When Does The 100 Years Begin?
by Todd Beeton, Tue Apr 08, 2008
from MyDD
As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have escalated their criticism of John McCain's comments that it would be "fine with him" if we're in Iraq for 100 years, the RNC, conservative columnists and McCain himself have pushed back trying to get out ahead of what they fear could be this cycle's "I voted for it before I voted against it."
Charles Krauthammer began his column on the subject as follows:
from MyDD
As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have escalated their criticism of John McCain's comments that it would be "fine with him" if we're in Iraq for 100 years, the RNC, conservative columnists and McCain himself have pushed back trying to get out ahead of what they fear could be this cycle's "I voted for it before I voted against it."
Charles Krauthammer began his column on the subject as follows:
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."Well, the campaign to bring the full context of McCain's comments to the fore is working and, which is fair enough, but as Josh Marshall explains, it's McCain who's being disingenuous with his explanation and the media is allowing him to do so...again.
And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."
Now McCain and his handlers are trying to say he wasn't talking about 'war' in Iraq or even an 'occupation' but only a 'presence' in which no US military personnel are killed and seemingly one which doesn't cost anything either.
If reporters who've bought into McCain's explanation actually think this is true, then the logical follow-up is to ask: if he is only happy continuing the 'presence' in Iraq for a century under his fantasy conditions, how long is he willing to continue it with a price tage of $100 billion and hundreds of US military fatalities a year? Or how about $50 billion and only 500 fatalities a year. If he really wants to run away from the bold commitments he made as a primary season candidate, reporters really need to do some due diligence gaming out just what he means.(Continued here.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home