The Question of the Century

Guys- anyone interested in politics/presidential race should definitely check out http://www.savagepolitics.com
Their articles are like nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets. It is brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!

Check out the article “We Are the Puppets”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://savagepolitics.com/?p=271

I think it's a fair characterization of McCain's position by Obama. McCain wants to have troops in Iraq for 100 years, this is by definition occupying the country.

What McCain and the other neo-conservatives either fail to recognize or admit is that Iraq is not South Korea, Japan or Germany. It is made up of disparate ethnic groups and, as such, any U.S. presence there will be viewed as an occupation. If McCain didn't want troops there for 100 years he shouldn't have said he did. Which is why he and the RNC are gritting their teeth, they know Obama read the situation clearly and called their bluff. I don't see the problem.

McCain has since said he meant a presence like the one the U.S. maintains in Korea which helps maintain peace though the war ended decades ago. And, clearly, given the transcript, it is what he meant.

Well, OK, he wants Iraq to look like South Korea. That's nice. Me too!

But here on this planet, we're engaged in a bloody occupation of a country that doesn't want us there for no benefit for anyone.

So, at best, McCain is wildly detached from reality; at worst, he's calling for 100 years of the status quo. Either way, "100 years" was a dumb thing to say.

The GOP has been quick to accuse Obama of crossing the politics-of-hope line in the sand with his continued use of this line. Perhaps they have a point. Perhaps not, McLame has no plan. He see's progress no matter what anyone says. He's delusional and dangerous.

"And, clearly, given the transcript, it is what he meant. So is it fair that both Clinton and Obama continue to hit McCain for these comments?"

Is it fair for you and other reporters to make excuses for McCain? He said what he said and was, is and will continue taking hits for it. Why do you guys and gals feel this motherly, fatherly, brotherly, sisterly need to act as an arm of his campaign staff? Is not up to Clinton or Obama or you to explain what he really meant.

McCain said "sure, 50-100 years". We've all seen the quote. You are just repeating the RNC talking points of turning it around. The fact that McCain had to back-pedal on this later indicates most people took his statement to mean he's happy with a major US troop presence--which means millions of bucks a day--in Iraq.

This is essentially imperialist occupation in the Mid-East. That's the reality, not some weird Clintonian parsing of his obvious first statement.

Jay: Here is another example of McCain not knowing what the hell he is talking about. Why don't you tell me what he really meant so I can email that to his staff.

During today’s hearing with Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) questioned Petraeus on what he called “the major threat” of al Qaeda in Iraq. Demonstrating his continued confusion on the nature of al Qaeda, he called the group a “sect of Shi’ites”:

MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.

MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?

PETREAUS: No.

MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.

Jay,

Parsing the statement as you do to try and get at what he was really saying is fine and appropriate, but in order to know what he really means, wouldn't it be more useful to know at what point, between now and 100 years from now, McCain would get out of Iraq if we are continuing to take casualties? Rather than repeating McCain talking points , wouldn't, I don't know, a little reporting on the relevant point be worthwhile?

McCain can't, or won't, answer the question "How long are you willing to leave troops in Iraq if hostilities continue?" (Hey Jay, maybe you and AMC could ask him that, again and again, until he answers. Plenty of time on the bus, no?)

Since he is unwilling to address that question, and since there is no reasonable prospect for a hostility-free occupation, then any statements saying he isn't in favor of a hundred years of war are suspect.

As stringer notes above "Iraq is not South Korea, Japan or Germany. It is made up of disparate ethnic groups and, as such, any U.S. presence there will be viewed as an occupation."

And, Jay and AMC, here's another question you might ask him, starting with a frame. Osama Bin Laden considers it strategically advantageous (a gift from God) to the real Al Qaeda for American troops to be stuck in a hostile occupation of an oil-rich middle-east country. The people in Iraq pretty clearly (Brooks cherry picking of polls notwithstanding) don't want to be occupied by any another nation, much less a non Muslim western nation. On what planet is it a reasonable thing or strategically wise for a Presidential candidate to suggest we should stay there 100 years, or a 1000 years, under any circumstances?

And how's that BarB-Que?

I agree with Elvis that it is actually more damaging to McCain's credibility for him to compare our occupation of Iraq with our ongoing presence in Germany, Japan, or S. Korea. Here are the quetions I would like to see reporters ask when the Republicans cry foul.

1) How does MCain intend to move the occupation to the point where our military is not suffering casualties?

2) How does he plan to pay for it all. (Increase taxes? Reagan forbid!)

3) How can we have a sustained military presence in Iraq in the indefinite interim between the "fragile" situation we have now and the goal of a S. Korea or Japan-like situation? Will he impose a draft?

Since McCain hasn't offered any specifics on any of these questions, his analogy is absolutely wishful thinking and the most logical interpretation is that he is willing to continue the current situation indefinitely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-tiffany/mccain-told-me-100-years_b_95522.html

This is outrageous. For months, Republicans have been lying about what Democrats opposed to the occupation have said, putting words like "cut and run" and "precipitous withdrawal" into their mouths.

McCain himself talks about "waving the white flag of surrender." No democrat has ever advocated "surrender." The term is utterly meaningless in this case because the only government involved is supported by the US.

