Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Interpreting McCain's "100 years in Iraq" quote - from the guy who asked it

"I am McCain's "Ernest Hemingway"

I was the questioner at the January 3 Town Hall Meeting in Derry, NH, who McCain called Ernest Hemingway and who asked him what he hoped to accomplish in Iraq and how long it would take. When I pressed him for a time frame and cited George Bush's figure of fifty years, Senator McCain shocked me by saying "Maybe a hundred".

Since that time his remark has been repeated thousands of times in the press, on political talk shows, by columnists, commentators, and by the Democratic candidates. There are music videos commemorating his words, and you can buy T-Shirts displaying the quote.

Needless to say, Democrats have had a field day with that sound bite. I'm wondering, where's my cut?

Now, three months later, McCain partisans are regretting the candor of their candidate, and in a full-court press, are claiming that McCain's opponents have mischaracterized his remarks.

In Check Point: McCain Said '100'; Opponents Latch On, Kate Phillips reported in the March 27 New York Times that McCain spokesman Steve Schmidt complains that, "There is a deliberate misrepresentation of the statement" by Clinton, Obama, and the DNC.

In Foes target McCain's 100-year war remark, Brian C. Mooney wrote April 2 in the Boston Globe that "McCain and Republicans say that [Senator Barack] Obama is trying to 'swindle voters' with 'dishonest smears'."

Charles Krauthammer, in his March 28 column, went much further, and declared hysterically, "It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie." One has to wonder what planet he's been on these last seven years!

Now the Manchester Union-Leader has joined the chorus with its Sunday, April 6 editorial, McCain's '100 Years': the Democrat's war on the truth.

While splitting hairs over the meaning of campaign rhetoric, all ignore the fact that McCain advocates an open-ended presence in Iraq, and the consequences that would follow from such a commitment.

McCain's words left little room for interpretation. By saying that he was fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years, he made clear his commitment to staying the course and, further, to remaining in Iraq for years after the country is pacified, assuming that's ever possible.

Everyone who was there that night got it: we weren't getting out anytime soon.

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker summed it up when he wrote, "what the context shows, I think, is that yanking that sound bite out of context isn't really all that unfair. McCain 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."

When offered the opportunity to backtrack later, McCain only dug himself in deeper, upping the ante to 10,000 years, or a million. He may as well have said "forever" when he confirmed his 100 years remark and added that he would support permanent bases in Iraq three days later on NBC's Meet the Press.

Not content to confine the endless war to Iraq, McCain went on to warn of other wars. Speaking to Tim Russert he asked, "What if Jordan falls? What if there's another war with Israel?" He also singled out the instability in Pakistan. Though he did not mention it by name, one can imagine that Iran figures in his thoughts.

McCain has stated his belief that "the war will be over soon", and that the Iraqi government and military will handle the ongoing insurgency. Given the current fighting in Iraq and the ineffectiveness of the Al Maliki government's military, this seems highly unrealistic.

McCain's comments to me raise more questions than they answer. If U.S. troops are garrisoned on permanent bases in Iraq, wouldn't it be likely that they would come under attack? And when they do, would we depend upon the Iraqi government to protect us? Of course not! How would that be different from the situation we face today?

If McCain's campaign now wants a do-over on the 100 years remark, then here is his shot. How long would he keep our troops in Iraq? Both of his opponents have offered specific exit plans. Where is McCain's?

I like John McCain. I commend him for his opposition to torture, and his refusal to scapegoat Spanish speaking people. I applaud his willingness to engage in debate with those who disagree with him. You might say he is my favorite "conservative liberal Republican" (as he recently described himself in what some called a Freudian slip).

But when it comes to the war in Iraq we part company. Americans want to see an end to the war and they will not get that from John McCain. And no amount of spin can change that fact.

where do you get this, uh, manure, brian?

as long as we're killing terrorists and would-be terrorists at a 100-1 or better ratio, what's the hurry?

we're killing them there, and not new york, birmingham - or ottawa.

As long as it's your country footing the trillion dollar bill...have at 'er.

It doesn't hurt Canada's economy. If your happy with spending America's taxpayer dollars that way - I'm happy!

Maybe your education system, healthcare system, veterens care, inner cities etc. can't use the money.

What would I know - I'm just a Canadian,



Seriously, Is it just possible - that Americans having military bases over in their lands is spawning them (terrorists) - faster than you are killing them?

Well, no attacks on American sovereign territory coming up on 7 years. Apparently something is working. The prior Administration suffered attacks on the WTC, the U.S.S. Cole and two American Embassies. But we did bomb a lot of camels and sure taught those Balkans a lesson.

