McCain lashes out at '100 years' in Iraq ads

Saturday 03rd May, 06:10 AM JST

DENVER —

Republican John McCain defended himself Friday against television ads that accuse him of advocating a 100-year war in Iraq.

The ads tie McCain to President Goerge W Bush and cite McCain’s comments that there could be an American military presence in Iraq for 100 years. They are being run by the Democratic National Committee and the liberal group MoveOn.org.

“One hundred years in Iraq? And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush,” an announcer says in the most recent ad, run by MoveOn.org.

McCain brought up the commercials at a town hall meeting Friday in Denver, saying they are lies. He does not deny saying “100 years” in connection with U.S. military operations in Iraq, but says he was clearly referring to a possible peacekeeping force—not a century-long war, as critics imply.

“You have seen an ad campaign that is mounted against me that says I wanted to stay and fight in Iraq and fight for 100 years,” McCain told about 300 people at the Robert E Loup Jewish Community Center.

“My friends, it’s a direct falsification, and I’m sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion,” McCain said.

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama want to set a date for withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain argues would lead to chaos and genocide in the Middle East.

“After we win the war in Iraq, and we are succeeding—and it’s long and hard and tough, with enormous sacrifices—then I’m talking about a security arrangement that may or may not be the same kind of thing we had with Korea after the Korean war was over,” he said.

He described how, at the time, the United States entered into a security agreement with South Korea, and the U.S. troop presence there served as a buffer and as a deterrent from further North Korean aggression.

“So it’s too bad that they’re deliberately falsifying, when there are legitimate differences,” he said.

The other ad, run by the Democratic National Committee, says Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years, then plays a clip of McCain saying, “Maybe 100. That’d be fine with me.”

The announcer then says: “If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future?”

At issue is McCain’s answer, in January, to a question about Bush’s theory that troops could be in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’d be 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-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

Latest 15 of 43 Total Comments Show All

RomeoRamenII at 10:56 PM JST - 3rd May

Mr. McCain said nothing about a 100 year war. But hey, if this lie is all the dems have to go on, boy are they hurting.

Also, wonder why the DNC aren't all over our continued occupation of Japan, Germany and Italy. We are spending billions every year in those countries and we are approaching 75 years in those countries with no end in sight.

RR
RomeoRamenII at 11:01 PM JST - 3rd May

redacted: Gallup MUST be wrong. Heh ... the non-voting global Leftists that infest JT shriek and stamp their feet that it's barack by a landslide in November.

RR
Sarge at 11:04 PM JST - 3rd May

RR - The DNC aren't all over our continued occupation ( har! ) of Japan, Germany and Italy because the Japanese, Germans and Italians got with the program years ago. xD
Betzee at 11:35 PM JST - 3rd May

McCain seems to find himself in these "This is what I really meant" situations a lot:

PHOENIX — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) clarified his comments Friday after suggesting the Iraq war was motivated by U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

His explanation: He was talking about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, not the current conflict.

It was the second time in as many days that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had to clear up his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

At issue Friday was a comment at a morning town hall meeting in Denver, when he said his energy policy would eliminate U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and would "prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

He sought to clarify his comments after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain3-2008may03,0,4391153,print.story
Farmboy at 01:13 AM JST - 4th May

I don't care for McCain, but if you watch the clip, at least the clip in question, he is talking about occupation, not war. His platform is so crazy in so many other respects that I can't understand why anyone wastes time criticizing what he DIDN'T say, and making a false point the center of an ad. There are plenty of true things to criticize.
SezWho2 at 02:39 AM JST - 4th May

Farmboy,

When I watched the clip it seemed to me that he didn't know what he was talking about. The only thing for sure was that he wasn't for remaining for a 100 years if Americans were still being hurt. He'll be over 170 years old then anyway.

He did talk about the Japan and Korea models, but we don't really "occupy" either of these countries. He may have been talking about "presence", but we've already seen how well that has worked out in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. And he sure didn't talk about how he is going to end the war except perhaps by having a positive outlook.
Betzee at 04:00 AM JST - 4th May

In the case of South Korea, a comparison raised by McCain, the US Armed Forces, even when the country was under military dictatorship, did not become involved in national politics and provide assistance in policing the locals. Two military aircraft carriers were sent to Pusan in May 1980 during the Kwangju crackdown. But the purpose was to "discourage" other governments in the neighborhood, especially communist-led ones, from taking advantage of the situation. What happened was something the South Korean government alone had to answer for after political liberalization occurred.

By contrast, despite five years of American-financed and American-led military training programs in post-Saddam Iraq, the Iraqi forces remain unable to maintain order in their own country. As long as the Green Zone Government relies on the US for military support, we are going to take casualties. McCain would do better to address the reasons why the Iraqi forces have been unable to stand up rather than suggesting a positive attitude is sufficient to change the situation.
adaydream at 12:13 AM JST - 5th May

Look at what we spent in military expences each year. Do we want to continue the policy of funding everybody else's military costs?