But now McCain is given a do-over, a chance to review his own characterization of his views?!? It becomes incumbent on TIME to vet the use of a McCain quotation?

And the way the campaign is using it is entirely fair and accurate. McCain intends to remain in Iraq until it is subjugated, by force, to become an American client state, and then intends to occupy indefinitely afterwards.

His use of Korea or Germany as analogous circumstances is completely false; west germans and South Koreans weren't killing Americans at the time of the occupation. The correct analogy is to the Philippines, where the US was in constant conflict with guerrilla forces for decades.

McCain speaks airily about soldiers not being killed, just as airily as Bush talked about a mission accomplished, but says nothing about any plan, any objective, any mission that will place the US in a situation where the country's soldiers are not being killed by Iraqis who resent and oppose a continued occupation.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the situation will be any different in Iraq in ten years as it is today, and, indeed, as it was three years ago.

McCain's entire policy position on Iraq is to continue what we're doing, indefinitely. Or for at least 100 years.

The quote is accurate in fact, and it is accurate in spirit.

And now I want to see a post describing how Obama's positions on the occupation have been consistently distorted and lied about, by McCain and every other republican supporting an indefinite occupation.

That’s not entirely an accurate either as it would likely come as news to most South Koreans that U.S. troops are occupying their country. The GOP has been quick to accuse Obama of crossing the politics-of-hope line in the sand with his continued use of this line. Perhaps they have a point

Uh Jay, who do you work for? McCains' campaign? The RNC??? little aliens that actual have possessed your mind and removed any ability to accurately report what McCain said and continues to say?

He said it, he certainly had no problem singing it...hmm, how do you think the Japanese, Germans and Koreans would feel about it? hmm, how many protests have there been by Koreans and Japanese for us to leave...the Germans are happy to accept our money. How come you and any MSM journalist can't ask the question to dear old McCain, what RIGHT do we have to stay in Iraq when the population doesn't want us there???

I've been in the ROK and have talked with many many Koreans. They are fully aware of the U.S. military presence in their country, including the "tripwire" troops located near the DMZ, the rather large military base right in the heart of Seoul, the larger presence in the south, the nuclear umbrella and the over-arching stationing of U.S. troops in Japan and on Okinawa. To imply that Koreans are too stupid to know of the U.S. military presence is insulting and childish.

The real question is why the constant McCain fluffing? The transcript is clear as to what he meant - he would favor a 100-year troop commitment. But Iraq is not Korea - there is an ongoing war there that is costing the U.S. roughly 800 U.S. troop deaths per year plus $2.5 billion per month. In Korea, there was the Panmunjon cease-fire; nothing remotely like that has taken place in Iraq.

McCain will continue to be criticized for his abominable statement whether Jay Newton-Small likies it or not...

Our presence in South Korea guards against an invasion by the lunatics running North Korea. What would our presence in a post-hostility Iraq guard against? Are our mainstream journalists incapable of formulating a question based on McCain's statements? Would the likes of CNN consider it "heckling" to ask a question that the senator would struggle to answer?

We know you big media types have no standards of ethics regarding accepting food, beverages, and other gifts from candidates you cover, but are there any standards for actual intelligence? Would you be ostracized by the cool kids if you asked a question that Senator McCain (or Clinton or Obama) would have to, you know, think about before answering?

and he did it again today:

MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.

MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi'ites overall?

PETREAUS: No.

MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.

He is completely incompetent to be talking about this conflict. Al qaeda isn't a "sect." It's not a religious group. It's a propaganda arm of radical islamists, a powerless collection of cave-dwelling radicals, sorta like the "sect" of right wingers in the west how have gone off the grid.

And it's brand name, that's been adopted by radicals in some other countries, including Iraq.

But it is not a "sect."

How can this man possibly do anything effective if he has no clue about the people he labels as the enemy we most need to fear?

McCain resolutely refuses to say how long he expects Americans to fight in Iraq. He refuses, because his policy is to fight there INDEFINITELY. Men like McCain would still be fighting in Vietnam if they had had their way. The press accommodates McCain by refusing to ask him how long he intends to continue fighting in Iraq. On this blog, we have pressed Michael Scherer to ask McCain this very question. So far, the question has not been asked.

This is deceit and evasion, and the public seems to accept it. Does Time Magazine accept it?

You really need to look at the rest of what McCain said in that exchange:

Q: What if U.S. soldiers are being killed at the same rate, one per day, four years from now?

McCain: I can't tell you what the ratio is. But I can tell you, I understand American public opinion, sir. I understand American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed.

Q: I hear an open-ended commitment, then.

McCain: I have an open-ended commitment in Asia. I have an open-ended commitment in South Korea. I have an open-ended commitment in Bosnia. I have an open-ended commitment in Europe.

So what, eaxctly is McCain saying here? He acknowledges that the American people won't stand for a open-ended conflict with the current level of casualties, but appears to be saying that he would stand for it. He wants us to stay as long as it takes for American casualties to be reduced to some "acceptable" level, then after that we should stay forever because anything less would be "defeat."

When will you guys acknowledge that nearly everything that comes out of St. McCain's mouth simply makes no sense?

