it or not, when you say "We should keep doing X" and you don't follow that with a plausible explanation of how and when we will stop doing X, you are implicitly leaving open the possibility of doing X on a permanent basis.

Posted by DTM | April 9, 2008 10:16 AM

As for slandering McCain, back in November, McCain rejected the Korea-like interpretation of his plans for American occupation. If McCain wants to clarify just wtf he means by 100 years, nobody's stopping him. Except maybe Lieberman.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 9, 2008 10:17 AM

OK, so McCain never really said he wants to fight a 100 year war in Iraq, and it's not entirely fair to hammer him mercilessly on this bit.

But every time I start to feel a bit bad about this, I remember that Al Gore never said he invented the internet.

Then I remember that John McCain really does want permanent bases in Iraq and has consistently opposed any measures that would cause the war in Iraq to last less than 100 years, whereas Al Gore would likely have never gotten us into this ridiculous mess in the first place.

So let's just say I'm not losing any sleep over these "unfair" attacks on McCain.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 9, 2008 10:19 AM

Is Joe Leiberman a real, live human being? Seriously, only a meth-fueled Hollywood special effects tech could create that rubbery mug. Or is he some sort of animatronic Chucky Quisling Doll the Democrats can't figure out a way to kill?

Posted by steve duncan | April 9, 2008 10:24 AM

Eorse,
If McCain doesn't like the impression given by people accurately quoting him, he has plenty of opportunities to spend his own money or his own cachet with the press to straighten things out. He chooses not to do so. Whether he makes this choice because his true opinions on the topic are even more objectionable, or because he doesn't have the capacity to formulate coherent ideas on the topic is unknown.

I'm curious. Four years ago, when John Kerry was being skewered for his "I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it." line, did you voice the same objections? Kerry's statement, when the context was examined, described a consistent and principled position. He was willing to explain it to the press, but they enjoyed it too much to bother printing his explanations. Kerry couldn't ask his good friend Tim Russert to let him go on and explain it. McCain can do that. Why doesn't he?

Posted by Njorl | April 9, 2008 10:31 AM

Can we also remember that McCain is accusing the Democratic candidates of wanting to wave the white flag of surrender?

If it is intellectually dishonest to say that McCain wants 100 years of war, isn't it equally dishonest to say that wanting immediate withdrawal is the equivalent of calling for surrender?

Let's have some parity here.

Posted by Trigger | April 9, 2008 10:31 AM

Shorter Matthew: we're going to continue to lie, because we can't find any good TV footage of McCain saying what we infer he's saying.

Good for Matthew. Embrace the lying! You're a liar and you know it. So, it makes sense to say "we're lying, we know we're lying and you know we're lying, and we're going to continue to lie anyway."

Posted by Al | April 9, 2008 10:33 AM

"the idea that there's something unfair about the "out of context" use of John McCain's line about being willing to stay in Iraq for 100 or 10,000 years is pretty silly"

Hmmm...do Dems want to take the White House and solid majorities in the Congress in November, or not? Every stupid piece of nonsense that the GOPers spout should be endlessly publicized. Let them waste time and money trying to explain their idiocy - it will distract them from getting out any appealing message to voters.
I agree with LaFollette Progressive's post above- taking the high road ended with Al Gore "inventing the Internet" and Kerry's Swiftboat debacle.

Posted by CParis | April 9, 2008 10:37 AM

It's also good to see Matthew embrace smearing, as he did with "McCain called his wife a c***" smear he posted the other day. And, no, you can't take it back later.

Matthew: pro-lying and pro-smearing.

But, remember, Democrats are the good guys!

Posted by Al | April 9, 2008 10:38 AM

Here's what McCain said: "QUESTION (1/3/08): President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years—

MCCAIN: Maybe a hundred. We've been in South Korea. We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me."

One commentor justified this mischaracterization based on what the press did to Gore.

But that is just the point. This kind of game favors the republicans, it put Bush in the White House and us in Iraq. (TM - Daily Howler).

