Jul 12, 2008 07:40PM GMT
Question
•
Politics - Other
When McCain said the100 years in Iraq statement, what do you think he meant? Read the following article before commenting.?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain on Thursday defended his statement that U.S. troops could spend "maybe 100" years in Iraq -- saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.
Sen. John McCain defends his stance on troops in Iraq Thursday on CNN's "Larry King Live."
This week, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama both took McCain to task for the comments, saying that if he's elected he would continue what they call President Bush's failed policies in Iraq.
"It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not," McCain said to CNN's Larry King.
"And both Sen. Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal -- that means chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we've achieved and al Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America.
"I won't let that happen."
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
The remaining Democratic contenders for the White House seized on the statement.
"He said recently he could see having troops in Iraq for 100 years," Clinton said at an Arlington, Virginia, rally last week in a line she's repeated on the campaign trail. "Well, I want them home within 60 days of my becoming president of the United States."
Obama took a similar tack.
"Sen. McCain said the other day that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq -- which is reason enough not to give him four years in the White House," Obama has said on several occasions.
McCain told King he thinks opponents are taking the quote out of context. He said any long-term troop presence in Iraq would depend on agreement from the Iraqi government.
"If they don't want to and we don't feel a need to do so, obviously, the whole thing is keyed to Americans being able to withdraw and come home with honor, not in defeat," he said.
McCain was endorsed Thursday by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, once considered his fiercest rival for the GOP nomination.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee remains in the race, although McCain has an overwhelming advantage in the number of delegates earned for this year's Republican convention.
Loading...-
raves +1 posted Aug 26, 2008 08:04PM GMT
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
We have a continuing military presence in many places in the world and it wouldn't be a bad idea if our military was a stabilizing influence in the mid-east. There are people who object to the idea of a war for oil, but if you were watching when oil approached $150 per bbl it seems it was a pretty upsetting thing for many Americans. Some people are okay with something when it's an abstract idea or thought, but they change when the idea becomes a reality e.g. $5.00 per gallon gas at the pump. It's not just what it does to the individual driver (homeowner) and his wallet, but what it does to our entire economy. -
raves posted Jul 30, 2008 01:58AM GMT
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
I am a strong Obama supporter and I'm baffled by why people think McCain is either a moderate or good for our country. But his "100 years in Iraq" comment has clearly been taken out of context (just like uncountable numbers of slams against Obama). -
raves +2 posted Jul 16, 2008 11:52PM GMT
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
This is absurd spin of a very logical statement. obama's re-writing of it accusing McCain of saying, "we might be mired in 100 years in Iraq" is equally absurd -- anti-America at best. Obama would announce to our enemies that we are quitting in Iraq? What a joke he is. -
raves +4 posted Jul 12, 2008 09:17PM GMT
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
How could he POSSIBLY say we would be at war for 100 years? All of the schlubs over there would be dead long before that. How do you fight a war without an enemy?
It is obvious that he was making a statement that meant "we will do what we have to do to win." Kinda like me saying something like, "I wouldn't eat fried worms. Never in a million years." -
raves +2 posted Jul 12, 2008 09:09PM GMT (edited)
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
I wish politicians would act like adults. People got it the first time he said it but McCain's opposition, scrambling for any little bit of ammo to unload at him took it out of context and got loud about it. They knew better but wanted to slant it to get what edge they could. The same happened with "mission accomplished." The ships captain put the banner up congratulating the men of that particular fleet for a tour they had just finished. Again, the loud crowd repeated a slant trying to make people believe the president was declaring total victory. But If I saw it I know others did. Michele Obama misspoke similarily saying she was proud of America for the first time. Again, for a partisan edge, the slant, the volume. It was Laura Bush, in an interview on tv, that said with grace and maturity how she felt Mrs. Obama simply misspoke and told of how easily that can happen under the pressure of campaign. Mrs. Obama was moved by the gesture. I guess it's too much to ask of her husband. -
raves +6 posted Jul 12, 2008 08:51PM GMT
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
But the Liberals would love for him to have meant we will be at war for 100 years! They love bringing their own meaning out of it to make McCain look bad to make their token look better. -
raves +3 posted Jul 12, 2008 08:18PM GMT
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
Would you rather the enemy think we are willing to be there for 100 years if necessary, or to think in 2 months we will be OUT OF THERE, come hell or high water? Saying we will be out within 60 days is stupid and dangerous. -
raves +6 posted Jul 12, 2008 07:45PM GMT
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
He's 100% right to say it too. What kind of idiot (Barack Obama) makes a public announcement saying he'll pull out in 18 months? News flash, terrorists will lay low until 18 months and 1 day pass. -
raves +7 posted Jul 12, 2008 07:44PM GMT
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
He has integrity and doesnt try to appease people. He he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.
Unlike Hussein Obama and Clinton who said they want them home within 60 days of becoming president of the United States.
Answered He was only referring to a military presence like in other places, not war.
He has integrity and doesnt try to appease people. He he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.Unlike Hussein Obama and Clinton who said they want them home within 60 days of becoming president of the United States.