Jay: You and your buddy McCain are right. This is just like Korea, Germany and Japan. WTF was I thinking. Need to stay away from that google.

BAGHDAD, April 7 -- A little after sunrise on Easter Sunday, a mortar shell or rocket crashed into Paul Converse's trailer inside the Green Zone, the rigorously defended seat of U.S. power in Iraq. Converse, who once told his brother he felt safer in Iraq than on American freeways, died the next day.

Converse's death has underscored the vulnerability of housing facilities in the Green Zone to artillery and missile attack, spreading fear among thousands of security contractors, interpreters, American soldiers and embassy personnel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702533.html

"...Maintain[ing] a presence in a very volatile part of the world" is precisely the reason why so many extremists are dying to kill our troops.

Perhaps if Sen. McCain could at least acknowledge that fact he'd sound a bit more credible about which factions are effectively "training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day." I honestly don't get the sense that he could correctly identify which groups are on which sides of which battles -- even if he chose to admit the facts on the ground aren't as clear or compelling as his supporters either want or believe.

Though I have no doubt in his good intentions, McCain seems to behave like President Bush in that he's staked his claim on a position and will hold that ground no matter what realities bear down on the situation. I also have a sense that his supporters would cry "treason" the second a Democratic president attempts to extricate our country from this fiasco and claim that any deaths, losses or fighting from that moment on is entirely outside the Bush Administration's responsibility.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but then again the truth is always the first casualty of war -- even a war we started.

... and he's apparently, if this post is accurate, now claiming that he doesn't want American troops to stay there a minute longer than necessary.

Also, he said on a conservative radio show the other day that "No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have." But don't forget, he's also "the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years"!

The dude will say anything to anyone. When someone asked him a hostile question about how long it would take, he said he'd stay forever. When Petraeus is claiming that we've turned a corner, or we're about to turn the corner, or whatever, McCain changes his tune and says the opposite-- that we're making great progress and we'll leave real soon.

If he keeps this up, a narrative might even develop about his truthfulness.

Jay and AMC,

While I am happy for you to correct potential misunderstandings of statements that McCain made in order to show him in a better light, given your access, don't you have a duty to highlight and analyze those statements of his that are incorrect or misleading? I understand it is more difficult to perform a negative fact check on McCain as it is not provided to you by his campaign, but don't you have an obligation to your readers to do the extra work?

Jayackroyd: But it is not a "sect."

How can this man possibly do anything effective if he has no clue about the people he labels as the enemy we most need to fear?"

I have already asked her to explain what McCain really meant when he said this today. Just be patient. I'm sure she is figuring out to weave this as Obama and Hillary's fault as we speak and will post it shortly.

Sunni, Shi'ite ... how can that matter?

But I bet McCain's a great bowler!

Uhh, Jay, if we have troops in Iraq for 100 years, or even 20 years, Iraqis are going to consider that an "occupation."

And that means those troops will be at risk.

Really, this issue isn't that hard to figure out. You have an obligation to your readers as a reporter to use your freaking head.

LoL. Bet if he is not a great bowler there will be an explaination of how that hurts Hillary and Obama's credibility.

McCain continues to be Mr. "Benefit of the Doubt".

And here's atrios weighing in on this very topic:

"I've read the numerous attempts by conservatives and mainstream journalists to complain that somehow people are being mean and unfair to Huggy Bear by taking his "100 years" comment "out of context" or "distorting it" or whatever. For the life of me I don't understand what their complaint is. His point was perfectly clear, that he's happy to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to "win" and then he's happy to stay there even longer.

They could perform some actual journalism by asking him just how long Americans should keep getting killed in Iraq, just how much taxpayers' money he's willing to spend or how many American lives should be lost in Iraq just so we can get to the point when no more American lives are being lost in Iraq."
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_04_06_archive.html#3827886504957945767

No, no, no. Do not give the media a chance to explain that he can't bowl well due to the injuries he suffered at the Hanoi Hilton. Let that sleeping dog lie.

That’s not entirely an accurate either as it would likely come as news to most South Koreans that U.S. troops are occupying their country.

It is clear that Jay is trying to bend over backwards to help McCain out of this scrape, but how about he do a little…umm…I don’t know, reporting?

Koreans are increasingly viewing the American presence on the Peninsula as an occupation – particularly Koreans under the age of 30. As a matter of fact, according to a recent JoonAny survey poll, 84% of all Koreans feel that US troops should either partially withdrawal, be reduced to a minimum presence, or withdrawn completely. (http://www.mansfieldfdn.org/polls/poll-05-5.htm)

How gracious of Jay to assert the man-on-the-street Korean view. Get out of the bubble Jay and do some reporting.

four legs good

What really makes me nuts is they talk about a free, independent and democratic Iraq that will be permanently occupied by US troops, that is, by a government that lists Iran as a sworn enemy and Israel as its closest ally.

A 35 year old black lesbian Muslim would be elected president of the US before the Iraqi people voted in a government that permitted US military bases in the country.

And yet, nobody ever points out that an American occupation and representative, sovereign government in Iraq cannot both take place.

And you should put your blog link in your profile. It's a funny site.

