John McCain says 100 years in Iraq is "fine with me"
In my recent blogs about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, quite a few folks have expressed the view that they won't vote for Hillary because they believe she will either keep us in Iraq or take us to war in Iran. They won't vote for her, even if it means McCain might win the White House. If you watched the video I posted a few days ago of Senator Clinton speaking in Lyndhurst, Ohio, you heard her promise quite plainly that she will begin removing our troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office.
Let's hear now what John McCain says about keeping our troops in Iraq. He obviously has no plan to bring them home during his administration, since he claims that keeping them in Iraq for a hundred years would be "fine" with him.
Let's hear now what John McCain says about keeping our troops in Iraq. He obviously has no plan to bring them home during his administration, since he claims that keeping them in Iraq for a hundred years would be "fine" with him.
See... again, honest and whatnot. He wasn't talking about the WAR continuing for 100 years. I don't recall McCain being one of those naive "Oh, just give it time, we'll find the WMD's" tards. He's just telling us the truth. I believe I mentioned, in addition to what he said, that we were in the Phillipines for 95 years (are we still there?). We still maintain overseas bases like Guam that, honestly, are as important to us as the Falklands are to Britain.
He's not PROMISING to have troops there (note: he does talk about keeping troops there in an "after the war" fashion... not extending the war for 1000 years), just saying it's possible.
I prefer keeping troops there for a generation over naively taking our troops out as quickly as possible. Withdrawing troops ASAP has led to such wonderful things as Saddam Hussein and the PLO.
Japan, Germany, and South Korea are lovely nations today, in no small part due to the fact that there were American troops stationed there when neighbors were gleefully eyeing those nations' lands.
Now... I'm not saying it's clear-cut and obvious. Far from it. Like I told you, there's as many examples of nations hanging on too long and making the situation worse as there are of nations making it worse by pulling the cut-and-run. Pol Pot? Dien Bien Phu? In-fucking-deed.
I don't, however, think we're anywhere near those situations. The troop "surge", while 3 years too late, is still showing SOME signs of positive change. Of course, the best signs you could possibly have are the ones showing that Iraqis started (about a year or so ago) hating Al Qaeda WORSE than they hate us. It's slowly dawning on them as a people "Holy crap, these shitheads are evil!"
I don't want them to have any MORE evidence reminding them of that, but it's good that they're learning. Or... well... most of 'em.
Like I said, it's certainly a complicated issue. I just think cut-and-run would cause a WORSE fallout than staying behind to clean up Dubya's mess.
Reply to this
Thanks for commenting, Yonder!
I know you like to play devil's advocate and you make some good points. But let me start by addressing a few of them.
The Philippines were part of the United States from around 1900 until 1946 except for a brief Japanese take-over in World War II). So if the 95 years is correct, it's not quite the same as Iraq. The troops in the Philippines were in "the United States" for much of that time. Are we going to make Iraq part of the United States, too?
I know McCain didn't PROMISE to keep the trops in Iraq. But unlike Hillary and Barack, he's not promising to bring them home. He thinks it's perfectly "fine" to keep them there. If I recall correctly, he advocated keeping our troops in Vietnam as well.
Hillary is not, however, advocating a "cut and run" withdrawal, but an intelligent and safe withdrawal - you can hear more about that by watching the speech video I referenced above.
Reply to this
I admit to having some level of ignorance on the elections, which is simply to say, I am not as well versed with the current politics as some people are. In fact, I still am a bit on the fence concerning the democratic candidate I plan to vote for. But I will say that it's interesting how republican candidates manage to hide behind "progressive issues" when it comes to the vote. Isn't that how Bush got in to office? Too many people were afraid that the piece of legislation regarding gay marriage would be passed in the state of Ohio, so they came to the polls...and said "oh heck, while i'm here i might as well vote for president. hmmm...Bush he's republican. that must be good."
Now, nothing against republicans, I'm often times a closet republican, but why do we hide larger, more important issues behind seemingly moral ones? Isn't there supposed to be a separation between church and state? That's just my two cents anyway. Count it for what you like.
Reply to this
Thanks, Tara!
I agree one hundred percent. If the gay marriage issue hadn't been on the ballot in Ohio in 2004, John Kerry would have won Ohio's electoral votes an the presidency of the United States. Republican officials in Ohio were very savvy in that regard. Evangelicals turned out in droves and helped narrowly defeat Kerry.
In the 2000 election George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes, in Florida. And Florida's electoral votes, which all went to the winner, were the difference in making Bushthe President of the United States. But just think: progressive third party candidate Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida. I have great respect and admiration for the things Nader has done in his life. But if the progressive voters who chose him had rallied behind the best ELECTABLE option, we'd have Al Gore as president, we'd be part of the Kyoto treaty, we wouldn't be at war with Iraq - the world would be a far better place.
