WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain on Thursday defended his statement that U.S. troops could spend "maybe 100" years in Iraq -- saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea. This week, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama both took McCain to task for the comments, saying that if he's elected he would continue what they call President Bush's failed policies in Iraq. "It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not," McCain said to CNN's Larry King. "And both Sen. Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal -- that means chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we've achieved and al Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. "I won't let that happen." Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years. "Maybe 100," McCain replied. "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 Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day." Republicans call to ban the video "100 years in Iraq" from TV channels. http://youtube.com/watch?v=f6ul9iMgmOw http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/ How long do you think USA have to stay/can stay in Iraq ? Must there be set a date for withdrawal ?
Not releveant to this, but, i wonder if it is some kind of physcological game that he keeps saying knights state so merrrrica in the end of almost every sentence with emphasis, some kind of subliminal message or anything, makes me remember the video about all the candidates saying "change" twice per sentence.
The US will probably have some sort of presence in Iraq forever. Personally, I'd like to see us out of there tomorrow.
What are you talking about!? Wars are good for the economy! DUHHHH! Besides, what's a trillion dollars these days!
Unfortunately Rob, so many people believe that. Although, I wish I had bought Haliburton stock in the summer of 2001.
I bet it would be hilarious to lookup posts by Gtech and Mia (from just a few months ago) in which they discuss how wonderful the economy looks.
I think we will still be thier and all the other places he listed. Some of the countries want us to leave and we still stay. I do not think any of the politicans will pull all troops out no matter who wins.
Giving those guys a hard time isn't amusing, let alone entertaining for me anymore. But you're right, their previous statements probably will not look very good if things continue on their present course.
Just ask them and they will repeat the same nonsense again. Mia believes all the "bad" news about economy is just liberals, democrats, communists, peace activists propoganda and Bush is doing a great job with economy.
There are a pretty good group of guys who discuss economics smatts, wisdomtool, Bogart, korr, shazz, ferret etc.
I hope that DP will also keep all the P&R posts that GTech/Mia/Crazy Gang have posted denying the Amero, NAU and Nafta Superhighway so we can tease them about them too when they happen (and they will.)
There's no point in winning a so-called war there in Iraq, if you can just sustain it for as long as possible, which makes much more sense from a profit point of view. Same with Vietnam, the whole purpose was to sustain, drag it out for as long as possible since this returns much higher profits.
I bet it would too. You'll need to go back a little further than that. Good luck with that. I bet it would be even funnier to look up posts by those saying the economy was horrible and see how many were talking about the mortgage crisis that took it off course. Of course, with a cyclic economy, anyone can say the economy is bad, for enough years, and eventually it will cycle around and be true. Not unlike standing outside and proclaiming it's raining in a desert, every day, and eventually one day, it actually rains.
I can't fathom how the war in Iraq is even arguable any more. The no fly zones were never mentioned in the UN resolution that we were supposedly upholding. There were and still are no WMDs. The Pentagon continues to say there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Wars of aggression are illegal. Our involvement is illegal under the constitution which is still the supreme law of the land. No 9/11 bombers were from Iraq, actually 19 of them were from our beloved friends Saudi Arabia. US Corporations continue to reap the benefits of no bid government contracts, many of which were never completed. Why is this still arguable?
Because parts of the assertions are factually incorrect. That may be intentional or just a lack of knowledge. Some WMD were found. However, it was not the sole reason for going into Iraq. You would be surprised at how many believe it was. Can't speak on the no fly zones. The theory that the Pentagon claims there were no links to al qaida was debunked when it came out. More information here. The notion the war is illegal under "our" Constitution is an opinion. Iraq wasn't attacked for being involved in 9/11. Common misperception. Saudi Arabia didn't attack our country. Another common misperception. It was bin laden and the taliban. They were given a choice to surrender bin laden. I wonder if they regret that decision now? US Corporations are in the business of making profits, as are most Americans. I know I don't work for free. No bid contracts were given out during the Clinton years as well. Most that take issue with no bid contracts rarely ever mention that, though. Not sure why.