I'm just curious about why Jay's post reads like it could have been written by a member of McCain's staff yet this post from MSNBC makes it clear that everything she addresses in her post pretty much comes directly from McCain's own staff.

From NBC's Mark Murray
Once again, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee are making it crystal clear that they will pounce on any kind of "100-year" iteration by Obama that they think distorts what the Arizona senator originally said. The latest example comes after Obama's appearance on TODAY this morning.

VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?”
OBAMA: “No. That's not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.”

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers emails, "Obama continued his dishonest attacks by actually claiming he never leveled the dishonest attack that John McCain supports a 100-year war in Iraq," He actually said 'we can pull up the quotes on Youtube.' Well, we did pull those quotes up, and in his own words, they clearly show Barack Obama’s dishonest attacks."

The RNC also took issue with Obama's word choice of "occupation" this morning ("presence" is probably more accurate). “After being rebuffed by fact-check groups and media outlets, Barack Obama this morning took his dishonest ‘100 year’ attack to a new level of duplicity," RNC spokesman Alex Conant says. "Obama’s assertion today that John McCain advocates a 100 year ‘occupation’ of Iraq is just as false as the junior senator’s other discredited claims. Replacing one dishonest attack with another is not the sort of ‘new politics’ voters are hoping for.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/08/868546.aspx

Jay-

It is not a revelation to us, but it may be to you: Your job should be as an ADVERSARY to the politicians you cover. That is why it is so easy for us to come up with questions for McCain. You obviously don't see your job that way. What, exactly, were you taught in J-School?

We should keep this mind, JNS.

"And those who spent the past seven years as propagandists for the one of the worst, and needlessly blood-soaked, presidencies in American history, have such a fabulous record of self-righteous wrong-headedness that they needn't be taken seriously at all. Joe Klein 4-6-08"

RM34--

And do you think the Okinawans like having American military around.

Asia expert Chalmers Johnson has written about this at length. In his view, the occupation has been imposed on Japan, and the reason that one party ruled Japan continuously for decades was due to the American occupation.

The McCain campaign can refute this all they want. The only thing they'll succeed in achieving is bonding these three words together in the voters' minds:

"McCain, Iraq, 100 years"

It's like Kryptonite to the Republicans.

"So is it fair that both Clinton and Obama continue to hit McCain for these comments?"

Yes. Yes it is. It is also fair to hit McCain for being eleventy million years old, and to point out the fact that he may well die of cancer halfway through his term. It is fair to question his memory, to point out that he knows next to nothing about the economy, and it is fair to harp on his racist remarks towards Vietnamese.
Why is it fair? Because the Republicans will be bringing up Obama's drug use (although that was okay, a sign of good character even, for Bush and McCain), and Vince Foster, and Clinton missing Osama bin Laden in the 90's, and Reverend Wright.

"So is it fair that both Clinton and Obama continue to hit McCain for these comments?"

Fairness will fly out of the DNC monkey butts the same week Jon Jon Kanary IS able to locate Cambodia on his long lost map of Idaho.

Why only a hundred? I thought these guys liked to think in thousand year increments.

Of course, if anyone had said in 2003, "we're massing troops in Kuwait and are going to invade Iraq because we need permanent bases in the Middle East and Al Qaeda has already made clear that we can't keep them in Saudi Arabia", then this discussion would be moot.

The fact that there are all sorts of other reasons that were given in order to sell the invasion, means that to this day, no one can tell the truth about what we're doing there.

The fact remains that calling McCain on his comments is not only fair, but the fact that you're willing to apologize for them reinforces the notion that our entire Middle East enterprise is still being supported by deliberate lies and a colluding press corps.

2003 never ended....

At these hearings today John McCain again got confused on whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shiite.

There's a real pattern here and the media keep making excuses for their boy McCain. If it was a Democrat, this would be drummed into the heads of every American that the candidate doesn't even understand who al Qaeda is. But they love McCain.

Will TIME make excuses for him? Do ducks float?

Erm, Jay? We talked about this last week...Do try to keep up.

Color me unimpressed (and unsuprised) with the mouthpiece from the GOP's argument that Obama's being dishonest. The comparison of the maintenance of an American presence in postwar Japan, South Korea,or Germany to the current US occupation of Iraq by McCain is flawed at best, and dishonest at worst. We're not exactly being hosted in Iraq during a period of peace, are we?

Really, the attempt by the RNC to chastise Obama is just another way to divert attention from the fact that the warhawks, profiteers, and neoconservative fantasists on the Right kicked off a civil war that's dragging the country down and will continue dragging the country down for as long as we are there...But no; the bigger point is that Obama has interpreted McCain's remarks in a manner that the GOP doesn't like.

amazing!!
another time writer carrying water for the mccain comment.
he said what he said.
why shouldn't he have to live with, and defend his comment?
it is obvious that mccain's people are pushing hard on journalist to knock back the use of the statement by dems.
why?
because they know full well that the american people would never tolerate such a policy and that if the idea sticks - that mccain would have the us in a 100 year occupation of iraq - then mccain is dead.
it should not be the job of journalists to try to help mccain pull himself out of a hole he dug for himself.