Reply to this
You agree with me 100%? *Swoon!*
This brings up the issue of legislating morality. Not that I think there is anything immoral about being gay or gay marriage. I support and favor it. I have always contended that legislating morality is pointless because morality cannot be legislated. That is why I am a life-long Democrat. I use my vote to influence social issues. I believe that when the social issues are addressed the morality will take care of itself. I have a friend who is a single-issue-voter. Her issue is abortion and she voted for GWB twice. She doesn't agree with any of his policy save his abortion policy. She wants to save unborn babies. I asked her what about all of those mother's babies who are getting blown to bits in Iraq? Do you want to save them? She didn't have an answer for that one.
You made an excellent point about voting for the most electable candidate. I think that Nader brings a lot of important issues up for discussion when he runs for President, but when he fails to swing his support to a nominee, he goes from being a social reformer to an election spoiler. It's the only thing he has done that I don't understand or agree with. It's especially frustrating because he must have the heart of a democrat beating in his chest.
Oh my Jesus Crisis, I can check the spelling of my comment - awesome.
Reply to this
Fantastic points once again....
And what about all those folks Bush let fry as Governor of Texas? "Pro-life" in the case of Bush is a misnomer.
And the spell check in blogs and comments is one advantage this site has over MySpace - although I always forget I have that option available... lol.
Thanks, Tara!
Reply to this
I'm not sure I believe Clinton. Remember the 2013 stuff with Iraq? A couple months ago, Clinton said she couldn't commit to a withdrawal, that she didn't know what she was inheriting.
By the way, I might vote for the Democrat in the presidential election, but it'll be with a laundry clip on my nose.
Also, recall that Al Gore ran with Joseph Lieberman, of all people. Lieberman's a total shill for the DLC and probably a Republican plant.
We need to monitor & criticize our party, not just accept that it's the lesser of two evils.
Reply to this
I wouldn't be surprised if Lieberman is McCain's choice for running mate, especially since Lieberman had endorsed and vigorously campaigned with McCain - and that endorsement coincided with the resurrection of McCain's candidacy. Could get both religious voters and independents to feel better about McCain....
And I love your line about the laundry clip. Sometimes I feel that no matter which candidate I vote for in any election, I have a sort of mental laundry clip on my nose. I also agree that we need to monitor and criticize our party. That's part of why I voted for Perot in 1992, to send a message to both parties that they need to check themselves. But would Perot have been a better President than Bush senior or Bill Clinton? Perhaps not... one can only speculate.
I also agree that perhaps Clinton will find it harder to withdraw than she thinks (but because of her White House and Senate experience, and her having a husband who's been there, I think she'd be less susceptible to such a delusion than some other candidates). It's also possible that she's saying what people want to hear to get votes. But I think she would have avoided making such a promise if she didn't think she copuld make progress on keeping it in time for re-election. At least she's put herself out there in favor of a withdrawal, which will put pressure on her to either do it or risk losing reelection. Just like she almost-stubbornly stands by her vote to fund Iraq, even when in retrospect she might secretly wish she hadn't made that vote (I'm obviously only speculating here), I think she'll feel a similar need to stand by her promise to bring home the troops. McCain doesn't seem to feel any pressure to end this unjust war.
I very much appreciate your comment, Kathy!
Reply to this
After Iraq: "As America approaches the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the list of the war's unintended consequences is without end" So writes Jeffrey Goldberg in his article in the Jan.Feb Atlantic Monthly. This article is written by a man who wrote from his experiences in the Kurdish part of Iraq long before the invasion. We not only have to think of what "unintended" consequences" we face in the Middle East whether we withdraw from Iraq or not. Yes, this is a political environment right now but I would suggest for anyone who is interested in the whole picture that they read this really thought provoking article by Jeffrey Goldberg.
It isn't a matter of whether we withdraw our troops or not, it is what is going to happen in Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others that could all ultimately break apart. Just today Pakistan elected a new parliament and yesterday Kosovo declared its independence. We are living in a very changing world and must recognize that whomever we elect as president has to understand a lot more than just our economy and our military. We need strong leaders not only in the president's office but in the State Department, the Pentagon and the U.N.
Without this we give up our leading role in global affairs.
Reply to this
Excellent and true observations!...
I will try to find that article online so I can post it in a comment here and a MySpace bulletin.
Reply to this
I have written so many things lately but the only thing I can say is this. It has stuck in my mind ever since he said.
" my follower will not vote for Hillary although Hillary's people will vote for me" If that isn't dividing the democrats I don't know what does.
Reply to this
Divide and conquer - that wouldn't be the first time the Republicans have tried that (even the first Republican President, our excellent Abraham Lincoln won because the opposing Democrats were divided between two candidates). For some reason(s), we Democrats seem more susceptible to such tactics.
Thanks, Lori! I've been enjoying your posts here and on MySpace.
Reply to this
Yes, it is the divisiveness in the Democratic Party right now that worries me. They have to get on one page and that is obvious to anyone who looks at the present closeness of the primaries. Maybe Obama should choose Oprah for VP? LOL
Reply to this
Then I WOULD vote for McCain... lol
Just kidding...
I think...
Reply to this
Why not Oprah? She has a terrific following among women, men, poor, rich,
educated,non educated, etc. LOL LOL
Reply to this
How about a Winfrey/Povich ticket?
Reply to this
i'd go for an oprah/ellen ticket...