We should have brought our troops from Korea years ago. It may have been smart to be a peacekeeper for a couple of years, but over 50 years is ludicris. How long do we continue paying this?

Taking that into Iraq. I've understood all along that John McCain has been talking about an occuping force, not neccesarily at war, but a presence. Why should the American people be paying for an occuping force to keep the peace in Iraq or anywhere for 100 years?

I advocate that we should be bringing our troops home from Korea, Japan and not establish anymore major occuping force anywhere. We should be spending our tax dollars on us, not another country.

You want tax cuts?? Stop paying to occuping other countries. Then you'll see major tax cuts.
RomeoRamenII at 12:37 AM JST - 5th May

"I advocate that we should be bringing our troops home from Korea"

We are still in engaged in a military conflict with that country. Hence, the reason the military cannot be removed from that part of the world.

RR
Zaphod at 04:49 PM JST - 5th May

The original "100 years" quote was ambiguous. Since he said that was provided the situation is safe and stable, one can just as well interpret that as policy to not stay there.

Predictably, the political demagogues have only picked up the soundbyte and broadcast it in a misleading context. That people fall for this only reflects on their low reading ability.
SezWho2 at 10:30 PM JST - 5th May

Zaphod,

You are right about the 100 year quote and I think that fair and honest people on both sides of this issue have said so. Political demagogues, if that is the proper term, exist in both parties and there's plenty of snipping to go around.

I think, however, it is a stretch to interpret McCain's comments as a policy not to stay in Iraq. At what point do you think McCain would bring the troops home when they are still being injured? If you think there is a point, there is no essential difference between McCain and the Democratic candidates except in bluster.
zurcronium at 11:43 PM JST - 6th May

McCain is getting dopy in his old age. Do the math and you have 76,000 US soldiers dead in the next 95 years of Iraqi occupation. As long as the GIs are in Iraq they are targets. But its not his kids that are at risk.

Bush to McCain, from denail to senile.
Hughgarse at 04:46 PM JST - 8th May

After we win the war in Iraq, and we are succeeding

hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaaha. now thats funny.
mosc1 at 02:42 PM JST - 9th May

The original 100 years flap, occured because of the Ron Paul opposition within the Republican Party. Paul sought to persuade his party of the value of pulling American troops stationed abroad and closing expensive American bases overseas. He made the devestating comment that America suffered from economic insolvency, that it could not afford this far flung empire of having over 170 military bases oversea. McCain justified the Iraqi engagement by comparing it to the on going American involvement with Korea. Paul then brought up, the point that America sent troops to Korea by a UN mandate rather than a Congressional Declaration of War. Iraq, being an American war, which lacks both Congressional and UN declarations permitting the engagement! Paul says the American government must obey the basic Law of the Land ie the Constitution. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties view the Constitution as being no longer applicable in the "modern" world.
NeoJamal at 06:45 PM JST - 9th May

The US can avoid staying there for for long if they if the install an "Iraqi Snygman Rhee" who will prima facie have a democratic mandate but could very well acquire dictatorial 'emergency powers' from the national legislature where the effect is perennial. The character of such new dictatorship may be tyrannical just as much as Saddam's regime if not worse. However, such a state will have broad powers to effectively suppress dissenters and more in all, it will be pro-American so the rest of the world won't care. Just look at South Korea's past indigenous pro-American dictatorships whose abuse of its own citizens could be comparable to the deeds of the Japanese occupiers and yet no-one bothered to intervene. It took a good half a century for the Koreans to establish a liberal democracy for themselves without external help. No-one seems to regret the fact that the Koreans weren't 'given' a liberal democracy much earlier like that of the Japanese. There is a distinct irony that derives from the Korean cause of independence to liberate Korea from Japanese tyranny and create an autochtonous government that could secure fundamental human rights and higher living standards for its citizens than what little the Japanese could give. After WWII, Japan quickly established itself as a liberal democracy and a member of the OECD under US patronage while the Koreans indignantly suffered under their own military that does not follow the rule of law. The US did little to enhance the civic Korean morale apart from supporting the dictatorships in hounding suspected communists spies and guarding the border. So has this experience in Korea raised public awareness against the detestable nature of pro-American dictatorships? I'm afraid not. The indifference of the world to South Korea's post-colonial ordeal during the dictatorship and today is a good indication that the US and her allies could install a pro-western dictatorship in Iraq without any public backlash. The interest of the American public in the safety of their soldiers takes no lesser priority to the liberty of the Iraqi people, they would sooner forget that Iraqi liberty was a pre-eminent cause of the invasion than to disarm the threat poised against American interests in the region.