For every one thing like this that we get to stick to a Republican, there are 10 that the press is going to invent and stick to our candidate. 'Gore said we should outlaw the combustion engine.' 'Gore said he invented the internet.' 'Gore hired a woman to teach him how to be a man.' 'Gore doesn't know who he is.' 'Gore is Clinton's bath tub ring.'

If you think this one phony barb against them is greater than all the other phone barbs together that'll come our guys way down the line, you are out of your mind.

Posted by Chuck | April 9, 2008 10:39 AM

Read Hendrik Hertzberg's comment on this in The New Yorker.

Posted by Peter H | April 9, 2008 10:43 AM

Either this blog has been infested with winger commenters, or the "progressives" are just as bad as Bush overall when it comes to the imperial project.

Haha, had you going for a minute there. Of course it is the latter. This nation deserves every bad thing that could possibly happen to it as a result of its criminally immoral imperial po0licy. I fervently pray on a nightly basis that the United States will be brought low, just as Germany and Japan were after WW II.

Posted by patriot | April 9, 2008 10:44 AM

Al,

Die painfully in a fire, you fucking monster.

Btw, I mean it. If someone was to post tomorrow on this blog that you really HAD died painfully in a fire, it would make my fucking day.

Posted by LarryM | April 9, 2008 10:46 AM

What McCain said is idiotic. He said that he supports keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years as long as they're not getting killed.

So? What does that have to do with the real world we all live in?

I'll go him one further. I support keeping troops in Iraq for 1,000 years as long as leprechauns give them pots of gold every day they are there.

The reason conservatives are whining so much is that they realize they have a presidential candidate who is not only intellectually muddled, but also a gaffe machine.

Posted by Jim W | April 9, 2008 10:47 AM

I actually think his "there's gonna be other wars, my friends" is the more potentially damaging soundbite. He delivers it with almost a suppressed glee, and the construction he uses ("my friends") just seems incredibly callous, tone-deaf, or both. The fact of the matter is that McCain's foreign policy positions are objectionable to a vast majority of Americans and it is not unfair to point this out. In fact, it's frustrating that more hasn't been made of these statements. Hopefully the Obama campaign is saving these clips for closer to November.

Posted by drjimcooper | April 9, 2008 10:50 AM

BTW, and I know Matthew doesn't actually care about the truth, as this post proves, but the truth is that Matthew is utterly wrong when he writes that McCain has "given us no indication that he would pull out any sooner than that, and no reason to believe he can succeed any faster than that."

That's just plain false - and Matthew would know that if he actually had read McCain's full remarks! McCain said "I understand American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed."

So, in fact, contrary to what Matthew writes, McCain has said that he would either continue to provide a showing that we can succeed in Iraq or pull the troops out.

Now, again, Matthew has admitted that he really doesn't care about the truth here - he's perfectly happy to continue to lie. But we might as well put the truth out there anyway.

Posted by Al | April 9, 2008 10:51 AM

Al,

You shouldn't complain about the fact that McCain called his wife a c****. It just proves what a straight talker he is.

Posted by Jim W | April 9, 2008 10:52 AM

Al, do you ever worry that since Atlantic has your ip number and can identify who you are rather easily that you'd be open to libel suit? Yglesias isn't an abstraction the way anonymous schmucks like "Al" is. As an actual (non-timid) human Yglesias is entitled to all the protection of the law.

Maybe you and eorse can explain what McCain meant. And do it without recourse to comparisons to Korea or Germany since McCain has explicitly rejected that comparison. I've seen similar attempts and they're grimly comic since an Iraq in which there's no risk of Americans being killed is obviously an Iraq in which there's no need for Americans to be garrisoned. An Iraq which has the need for 100,000 American soldiers garrisoned is an Iraq at war. What you want is an Iraq in which circles can be squared. And yet you accuse Yglesias of lying.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 9, 2008 10:55 AM

via TPM, the best comment on this.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187978.php

Hertzberg

To get a feel for what McCain was saying, about the best account I've seen is Rick Hertzberg's in The New Yorker. He was there at the townhall meeting and wrote up his account shortly thereafter.

