Welcome to PatsFans.com

McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by reflexblue, May 15, 2008.

  1. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,277
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +72 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    OH boy another five years, hundreds of lives lost, and a couple of trillion dollars more. I'm so relieved, the last time he oened his mouth it was 100 years. :eek:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_governing_style


    COLUMBUS, Ohio - Republican John McCain declared for the first time Thursday he believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, although he rejected suggestions that his talk of a timetable put him on the same side as Democrats clamoring for full-scale troop withdrawals.

    The Republican presidential contender, in a mystical speech that also envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured..........
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,008
    Likes Received:
    193
    Ratings:
    +448 / 5 / -2

    2013? Hmm... I know I'm stupid and all, but that's not 100 years. :D
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Ha!.....

    he is also claiming to capture or kill Bin Laden.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/In_first_term_McCain_predicts_Ill_0515.html

    In first term, McCain predicts, I'll win the war in Iraq and catch or kill Osama

    "The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants,"

    now...where have I heard all this before........?
  4. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,277
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +72 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I'm glad you brought that up RW. I was going to write the last time he opened his mouth it was 100 years. But I thought i must of misread that somewere (he couldn't have really said that) so i didn't put it in. So now i have some editing to do. :rocker:
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  5. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,713
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Doesn't it coincide with an another election.
  6. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,277
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +72 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Most likely, but at the rate its droping i.e. from 100 years to 5 in a month or two,by July it could be down to 6 months or less.
  7. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Nixon following LBJ?

    If this zombie gets in office, expect an expansion in the conflict... not a
    drawdown.
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  8. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Will he bake us cookies too?

    He's just saying what he can at this point to separate himself from Bush and pander to voters. He doesn't give a goddamn how long we're in Iraq.
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,456
    Likes Received:
    141
    Ratings:
    +283 / 10 / -26

    Another Wright wing flip flopper, first it was 100 years now 5, what do you expect...
  10. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,345
    Likes Received:
    60
    Ratings:
    +156 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    The only one who said that we would be in Iraq for 100 years, was Howard Dean, and he was made to admit that he fabricated that quote for McCain.

    McCain said he wouldn't care if the US had to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, to help protect it, just like we currently do in Germany, Korea, and Japan. He in no way said that he thought it would take 100 years to win the war.

    Once again, Democrats make up a lie, keep repeating it, and sooner or later, they believe it.

    Here are the facts, and all of the news outlets that say that the Democrats are liars.......

    The DNC Did Not Include Sen. McCain's Full Quote. Sen. McCain: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's 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." (Calvin Woodward, "Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq," The Associated Press, 2/29/08)

    Media And Non-Partisan Groups Agree That Democrats "Mischaracterize And Distort" Sen. McCain's Comment:

    Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org Calls DNC Attacks On "100 Years" Comment A "Serious Distortion" And "A Rank Falsehood." "The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an 'endless' war in Iraq. DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying 'Make it a hundred!' That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3.... There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea." (Factcheckrg Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)

    Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On "100 Years" Comment "False." "Obama twisted McCain's words in the Cleveland debate. He said, 'We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.' As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama's statement False." (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)

    Politifact.Com's Bill Adair: "It's really a distortion of what McCain said. McCain was talking about a peace time presence in Iraq that would continue. He even said as long as 1,000 years, not a war that would last that long. And so, the line that Obama and some other critics of the war have been using is really not an accurate description of what McCain said." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 4/2/08)

    The New York Times Reports That Democrats "Mischaracterize And Distort" Sen. McCain's "100 Years" Comment. "But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain's six-minute exchange on Jan. 3... " (Kate Phillips, "McCain Said '100'; Opponents Latch On," The New York Times, 3/27/08)

    The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they're fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region." (Marc Ambinder, "100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq," The Atlantic's "Marc Ambinder" Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)

    The Associated Press: "[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That's a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain's position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone's lifetime." (Calvin Woodward, "Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq," The Associated Press, 2/29/08)

    Fox News' Carl Cameron: "[M]cCain has never said he wants war and never advocated 100 more years of war-making in Iraq. In January, he indicated at a New Hampshire town hall meeting that maintaining a postwar presence in Iraq would be fine... " (Fox News' "Special Report," 3/31/08)

    National Review: "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain 'wants to fight a 100-year war,' in Obama's words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse..."(Editorial, "The 100 Years War," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