So, we can fight them over there with our military, which volunteers to do such fighting, or we can go back to letting civilians be the victims.

aye, foxbat.

and we much appreciate you canucks and your fighters in afghanistan and elsewhere over there.

better there than ANYWHERE in NA.

Well, I'm not sure I understand how a complete withdrawal of forces in that region is going to guarantee the terrorists will simply cease operations.

Isn't it sort of like pest eradication? I know from experience that they just build up their population and overrun the kitchen again unless the pests are completely wiped out. You can stop applying product and sit on the couch and think pleasant thoughts, but the cockroaches aren't on the same wavelength.

I don't like John McCain's politics. He is wrong on so many points IMO.... But I haven't caught him lying. Yet. You can be dead wrong, and an idiot,-not that he is an idiot- and still have integrity, and I believe McCain does have said integrity, however much he may be differ from my opinions. I used to believe Obama also had integrity, however far left he may be from my views. I no longer believe that after the exposure of the Rev. Wright. You just can't have it both ways and be honest.

His opinions are worth what everyone else's are. Not much, unless he's President. I guess I'm going to have to vote for the sorry bastid, cuz the other choices are so much worse.

The other two Dem. presidential candidates, whom are either a proven inveterate liar and corrupted individual and probably worse, or one who is cozied up to hate-racists (is there another kind?) and is a Neville Chamberline-class appeaser (different from compromiser) to the enemy.

Ahhhhh - I dispare....

"What Americans want" and what may be best for them in the long run may not be the same, but that remains to be seen in this instance. It's been proven in several past instances.. And it is always heavily influenced in the "want" direction by the liberal media, who are, generally, total idiots. And what most of America forms their opinions on.

When I first heard John McCain speak about our moral responsibility, I thought he was off-track. The more I listened, the more I understood his position.

I think it's really noble. I'm not sure we are collectively up to the challenge he intends to set before us (or continue, if you think it's already in progress.)

I'm not sure what I'm trying to explain, but it's related to the concept that as individuals we can exhibit great intelligence, but as a mob we're not too bright.

"I'm not sure what I'm trying to explain, but it's related to the concept that as individuals we can exhibit great intelligence, but as a mob we're not too bright. [/quote]

That's cuz the dumshits outnumber us. Though I'd not consider myself of "great intelligence".

I have to go to bed...

To tell the truth, it is really not the governments' job to provide healthcare, education, fix our inner cities, etc. Aside from care of veterans,which is basically a contract with them(and is changed frequently, gradually eroding governmental obligations) government IS responsible for national defense. All that other stuff constitutes freebies that help politicians get elected.

Government is the people not politicians. The politicians work for the taxpayers, same as law enforcement etc.. At least that is what I have been told for years.
I agree about his 100 year comment because the French spent 130 years in north Africa trying to change them with no luck. They killed and abused took away firearms, basically tried everything and finally gave up and went back to France.
Same thing is goin to happen in the now occupied countries-quaranteed.

True, in theory, that gov't IS the people. In actual practice, not so much. The people are abdicating responsibility, and along with that , rights , to the great benefactor, that machine called government. True, we have met the enemy, and they are us. These politicians, who are employed by me, are largely unapproachable on an individual basis. They are the "government", an elite society that acts in my behalf, for my own good. That leaves me free to entertain myself and play, while they go about running the country. The really sad part is the only way they can get away with it, is because we let them. I actually agree with the premise that we will never win over the Arabs. We do have a financial interest in that part of the world, though, and that is a weakness. The culture in the middle east is not given to forgiving and forgetting. Thousand of years of skirmishing because of personal slights speaks volumes of how successful any attempt at peace , even among themselves, let alone with us,will be.

How long have we been in Germany, Korea? Seems like once we are there we never leave.

Here's what McCain said in Virginia in response to the democrats' distortion of his prior remarks:

Thank you for that question because, you know, this is -- anyone who worries about how long we're in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war. The question is not how long we stay in Iraq. The question is, is whether we're able to reduce the casualties, eliminate them, have the Iraqi military, as they are today, take over more and more of our responsibilities.

We have troops in Kuwait. I don't hear a single American say, get the troops out of Kuwait. Maybe there are, but certainly it hasn't affected American public opinion. We have a base in Turkey. We have -- we've had troops for 60 years in Germany and Japan. We've had troops in South Korea since 1950.

So, I mean, the argument is really almost insulting to one's intelligence to say, how long we're in Iraq. The question is, will we be able to succeed with this strategy, which is succeeding, and we withdraw American troops to bases out of harm's way, eliminate the casualties and have this counterinsurgency succeed, which we are on the path to doing. And compare that with the demands for setting a date for withdrawal, which in my view is how al Qaeda will trumpet that they've defeated the United States of America.