Related:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187865.php

Josh has the video:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187881.php

Paul D-

Yes it is remarkable. It has been absolutely clear for at last two years now that the occupation is the objective. But you had Michael yesterday continuing to peddle the tripe about a stable and independent Iraq as a goal.

One of the reasons I keep talking about the Responsible Challengers' Plan is that it doesn't have any, ANY, of this nonsense in it.

The objectives are realistic and internally consistent. The actions recommended are ones that the US can do on its own, without the need for any fairy dust or the appearance of any ponies.

I'd like to see any of the presidential candidates confronted with it.

We all know McCain has been pushing his "base" (ie campaign reporters) the last day or so to debunk the 100-year story, so Jay dutifully complies.

On the merits, of course it is fair to suggest that McCain is comfortable with a endless occupation (1oo years or more), not because of his comments comparing a peaceful US base in a future Iraq ala South Korea or Germany, but because he has refused to specify any conditions under which he would bring forces home.

In other words, he has refused to say that if there is continued violent opposition to US occupation (a reasonable assumption), then he would withdraw our troops. By refusing to say this, he has in fact committed our troops to endless war in Iraq.

Agent of Change, or agent for Iran?

... ...

"...Knowing he would have to cede the early spotlight to Clinton and McCain, Obama took to breakfast television to refute claims by the Bush administration that the surge is working.

"At some point, we have to say to ourselves that the Iraqi government has to stand up and make the difference. And they've not done that," Obama said on NBC.

"The premise of the surge was that we were going to go ahead, give them the breathing room to let them take advantage of the stable situation. That has not happened."

... ...

Skippy Obama's remains either an idiot, or a Clintonian reformed liar: The Surge was intended to provide prompt PHYSICAL SECURITY to Baghdad.

It worked so well, it was soon exported to outlying areas.

And the Mahdi Army IS finally on the run, if 5 years too late.

Hold the terror appeasing libs down, and kick them in the FACTS where it hurts, President McCain.

More Josh Marshall....

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187907.php

He is apparently feeling pangs of sympathy for JNS and other victims of the Straight-Talk Express.

Thanks for another Swampland post in which the author is sure to clarify McCain's statements if it might benefit him, and in which you never refer to his many, many misstatements. Good thing for him that McCain didn't say he invented the internet, right Jay?

And you know, Todd, it sorta made sense to occupy West Germany, the GDR, but it really is hard to understand why the US needs to occupy a united Germany surrounded by NATO allies.

funny, i didn't see too many articles or statements by reporters about whether it was fair when republicans were distorting kerry's "i voted for it..." statement.
the press focused on how stupid the statement was and how much trouble it would cause kerry.
even though i've been following campaigns for 40 years not, i am still amazed that the press would have such an obvious double standard for their favorite son, and that they would be so unapologetic about applying it.

Excellent point jayackroyd -- there's little reason to have ground troops in Germany nowadays, but don't forget McCain is working off an old modality. He may still be wargaming an ICB standoff with Poland for all we know.

The Surge was intended to provide prompt PHYSICAL SECURITY to Baghdad.

How about some surge security for the Green Zone, where our embassy was located? Have you tuned out the incoming mortar and rocket rounds, QH, or is this just a temporary lapse?

The surge is pathetic stastistical farce based on payoffs to the Sunnis and a truth with Sadr. The Sunnis haven't been paid lately, and the truce is coming apart. So much for the surge. Another BushCo buzzword bites the dust.

That’s not entirely accurate either as it would likely come as news to most South Koreans that U.S. troops are occupying their country.

Will this be corrected, or is this covered under John McCain Rules, where the lies become truth and the truth become lies?

Aaron: You are very funny:)

McCain says it would be "fine" with him if we stay in Iraq (even though the majority of Iraqis don't want us there) for one hundred years "...as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Note to Senator McCain: Americans are being "injured or harmed or wounded or killed" every single day in this misguided war. If that's your condition for staying in Iraq, then by your own standards it's time to leave.

The questioner referred to Bush's policy and statements that we may be in Iraq for 50 years.
Bush's policy, including the surge, has led to over 4,000 American deaths.

McCain responds that he thought was ok. 100 years was ok. 10,000 years ok. He says we stay until we win.

I think he's made his position pretty clear.

The GOP doesn't like having to admit the truth.

Let's see...

Korea: The US entered the country as part of a UN operation to drive out the North Korean forces that had invaded the country and almost completely conquered it.

Iraq: The US invaded a country that was not at war or in danger from anyone else. The UN refused to approve the operation.

Korea: The US continues to maintain a military presence in the country to protect it against the possibility of another invasion by North Korea, which has more than a million men stationed near the DMZ, a huge number of missiles targeting Seoul, and a stated objective to reunify the peninsula through force.

Iraq: Iraq is not under threat of invasion by any of its neighbors.

Korea: There are virtually no attacks upon US soldiers and military installations in Korea. No roadside bombs, mortars, suicide attacks, car bombs, etc. Korean and American units work side-by-side.

Iraq: Mortars frequently rain down upon the Green Zone, bombings continue to kill 30-40 US soldiers per month, and Iraqi security forces are infiltrated with militia members who sometimes turn on US soldiers. A large percentage of ordinary Iraqis think that it is acceptable to kill American troops.