Read the whole thing; but here's Rick's conclusion and response to those who even then were already saying McCain was being taken out of context ...

You have to hand it to McCain. It's impossible to imagine any of the other Republicans engaging in this kind of extended conversation with a citizen. There was more real debate in this exchange than in any of the so-called real debates.

But what the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn’t really all that unfair. McCain's wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay.

--Josh Marshall

Posted by wvng | April 9, 2008 10:55 AM

Was "bomb bomb bomb Iran" taken out of context? McCain laughingly sang that, on video! Likewise he is on video clearly indicating he'd be just fine with American troops in Iraq a hundred years from now.

Whining conservatives aside I can't see anything at all unfair about this. I endorse hammering it relentlessly by putting it on bumper stickers, T-shirts, billboards, and the sides of buses.

McCain really is a warmonger. He really does make constant threats against Iran, he really does not understand the difference between Sunni and Shia, and he really did make the "100 years" comment.

So run with it Democrats. Run with it proudly and don't listen to the concern trolls from the right-wing who worry how unfair it is to St. John McSame.

Posted by Curt M | April 9, 2008 10:57 AM

Matthew is utterly wrong when he writes that McCain has "given us no indication that he would pull out any sooner than that, and no reason to believe he can succeed any faster than that."

That's just plain false - and Matthew would know that if he actually had read McCain's full remarks! McCain said "I understand American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed."

So, in fact, contrary to what Matthew writes, McCain has said that he would either continue to provide a showing that we can succeed in Iraq or pull the troops out.

Wait... where in that quote does he talk about pulling troops out? After all, American opinion is not exactly in favor of the war now, and he isn't exactly talking withdrawal, is he?

So, I don't see it in there. Did you, perhaps, infer it? Why, that would make you just as bad a liar as you claim MattY to be, so that can't possibly be the case.

Posted by Brad L | April 9, 2008 10:57 AM

That's not very nice, LarryM. Al's just a comment troll. I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone. Well, ok, maybe Bin Laden. And Doug Feith.

I think Jeffrey Davis nails the main point. The "100 years" talking point is somewhat disingenuous, but it represents the underlying truth that McCain is still wedded to the view that US troops must stay in Iraq "as long as it takes" to achieve some undefinable notion of "victory." If you believe that this is unlikely to happen in the next 100 years, as I do, then McCain deserves to be hammered on this until he gives some satisfactory answers.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 9, 2008 11:10 AM

What you want is an Iraq in which circles can be squared.

Or a colony.

Posted by Cyrus | April 9, 2008 11:28 AM

But what the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn’t really all that unfair. McCain's wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay.

That's it, right there.

Posted by David | April 9, 2008 11:33 AM

LaFollette Progressive

Torturing innocents isn't "nice" either, but the torturers are supported and enabled by monsters like Al. I say, third degree burns over 50% of his body and death after hours of the most excruciating agony imaginable are an entirely appropriate end for someone such as Al.

I think even those few progressives who really do oppose the hegemonic project mostly still haven't fully grasped the extent of the horrors committed by the Bandit States of America. The collective karmic debt that we owe the rest of the world probably can't be paid, even if the entirely of our wealth was to be forfeited to our many victims.

Posted by LarryM | April 9, 2008 11:38 AM

Maybe you and eorse can explain what McCain meant.

Well, I thought I did in my 10:51 comment. But if not (and to respond to LaFollette Progressive), let me try to explain my understanding of McCain's statement again.

My read of the McCain statement is that, so long as we are making progress toward success in Iraq, he's willing to continue the fight. If it becomes clear we are not able to continue such progress, then he realizes that he will have to take the troops out. Now, sure, this doesn't give you a date certain for leaving - you can't say "success will occur by November 2009" or the like. But it is silly to think you could say something ilke that - FDR couldn't say in 1943 "success by the end of 1945 or we're pulling the troops out", and Lincoln couldn't say in 1863 "success by the end of 1865 or we're pulling the troops out". That's not how it works. So, yeah, McCain can't promise a particular end date.