Reply to this
Ellen/Oprah... lol
Reply to this
even better! a womanizing lesbian from louisiana and an african american woman with commitment issues...
Reply to this
More Americans would vote in the election (for and against) than ever before.
Reply to this
Let's play Hardball. The pundits on TV are talking about the delegates and saying this may turn into a TRAIN WRECK at the convention if this primary gets any closer They are worried about the outcome if there is a fight over the delegates. The whole thing is beginning to stink. Watch the debates for further
hope for a Clinton-Obama dream ticket.
Reply to this
I'm optimistic that the Democrats aren't that foolish. At least enough of them... lol.
I have a Dream Ticket!
Reply to this
This could be their slogan:
"Two Bushes Are Better Than One!"
Reply to this
LMAO!
that's too funny! the best laugh i've had all day
Reply to this
I plead the fifth! lol
Reply to this
Ellen is from Louisiana???? well hell shes got my vote!!!!!
Reply to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Degeneres
indeed she is.
Reply to this
I have to admit, I do like Ellen!
Reply to this
just keep swimming...
Reply to this
Speaking of swimming... my new blog featuring Mark Spitz will post at midnight (about two hours from now). And I'm not kidding....
Reply to this
i must have known that. i camethisclose to using my favorite "squishy" line instead
Reply to this
Yee Haw indeed. I am also not sure what the logic of voting outside the party because you don't like the nominee, who you and I hope will be Hillary. A person may not like his party's candidate, but logic would dictate that you have to vote for your party's nominee if you want to support your party and your party's agenda. This is the logic that causes me to always vote for the nominee, even when that nominee was Michael Dukakis (snore). Sometimes you are not voting for a candidate, you are voting against his or her opposition.
Reply to this
Thanks, Tara!
A perfect example of Ohio's primary usually not meaning a hill of beans. I was so eager to vote for Al Gore the first time he ran for President (1988). But by the time Ohio's primary came around that year, Dukakis already had the Democratic nomination locked up. So, being 22 years old, I rebelled and voted for Bush senior in November.
So I haven't always been the staunch liberal you see before you... lol. Part of why I was gung-ho about Gore at the time is that I viewed him as a progressive on environmental issues but a conservative in almost every other realm. Must have been the aftershock of my Southern Baptist upbringing.
Reply to this
Why are all of you not listening? The last news tonight is that Obama won in Wisconsin. I heard ALL of his speech in Houston. MSNBC cut off Hillary and went to Obama. I will say no more. Some of you are not LISTENING. I also heard McCain with his blond wife petting him all the time. Geez, why don't you all spend more time listening instead of blogging? You might learn something important. lol
Reply to this
AND BY THE WAY OBAMA WAS VERY DYNAMIC.
VERY VERY VERY VERY DYNAMIC. BUT YOU HAVE TO LISTEN!!!!!
Reply to this
So was Hitler... lol.
Not saying Obama's a Nazi, in case anyone doesn't have a sense of humor....
He also plagiarized a large part of his speech by the way...
Reply to this
Change comes from the bottom up. That is the message. I live in the NOW not the past of Bill Clinton or Hillary. That is where she is losing. I have certain theories about life. I have less future than all of you since I am so much older. Perhaps this doesn't mean much but to me it does. I want to lose all negativity and this is hard to do. I want to forget Bush and the Iraq war but remember those who are still suffering the consequences of things like the Holocaust, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Iraq shit, and live as best as I can and support the ideas and hopes of the kids and younger people I love so much. History only repeats itself and this election is just a nano moment in history. If I have dreams of a perfect existence it can come true if I let it.
But fussing and worrying doesn't help.
Namaste to all of you who read these blogs. Life and peace and love to all of you. Live in your higher self. It will do you all good.
Love and Peace, Elena Goodnight...
Reply to this
Peace, Elena!
Reply to this
Haha... I'm listening and blogging.
I knew Obama was likely to win Wisconsin. Looking forward to Texas and Ohio... and then Pennsylvania. A close battle is good for energizing the Democratic electorate. But then we need to bring ourselves together before the Convention.
Maybe McCain should choose his wife as his running mate... lol.
Reply to this
100 years? 100 days is to much for me! I don't understand the rationale to not vote for Hillary. My vote is a vote against McCain. It doesn't matter who wins the nomination, because the issues are so close. In my gut, I feel Hillary can get the job done. But i can't say Obama will not. That's fortune telling. MY gut is one thing, and someone elses gut is another. Just keep the war mongers out of the White House. And I HOPE the nominee can save us.
Thanks for letting me express myself.
Reply to this
Very well said, La Chica Liberal. That pretty much covers where I'm coming from. (Oops - I ended a sentence with a preposition. Morning laziness, I guess... lol.)
Peace and thanks,
John, a.k.a. Jesus Crisis
Reply to this
Reply to this
LOL... case in point: George W. Bush
Reply to this
Oops above comment is from La Chica Liberal
Reply to this
I'll change it from "Anonymous" to reflect your name. One advantage to this site over MySpace: I can fix typos, et cetera in comments. And since my typing skills are lacking, I tend to make more of them than I like.
Reply to this