Korea: A country with a long history, inhabited by a single ethnic group, with no significant internal (violent) conflicts.

Iraq: A country that was constituted by the British after WWI by cobbling together several provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Sectarian strife between the 3 distinct ethnic and religious groups that comprise the country were present long before the US invaded and have reached the point of virtually civil war.

These situations don't seem particularly analogous, do they?

But then...

Korea: A majority of young Koreans now view the US's presence as an occupation and desire for it to be scaled back or eliminated. There have been protests against the continued occupation and much resentment, for such incidents as in 2002 when a US tank ran over a couple of children.

Iraq: There has never been any other way of viewing the American military presence except as an occupation. Indeed, resentment of this is the raison d'etre of the insurgency. There is much hatred of the US due to incidents where soldiers have massacred and raped innocent Iraqis.

So maybe McCain is onto something after all.

Jay Newton-Small:

Do you give a sh*t? Why do you not respond to legitimate questions?

I guess the RNC hasn't told you how to respond to these question yet, huh Jay?

smedley, Why they don't they just block comments to her posts? We are wasting our time here.

Well, maybe, but I'm going to continue asking. I still think we have an impact. I think Swamplanders read the comments even if they don't respond. I have noticed slight improvement by KT, AMC and even Klein. But this piece by JNS just stinks up the place. It violates so many rules. She quotes the RNC, but not the DNC; she goes to bat for McCain "is it fair..."; she pretends to speak for South Koreans!!!!; she shows no ability to think, as Rick Hertzberg puts it in the New Yorker: (paraphrased) "so McCain's position is to continue combat in Iraq for as long as it takes and then we can stay in Iraq...."; she wants to make McCain's case that there is a difference between a "presence" and an "occupation", etc.

I am not quite ready to give up on her, though.

smedley, I completely understand the desire not to give up, but as you said KT,AMC and Klein are at least willing to engage. I think time is better spent with them in that case. I don't expect any blogger and certainly not any full time reporter to provide a response to each and every post. That's not even necessary or fair. However, in my humble opinion you are not really blogging if you only post and never respond to feed back. You may as well be writing a column or publishing your journal or notes on line and calling it a blog. Its not. I guess my main point is why bother blogging if you only want to do the easy part.

you are not really blogging if you only post and never respond to feed back.

That is why this is a bogus blog. A week ago, Michael Scherer asked us for questions to put to McCain. Within an hour, he had received lists of a few dozen questions. What have we heard about these questions since then? Nothing.

The authoritarian management of Time-Warner-Moloch just doesn't get it. They did not think that this blog would attract a stable community of reader participants who would act as an accountability mechanism. They thought the Swampland visitors would be an ever changing bunch of random rabble, with no ability to persist in questioning the dysfunctional "journalism" of Time Magazine. They thought the Time writers could simply stonewall the posters here and get away with it.

We are Richard Stengel's worst nightmare: informed, persistent, and demanding readers.

Did you catch Mrs. Howell's column in WAPO the other day? The disconnect is breathtaking. She seems to understand that dead-tree newspapers (and I will extend it to magazines) are on their way to extinction, but she seems to think that it can be avoided by doing the same old thing, only more-so. What????

"She seems to understand that dead-tree newspapers (and I will extend it to magazines) are on their way to extinction"

Newspapers and magazines are following the same path of the recording and movie industries. Attempting to slowly embrace new media that is moving at lighting speed.