But he can look at whether we are continuing to make significant progress. My take of the polls is that Americans are willing to stick with the war a little longer provided that we are continuing to make progress. And we clearly are. The surge has made significant military gains, of course. But there has also been political progress - the election law, the integration of Sunnis, etc. That's been slow and it's got to continue. But as long as there continues to be military and political progress, it's wrong to say that "no reason to believe he can succeed any faster than that".

BTW, as to your point about calling Matthew a liar, I think that's pretty standard blog fare, no? I mean, Matthew calls people liars from time to time. And Matthew's always been pretty liberal when it comes to commenting policy (which I appreciate). But I've been commenting a long time, and I've said before that if Matthew doesn't want me to comment, because he thinks some comment of mine is over the top or for any other reason, all he needs to do is say so - he would not have to go through the trouble of tracking ip addresses and lawsuits.

Posted by Al | April 9, 2008 11:42 AM

He also said something close to "I don't think the American people are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1000 years or 10,000 years."

Not as bad as "So?", but is he that clueless as to what the country actually wants, when poll after poll shows we should at least CONSIDER getting out?

Posted by 55 | April 9, 2008 11:48 AM

My read of the McCain statement is that, so long as we are making progress toward success in Iraq, he's willing to continue the fight. If it becomes clear we are not able to continue such progress, then he realizes that he will have to take the troops out.

Now Al is sounding like Juan Cole. Cole said on bloggingheads that, even if McCain is elected, we're still going to pull our troops out in defeat eventually, due to the infeasibility of the whole project.

The only difference with McCain, as opposed to Obama, is that this would take place a few years later, at the cost of lots more money and troops, not to mention a delay in the final internal settlement in Iraq.

Posted by Jim W | April 9, 2008 11:54 AM

Matt:

I want you to go Politico and see what Michelle says: We want white people. Make that a racial issue. Print it. Take it out of context. In other words, do to Democrats what you do (shamlessly) to GOP.

Come on. Matt. Be different. Use out of context on your own people. Just once. Just once.

Posted by eorse | April 9, 2008 11:55 AM

from swimming freestyle:

"And, truth be told, John McCain has offered no plan on how he would end that fighting in Iraq. He promises to continue the Bush Administration "patience is a virtue" policy: just wait however long it takes for the Iraqis to develop a stable and peaceful nation. That means a U.S. troop presence in a hostile environment and resulting casualties. Not at all like Germany and South Korea.

Without a strategy to either remove troops or the threat to those troops, Senator McCain's policy is prey to the whims of people and circumstances we have absolutely no control over.

As soon as Senator McCain comes up with a plan to end the casualties, then we can talk about a 100 year presence. Until then, it's all academic."

http://swimmingfreestyle.tyepad.com

Posted by Jay McDonough | April 9, 2008 11:58 AM

My read of the McCain statement is that, so long as we are making progress toward success in Iraq, he's willing to continue the fight. If it becomes clear we are not able to continue such progress, then he realizes that he will have to take the troops out.

I can understand why you would think this, but it is definitely interpretive.

I suspect that if it becomes clear we are not making progress, and therefor losing the support of the public to whatever degree he thinks is the right degree, McCain's solution to such a problem would be to try and demonstrate success by doing more than we were before. I have absolutely no confidence that there is, in fact, any point at which a bigger surge won't seem like a better option to him (possibly including the big 'D' word -- a draft).

As far as I know, there really hasn't been a discussion of 'how much is too much' in terms of cost of this adventure, nor a good explanation of how to get from here to "victory." Without these, we are all just speculating on McCain's intentions. Speculations in the direction of hawkishness at least have the weight of his previous actions on their side. What on earth makes anyone think that he's be ready to leave Iraq at any point?

