Matt has commented a couple of times about his perception that the "100 years" comment is in some ways a misrepresentation of McCain's actual position on Iraq.
I don't see it. It's a quote taken out of context, to be sure. What he meant is not what his opponents are imputing to be the meaning. On those narrow semantic grounds I concede the point. What he actually meant was that he wanted to be in Iraq for 100 years in a peaceful, friendly, strategic-partnership context, much like what we have in South Korea. It was 100 years of benign military occupation, not 100 years of war. This is apparently supposed to be exculpatory.
But the reason this has been a quote with legs, as they say, the reason why this has become an oft-repeated and valid criticism of McCain is that he accidentally gave his opponents the hyperbolic presentation of his real position on the Iraq war. Remember that his adversary's position is that Jan 21, 2009, he will begin the process of immediately ending the war. McCain's position, by contrast, is "no timetable for surrender" and essentially, "stay there as long as it takes." Maybe not "100 years" but in politics the difference between "indefinite" and "forever" is indistinguishable.
The point, I contend, is that while the press/democrats may be twisting McCain's words, they are doing so in an honest way which illustrates a very real, accurate and significant distinction between the candidates.
2 comments:
So to perhaps be more plain: McCain said and meant that the length of time we are in Iraq is irrelevant, it's the amount of dying that matters.
The twist is to pretend that McCain said that the length of time soldiers are in an active war zone doesn't matter.
It's a disingenuous twist. You certainly disagree with how possible it is to achieve the non-dying occupation of Iraq, but his position is not "100 years of bloody occupation" and it's not "indefinite". Presumably as commander-in-chief he'd have a timetable for when his strategy would produce an achievable peace.
I happen to think he's very, very wrong, but I don't take that as a license to lie about his intended plan.
And what exactly is his intended plan? I have not uncovered useful information that would persuade me that his plan is different from "keep doing what we're doing forevah"
Post a Comment