McCain Was Against RNC Defense of "100 Years" Comment Before He Was For It
Posted by Matt Ortega on April 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Reeling from the damage of John McCain's own words that he'd be "fine" keeping U.S. forces in Iraq for "100 years," the RNC and John McCain's campaign are arguing that McCain meant a long-term commitment modeled after the American presence in German, Japan and Korea. But much to the RNC's chagrin, even John McCain himself said that such a model wouldn't work in Iraq.
John McCain on Hardball with Chris Matthews in 2005:
Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. "You've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"
McCain balked:
"I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."
Last November, John McCain told Charlie Rose that he didn't think a long-term, South Korea-style American presence was possible because of the "nature of [Iraqi] society and the religious aspects of it," even if there are no casualties.
There are only two explanations for this and neither of them make John McCain look very good:
John McCain flip-flopped on the notion of a long-term American presence in Iraq to appease the far right, or more dangerously, is claiming support for a policy he knows will never work to cover up for his own comments that he would be fine keeping U.S. forces in Iraq for "100 years."
Comments (5) «
Have you ever seen anyone so full of it? Let us not let John McCain explain it away. I think he is touched in the head a bit!
There should definitely be ads on all his sides, and finish it with which McCain is which?No wonder most the repubs don`t trust him.He stands for whichever way the wind blows at the moment.
I THINK THE GOP WANTS TO STAY IN IRAQ PERMANENTLY BECAUSE THEN THE REPUBLICAN GOP WILL BE ABLE TO USE PERMANENT U.S. BASE ACTIVITIES TO LOBBY PRESSURE ON THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT REGARDING OIL PRICES AND OIL DEALS. (Like saying the U.S. will help Iraq militarily with various things if Iraq gives the U.S. or a U.S. company a good oil deal.)
It looks like Senator McCain appears to be inadvertently or advertently going along with that GOP agenda for whatever his reasoning.
Even if John McCain is lobbying only staying in Iraq that long unless ‘a number of people’ are ‘still’ getting killed, (a number which could be up to McCain’s interpretation like Bush‘s interpretation‘s) then how does McCain justify staying in Iraq ‘now’ while people are getting killed?
Howard Dean nailed it on Tim Russert last Sunday. He said, does anyone think we can have a military presence there without our soldiers being attacked, it doesn't make sense. Go Howard Go!
Its sad to say but this country has always loved war and killing. It started when we tried to eliminate the American Native. We treated them with hate just because they lived on THERE land. They lived here for 13,000 years before we got here and we killed them like insects. This is when the U.S.A learned that with power and hate you can get what you want.
This is what we are doing in Iraq. We want the oil. So, we will kill and destroy any country and people for power and money. Does anybody know what we have done to some of the people and culture's in South America for oil. I think you had better do some reading and find out what the oil companies have done to them. Its sad
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