Posted by Brad L | April 9, 2008 12:05 PM

BTW, as to your point about calling Matthew a liar, I think that's pretty standard blog fare, no?

No. One's host, and Yglesias is our host here, is due a measure of respect. You got an itch to call someone a liar, there's a target rich environment.

Your "explanation" fails as a justification for condemning people who scold McCain for wanting to war for 100 (or 10,000 years). McCain opened up that horizon himself. Fighting until we reach a still nebulous definition of "success" is what McCain is being criticized for so it hardly absolves him by saying that's what his words meant.

WW2 and the Civil War don't help you since people knew going in what "success" would look like. We were hoodwinked going in about the reasons and evidence for the war, and subsequently, we've had the criterion for "success" swapped around like a Faulkner horse trader masking a spavined horse.

Assurance that we're "succeeding" is grimly comic since Petraeus just came to Congress to beg that the draw down of troops should halt. We have a word about that kind of success: Pyrrhic.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 9, 2008 12:08 PM

One can argue he believes the current 'hot' war in Iraq is important enough to devote sizable resources for the time being, but his statement does not mean he supports troops there under the current scenario for a hundred years.

The point is that McCain is saying this without giving any indication that he would stay less than 100 years if the magical pony doesn't appear and Americans keep dying. The fact that he says "public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed" isn't really saying anything at all. He is speaking in the passive voice and deliberately avoiding a promise to follow public opinion (which by any reasonable measure is already strongly opposed to the war and in favor of an expeditious withdrawal). He says nothing about what would actually make him decide to stop the war. By saying we could be there in 100 years if things are peaceful leaves a lot of ambiguity about at what point in that timeframe continual war becomes unacceptable. I agree that there shouldn't be a firm date for this, but "100 years" is really the closest things we have to any indication of this from McCain (let me know if he has specifically suggested a shorter timeframe than this). You can theorize it would happen within a couple of Friedman units, but he also leaves the possibility of it lasting much longer than 8 years, which is the relevent timeframe when looking at McCain's words. Perhaps he can point to some form of progress over this time, but most people have already concluded that we are not making progress, or that the "progress" we are making (setting up an Iranian-allied governement, fighting AQI but not AQ, lowering our own casualties when we would have none if we withdrew) are not worth the cost.

Public opinion already opposes the war, and yet it is still being sustained by our leaders, including McCain. The way public opinion can stop the war is to elect leaders who also want to stop the war. First step is to elect a president who has a plan for withdrawal, not someone whose mindset is "I'm sure things will be better within our great-grandchildren's lifetime."

Posted by ibid | April 9, 2008 12:11 PM

I don't understand what the objection is.

McCain is fine with staying in Iraq for 100, 1000 or 10,000 years. The wingers emphasize the additional point that this is "so long as US troops are being killed".

But:

McCain is also wants US troops staying in Iraq and being killed for as long as it takes to get to the point where US troops are not being killed. He may not be *fine* with the "continuing to be killed" part, but he *prefers* this to the option of withdrawal.

So at the end of the day, the apparent objection is that McCain will support a policy that sees US troops being killed in Iraq indefinitely - but he won't feel great about the US troops being killed - and we should at least make it clear that although McCain won't do anything to stop US troops being killed, he doesn't really like that part of it...

Posted by McKingford | April 9, 2008 12:33 PM

Al is doing a fine job of demonstrating why this is a perfectly fair critique.

First, Al's attempts to interpret McCain as suggesting there may be some circumstances in which we would withdraw from the Iraq War rely on vague terms like "success" and "progress". Until McCain defines both "success" and "progress" in such a way that it would be possible for the American citizenry to independently evaluate whether or not we were in fact making progress toward success, that is an empty suggestion.

Second, this vague suggestion does not really contradict the idea that McCain would support an indefinite continuation of the Iraq War. For example, without more information, I see no reason to conclude that by McCain's definitions we could not be making progress toward success in Iraq--at a great ongoing cost in American lives lost and money spent--for the next 100 or 10,000 years, without ever actually succeeding.