بلوتوث - -
مقاطع بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب - -
مقاطع يوتيوب - -
فديو يوتيوب - -
فيديو يوتيوب - -
افلام - -
موقع يوتيوب - -
youtube.com - -
يوتيوب عربي - -
منتديات - -
مسنجر - -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
العاب باربي - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام - -
تحميل افلام
تحميل افلام
افلام
افلام
مشاهده افلام
تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
افلام - تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
مركز تحميل - -
تحميل - -
تحميل صور - -
تحميل ملفات - -
مركز التحميل - -
صور - -
العاب لعب العب - -
لعب - -
العاب - -
لعب العب - -
hguf - -
العب - -
67 - - -p-2 - - افلام انمي - - صور انمي - -
صور الأنمي - - خلفيات انمي - - انمي بنات حزينة - -
صور بنات انمي - - انمي بنات رومنسية - -
انمي حزينة - - صور بنات انمي - - اجمل بنات انمي - -
زفاف انمي - - زفاف عرايس - - انمي اطفال - -
بنات انمي رومنسي - - صور انمي حزينه - - صور الجاسوسات - -
صور انمي 2008 - - صور بنات حلوات - -
شباب انمي - - صور انمي - -
صور احلى بنات - - بنات انمي رومنسي - -
انمي رومنسي - - انمي رومنسي حلوة - -
صور انمي احضان - - افلام كرتون - - افلام انمي - -
انمي خليجي - - مسلسلات كرتون - - افلام انمي - - صور انمي - - 68 - -
68-p-2 - - سياحة وسفر - -
سياحة - -سفر - -فنادق - -
46 - -46-p-3 - -46-p-6 - -
ناطحات سحاب - -أفضل 10 مدن - -
مدينة الحب الفرنسيه - -فندق الحب - -
صور - -24 - -34-p-3 - -
34-p-6 - - - -34-p-13 - -
34-p-15 - -34-p-20 - -
34-p-25 - -34-p-29 - -
34-p-30 - -34-p-35 - -34-p-38 - -
34-p-40 - -صور جيملات العرب - -صور طبيعية - -صور متحركة - -صور بنات - -صور رومنسية - -صور اطفال - -صور رومانسية - -
صور قلوب - -صور قلوب حب - -
صور قلوب رومانسية - -ورود وزهور - -
زهور - -صورة الغروب - -
سوالف بنات - -صور حب - -صور حب رومانسية - -
صور حب 2008 - -صور قلوب - -
قلوب روعة - -صور قلوب رومانسية - -
صور حزينة - -صور متحركة - -
صور متحركه منوعة - -صور حب - -
صور خلفيات - -خلفيات رومانسية - -
صور انهار - -صور شلالات - -
صور مصرقعه - -جنس ثالث - -
صور جنس ثالث - -صور حزينة - -
صور شلالات وانهار - -صور جميلة - -صور غريبه - -
صور رومنسية - -صورطبيعة - -صور السعودية - -
صور الورد - -صور وتعليقات - -صور مضحكة - -
شموع - -صور حلوة - -
احلى عروس - -صور رعب - -24 - -24-p-3 - -
24-p-5 - -24-p-8 - -فوتوشوب - -
تصاميم - -صور تصاميم - - صور تصاميم رومانسية - -
صور قلوب - -صور تصميم - -صور تصميم رومنسية - -
صور عيون - -صور دباديب - -بطاقات رومانسية - -
صور تصميم شباب - -صور بنات للتصاميم - -صور بنات - -
صور رومانسيه حزينه - -صور نسائية - -صور نسائية روعة - -
صور رجال - -صور احترافية - -59 - -
58 - -ملحقات التصميم - -دروس التصميم - -
جميلات العرب - -اليسا - -
صور طبيعية - -صور قلوب - -
صور رومنسية - -بلوتوث مزايين - - البوم صور مزايين - -
صور ماسنجر - -وسائط - -
صور حب - -صور بنات - -صور بنات للمسن - -
العاب مكياج و ميك اب - - العاب ازياء - - العاب مغامرات - -
العاب بنات - - العاب تلبيس بنات - - العاب باربي - -
العاب بلياردو - - العب - - العاب - -

1 - -2 - -3 - -4 - -5 - -6 - -7 - -
13 - -14 - -8 - -15 - -10 - -21 - -30 - -
17 - -16 - -23 - -20 - -25 - -24 - -27 - -
26 - -29 - -28 - -31 - -32 - -33 - -34 - -
37 - -38 - -35 - -36 - -39 - -40 - -41 - -
42 - -43 - -44 - -45 - -46 - -47 - -58 - -
53 - -54 - -48 - -55 - -56 - -49 - -57 - -
50 - -59 - -60 - -51 - -61 - -62 - -52 - -
11 - -12 - -63 - -64 - -
المنتدى العام - - مواضيع ساخنة ومثيرة - - ترجمة - -
ازياء - - موضة - - فساتين - -
مكياج - - ميك اب - - اكسسوارات - - ديكور - - غرف نوم - -
اثاث - - طبخ - - مطبخ - - حلويات - - اكلات - - معجنات - - تغذية - - صحة - - طب - -
شعر - - قصايد - - خواطر - - عذب الكلام - -
قصص - - روايات - - طرب - - رجة - - مسابقات - - صرقعة - - صور - - بلوتوث و مقاطع فيديو - - بلوتوث - - العاب فلاش - - صور انمي - - افلام انمي - - عدسة التصوير - -
افلام عربية و مسلسلات - - مسلسلات اجنبية تلفزيونية - - افلام عربية و افلام اجنبية و مسلسلات تلفزيونية - - برامج كمبيوتر - - فوتوشوب - - ثيمات - العاب الجوال - خلفيات - - برامج نوكيا - نغمات - برامج جوال - - رسائل جوال - مسجات - رسايل وسائط - sms - - مسنجر - برامج ماسنجر - توبيكات - - دروس التصميم - -
ملحقات التصميم - - بلوتوث - -
-
برامج نوكيا - - -كورة - - -صور - - -
مسنجر - - - طرب - - -
العاب - - -
قصص - - - مكياج - - - موضة - -
- ديكور - -
- وسائط - -
- برامج - -
-افلام - - -
مقاطع فيديو - - -
مواضيع ساخنة - - -ثيمات
جوال - - -نغمات - - -
افلام انمي - - -خواطر - - -
العاب جوال - - -افلام
عربية - - -ازياء - - - صور
انمي - - -
سياحة - - -مسلسلات اجنبية - - -
شعر - - -اناشيد - - -
توبيكات - - -رسائل
جوال - --تصاميم -
شات
شات الرياض
بنت حواء
بنت نجد
عروسة
عروس
العاب شمس
صور رومنسيه
صور جميلة
احلى رومانسيه
صور رومنسيه
صور جميلة
احلى رومانسيه
67
-p-2
توبيكات
مسنجر
برامج ماسنجر
توبيكات ملونة
- توبيكات -
توبيك -
صور ماسنجر -
مقالب للماسنجر
- ماسنجر بلس
- صور قلوب ماسنجر
- صور ماسنجر
رومنسيه - صور
للماسنجر -
أحلى توبيكات -
رموز للماسنجر
- توبيكات ملونه
- ثيمات ماسنجر
- توبيكات توبيك
- توبيكات رومنسية
- توبيكات اغاني
- صور بنات
للمسن - صور
بنوتيه - صور
مسنجر -
توبيكات حب -
توبيكات حب وغرام -
توبيكات ملونه
للمسن - صور
بنات للماسنجر 2008 -
توبيكات شعر -
صور مسنجر اطفال
- توبيكات مصرقعة
- زخارف مسنجر
- سكربتات
للماسنجر -
اختصارات للماسنجر -
كلمات للمسن -
توبيكات مسلسل
سنوات الضياع -
صور مهند ونور
للمسن -
توبيكات روعة -
توبيكات رومانسية
ملونة - احلى
توبيكات للمسن -
توبيكات حزينة
- توبيكات
رومانسية ملونه مع صور -
صور قلوب رومانسية
للمسن - صور
بنات للمسن -
صور بنوتات للماسنجركلمات رومنسية عبارات رومانسية للمسن
بنات للمسن msn صور بنات رومنسية للمسن عذاب وحب للمسن توبيكات خيانة صور اليسا للمسنجر
صور فنانين للماسنجر احلى توبيكات رومنسية توبيكات روعة
جميلات العرب
اليسا
صور طبيعية
صور قلوب
صور رومنسية
بلوتوث مزايين
البوم صور مزايين
صور ماسنجر
وسائط
صور حب