    Lancaster Intelligencer Journal's Joe Hainthaler: "Yes, Senator Obama, you can misunderstand your opponent's point on purpose to score a cheap political point with your party's anti-war crowd, and you can do so over and over and over again. But, in doing so, you expose yourself as not quite the fair-minded, non-partisan leader you say you hope to be." (Joe Hainthaler, "Obama's Hundred-Year War On McCain," Lancaster [PA] Intelligencer Journal's "Always Right" Blog, www.lancasteronline.com, 4/1/08)

    USA Today: "[Sen. McCain's] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for '100 years' has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren't getting killed or wounded) ... " (Editorial, "5 Years After 'Shock And Awe,' A Shallow Debate On Iraq," USA Today, 3/18/08)

    National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Haven't we been listening to talk of '100 years' of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "100-Years' Sideshow," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

    Roll Call's Morton Kondracke: "Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard... What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren't being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly." (Fox News' "Special Report," 3/31/08)

    The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer: "But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: 'Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'" (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, "A Rank Falsehood," The Washington Post, 3/28/08)

    -- Krauthammer: "As Lenin is said to have said, 'A lie told often enough becomes truth.' And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it..." (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, "A Rank Falsehood," The WashingtonPost, 3/28/08)

    Richmond Times-Dispatch: "Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them." (Editorial, "100 Years," Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)

    Slate's Christopher Beam: "In context, McCain's statements seem clear: He doesn't want the war to continue for 100 years. But he's willing to keep a few brigades there as long as they're not getting killed. ... [F]or Obama and others to paint McCain's stance as a war without end doesn't quite hold up." (Christopher Beam, "The '100 Years' War," The Slate's "Trail Head" Blog, www.slate.com, 4/1/08)

    Columbia Journalism Review's Zachary Roth:"[L]ately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain's '100 years' notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters -- if not outright lying to them -- about exactly what McCain said." (Zachary Roth, "The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years," Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)

    The Washington Post's Michael Dobbs: "The charge that John McCain wants to wage a '100-year war' in Iraq has become a recurring theme of the Obama campaign. The candidate has made the claim several times on the campaign trail, as has Susan Rice, one of his top foreign policy advisers. McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq."(Michael Dobbs, "McCain's '100-year war,'" The Washington Post, 4/2/08)
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    It's not our job to protect Iraq, Israel, England, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Germany, South Korea and Japan!:mad:
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  12. makoute

    makoute Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    I thought the war was already won? At any rate how do you occupy a country if you didn't win the war against them?:confused::eek:
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Who are we fighting, again?
    And exactly what defines victory?
  14. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,277
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +72 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I think you might find the following interesting,it was posted after an article about how much America gives in foriegn aid......

    "As for the Europeans, kindly spare the world of moralizing and finger-pointing , all the while living under American military protection."
    Years ago I was having dinner in Den Bosch in The Netherlands. Meanwhile, a few hundred miles away, ethnic cleansing was taking place in Serbia/Bosnia. I asked my Dutch hosts why the West European "powers" were sitting idly by while a mini-holocaust was taking place in their back yards. Their reply - they are waiting for America to take the lead.

    The next comment about the use of aid is pretty enlightening. The poster says that he distributes the food and clothing bought with the aid,and it is needed. But he goes on to say that the people receiving the aid become dependent on it,and don't TRY to fend for themselves after awhile. In the case of a strongman/dictator the people will back him believing his the reason for the aid. But I digress just as the people who receive the aid get dependent on it the same could be said of countries depending on us to take care of the worlds problems,they need to be weaned off it.
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    But the warhawks and their pasty-faced friends, the Chickenhawks, say we are there for our own national security. The same people who say that Americans on welfare should be weaned off of housing and child care assistance say that we need to stay in Iraq and Germany as a form of military welfare.
  16. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,277
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +72 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I posted in another thread that we were caught with our pants down in two world wars and don't want that to happen again,thats why we try to manipulate situations geopolitically around the world. I think maybe its time to stop. Great Britain was once upon a time a great power.But their constantly trying to keep the Empire intact took a toll,and they fell from that status. I think theres a lesson in that for us. You take on to many battles and eventually it saps your strength. Which is what has happened to most empires in the past.
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  17. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,345
    Likes Received:
    60
    Ratings:
    +156 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    RACIST, RACIST, RACSIT!!!!!

    OMG, he said "pasty-faced freinds"

    RACIST, RACIST, RACIST

    {end Howard Dean mode}

    BTW, the treaty signed at the end of WW2 prohibits both Japan from having a standing army, if America was not there, the Chinese would have invaded years ago.
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,456
    Likes Received:
    141
    Ratings:
    +283 / 10 / -26

    Good post FTW, for once you back stuff up with quotes.. nice for a chang.. there is hope.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>