In short, none of this actually answers the question of how and when McCain thinks we will be able to bring our participation in this war to an end. And until he answers that question, I think it is perfectly fair to claim he appears to be supporting endless war.

Posted by DTM | April 9, 2008 1:05 PM

The wingers emphasize the additional point that this is "so long as US troops are being killed".

Correction - "so long as US troops are not being killed".

Posted by McKingford | April 9, 2008 1:06 PM

But it is silly to think you could say something ilke that - FDR couldn't say in 1943 "success by the end of 1945 or we're pulling the troops out", and Lincoln couldn't say in 1863 "success by the end of 1865 or we're pulling the troops out".

But it's sillier to analogize the Iraq Occupation to World War II or the Civil War, where armies fought openly on battlefields to achieve tangible objectives. By those standards our mission was accomplished in April, 2003. Which just goes to show how misplaced those standards are.

I understand that being a neoconservative is associated with a rare form of Tourette's syndrome that causes the afflicted to blurt out nonsensical World War II analogies at inappropriate moments, but surely on some level you're aware that a low-level insurgency against a foreign occupation can continue for decades without tangible gains by either side, and as such bears no relation whatsoever to the situation FDR faced in 1943.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 9, 2008 1:09 PM

As a point of comparison, on Joe Scarborough this morning, I heard for probably the millionth time the lie that Obama said he wanted to invade Pakistan. Joe went on to say that, no matter how many times McCain screws up about the Shiites and Sunnis, by definition he knows more about Iraq than the Democrats because his name is John McCain.

Compare how dishonest this statement is about Obama and Pakistan with the basically honest statements by Obama on McCain and his 100 years quote. Then look at the amount of whining there is on the Republican side vs. the Democratic side.

Posted by Jim W | April 9, 2008 1:25 PM

You are quite right. Obama should not back down on this. McCain staying in Iraq for 100 years (especially on his terms) means a 100 year occupation means 100 years of counterinsurgency means 100 years of war. The more the McCain camp bang on about this the more Obama gets to make this case, the more it gets across.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 9, 2008 1:46 PM

It's quite enjoyable to watch Al burst into tears and stamp his wee little feet. It's also a good reminder that all monsters like him and his kind through history have just been just spoiled four year-olds at heart. Next I assume Al will be wetting his pants in frustration.

Of course, spoiled four year-olds are just a deep annoyance to their families, whereas Al and his kind get millions of people killed.

Posted by 23456 | April 9, 2008 2:39 PM

This is the context, according to the youtube, of our 100 year - uh - presence - in Iraq: "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" - which is clearly not a 100 year war. So fine. But:

"as long as"?? - if that's a precondition for our presence then what are we doing there now? It makes no sense on its face. And even if it's not a precondition now, but would be for that far out, then it doesn't answer the guy's question at all. He clearly wanted to know how long we would have to stay in that hellhole with no end in sight, the point at which we cry "uncle" and call it a day.

And Obama needs to make that point instead of saying "100 year war". But McCain still gave a jackass nonsense answer.

Posted by Phoebe | April 9, 2008 4:53 PM

McCain said he was willing to have Americans in Iraq for 100 years if they were not getting killed. But he has no idea of how to end the war, and therefore it may be 100 years of killing.

Hope is not a plan. Remember that McCain was actually quite bad at being a soldier. He was almost last in his class and he wrecked five airplanes.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_11_16/ai_61361646

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 9, 2008 5:27 PM

See, now this is where my being "correct" is better than being vindictive.

I don't want to see Al die in a fire - although I wouldn't give a rat's ass if he did - and if he managed to take Fred, Mixner, Ford, and Powell with him, it might even really make my day. In fact, the only way my day could be better is if Summer Glau turned up on my front door.

A simple bullet in the head would be quite sufficient - cheaper, more effective, less noisy (as long as you wear earplugs - shooting firearms can damage your hearing.) Dump the body in an alley and let the rats eat it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 11, 2008 4:16 AM