صور بنات
صور بنات للمسن
العاب مكياج و ميك اب
العاب ازياء
العاب مغامرات
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس بنات
العاب باربي
العاب بلياردو
العب
العاب

صور ماسنجر
صور قلوب للمسن
صور مسن كتابية
صور مسن كرتونية
منوعات ماسنجر
صور مناسبات واسلاميات للمسن
صور ايدي وارجل للمسن
صور اطفال مسن
صور فنانين للماسنجر
صور بنات للمسن
صور مهند -
صور لميس -
صور توبا -
اغاني سنوات الضياع -
لحن اغنية سنوات الضياع -
فضايح استار اكاديمي -
سنوات الضياع -
مسلسل نور -
حلقات مسلسل نور التركي -
برامج نوكيا n73 -
مسلسل غزلان في غابة الذئاب -
لميس بطلة سنوات الضياع -
توبيكات ملونة بالصور -
توبيكات ملونة -
صور مهند مسنجر -
توبيكات حب -
ثيمات بنات -
ثيمات بنات رومنسيه -
توبيكات مسنجر -
توبكات مصرقعة -
توبيكات مسنجر ملونه -
توبيكات ماسنجر -
توبكات حب وعتاب للمسنجر -
توبيكات رومنسية -
توبيكات ماسنجر -
العاب نوكيا -
صور انهار -
ثيمات n80 -
صور وسائط -
مسجات اسلامية -
مسجات حب وغرام -
وسائط رومنسية -
فساتين 2008 -الازياء
-
فساتين سهرة -
فساتين -
تسرحيات -
صور بنوتات انمي -
ديكورات -
توم وجيري -
قصات شعر -
طيور الجنة -
اناشيد -
اثاث -
انمي -
اثاث - قصور -
قصات2008 -
تسريحات عرايس ‏2008 -
صور بنات -
العاب بنات -
جميلات العرب -
صور انمي -
فيديو كليب -
صور رومانسية -
صور تصميم -
صور للماسنجر -

ديكورات -

توبيك -
افلام كرتون -
اناشيد طيور الجنه -
صور حب -
صور للمسن -
تسريحات شعر -
يوتيوب -
افلام انمي -

صور قلوب -
صور انمي
-
صور اطفال للماسنجر -

صور باربي -
صور بنات للتصاميم -
نور ومهند -
رموز للماسنجر -

صور خلفيات رومانسية -
صور تصاميم -
توبيكات -
فساتين زفاف -
غرف نوم -
ديكورات روعه -
تلبيس بنات -
تلبيس الجاسوسات -
صور الجاسوسات -
الجاسوسات الثلاث -
صور انمي حزينه -
اجمل بنات -
أزياء بنات -
موضة 2008 -
موديلات فساتين -
اثاث جديد 2008 -
ميك اب -
ديكورات حمامات -
مسجات حب -
رسائل حب -
وسائط رومانسيه -
انمي رومنسي -
صور بنوتات جنان -
انمي حزينة رومانسية -
انمي خليجي -
صور انمي -
صور انمي 2008 -
بنات انمي رومنسي

صور ولادة نور -
صور مهند - صور مهند ونور رومنسية  -
نهاية مسلسل نور -صور اليسا - صور لميس
ويحيى - ثيم رومنسي مهند ونور -
العاب أزيا