CJR: Obama seriously misleading voters about McCain's "100 years"

It's about integrity and it's becoming increasingly clear that Obama has none of it. Whether it's his associations with racists and bigots for political gain, or his purposeful mis-characterization of McCain's policy stances, it's very clear that Obama will say or do anything, regardless of his morals.

...and to think many Obama supporters accuse Hillary of playing dirty pool. This issue is particularly apalling...

 

the onus is on mccain to be clear about what he said. maybe he needs lieberman to clear the air

 

Bull. Let's break it down like we've already done once before...

For the defense of McCain to work, the quote would need to stop here. This part is OK, though the "Make it one hundred" reminds one a bit of "Bring it on."

But he doesn't stop there, even though all of the analysis trying to defend McCain does. McCain goes on...

Now, he's qualifying his "not being harmed or wounded or killed" phrase with "very volatile part of the world." How are we going to keep soldiers in a volatile part of the world without them coming into harm's way? It's an oxymoronic construction.

To compound it, he goes on to say "where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people." Now, where, in a volatile part of the world, can an American soldier be around Al-Q motivated and equipped people and not come under fire?

The statement taken as a whole is impossible to square. Given McCain's obvious detachment from reality when it comes to the war, it's clear to me at least... and I suspect most Americans... that when you cut through the haze, he is talking about keeping troops in Iraq to continue this travesty.

Edit: Obama said: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another hundred years.” Reading McCain's complete statement, it's hard to argue with Obama.

 

I like and agree with this analysis

 

McCain was comparing Iraq to South Korea and Japan. Those two place were very volatile at the beginning as well. But are they volatile for the last couple decades? What McCain really wants to say is that there is oil there, so we need to have a presence there. Al Qaeda is just an excuse.

Frankly, I don't see what's the big deal about admitting Obama also engage in a little misrepresentation. Politicians are all like that.

 

McCain wishes he had never made the statement and he will properly get bludgeoned with it until election day.

 

It will hurt him but I think he was telling the truth. Most likely, no matter who is the President, we will see some of our troops in Iraq until the oil runs out there.

 

Bomb, bomb, bomb! bomb, bomb Iran!

 

Wow, that's some serious spin there, you should go work for the Obama campaign.

 

this then this

=irony

 

Well McCain can clear this up easily. All he has to do is tell us if he thinks the US should pull out the bulk of our troops in Iraq, if they are still in harms way in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. When?

If he won't do this, then McCain and tj and basso can quit whining about that mean old Obama.

 

the stupidity of this argument as usaual starts with comparing south korea/japan to iraq. so if mccain wasn't trying to insuate one hundred years of combat an his reasoning is that this will go the the way of japan/s korea, he's still an idiot.

 

so we are still actively involved in combat in Germany and Korea? Man, the libs don't have much of a position here... no cred...

And I thought Obama was above the fray of distorting political stances? Guess not... That's what tends to happen when you are behind in the polls, as he is to McCain... you have to compromise your morals... you know, just like associating with racists, bigots and anti-semites... oh wait...

 

No offense pgabriel, but what crystal ball have you been looking at? Japan was a pretty dangerous neighborhood for Americans for quite a while.

The North/South Korea border isn't the safest place in the world for us either.

We just don't know what Iraq will be like in 10 years.

My preference is to do a reasonable phaseout of US troops over a period of years. Of course, I see no reason for our continued presence in Germany, etc either. I am NOT saying that the two are the same. I'm just saying that the military folks see things differently than I do.

 

Ah, that's right. Anyone who disagrees with you must be completely deluded, since you have proven again and again your skilz with logic. Keep repeating that!

But wait, the mind control is slipping... I... I... can't seem to ...

Obasso, you are so, so right: I for one became a complete cultish zombie, just melting in front of Obama's campaign when they used that brazen political tactic, quoting the words of another candidate. My mouth dropped open, flies buzzed in and out, and even now, I haven't blinked mine eyes in ten days or so. Luckily I can still type, but only when ordered by my overlord.

Next arm hair please. Pluck pluck pluck.

 

was japan at civil war with at least five different factions

I know post wwii japan was nothing like iraq

 

was germany and japan in the midst of civil war after its leaders taken out during WWII