In A Rank Falsehood, (or here) Charles Krauthammer writes: Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted — “Make it a hundred” — then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: “We’v…

In a Democrat debate, both Clinton and Obama said they expected American troops to remain in Iraq until the end of their first term (January 2013). All McCain has to do is play the tape of that debate in an ad, and say that he will keep troops in Iraq long enough to win the war and ensure a stable, peaceful, and friendly Iraq.

Exactly, add a complicit and willing media and presto! Bush lied people died, 1 million Iraqi civilian casualties, blood for oil, etc. As for Obama, another lapse in judgment, just words….All hail the Messiah!

“Not an exact representation”? That’s putting it mildly. McCain specifically made the point that he could not support indefinite combat conditions, but an American presence without American casualties would not be war at all. It would be very much like our bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, which kept the peace in those regions for decades after the shooting stopped in those war theaters.

Stop treating Sharia-supreme Iraq like post-war Japan

President Bush, of course, frequently refers to the democratization of Japan as a model for the democratization of Iraq (and the wider Islamic Middle East). But, as Lewis’ must-read essay makes historically clear, the president has been comparing apples and oranges.

Obviously, there have been no analogous U.S. efforts to “de-jihadize” Islamic public culture even as the United States has spent lives, limbs, money and years trying, essentially, to stop the jihad in the Islamic Middle East — not even, to take a manageable example, in the U.S.-funded Palestinian Authority, where state-run media continue to incite Islamically motivated violence against Jews and Americans. And then there are all those U.S.-fostered constitutions that enshrine Sharia law — just the sort of ideological concession our forebears would never have made.
- Diana West

98 years says McCain, 98 years in Iraq.
Get through another one, 97 years in Iraq.

97 years says McCain, 97 years in Iraq.
Get through another one, 96 years in Iraq.

96 anos dicen a McCain, 96 anos en Iraq.
Pase el otro, 95 anos en Iraq.

95 anos dicen a McCain, 95 anos en Iraq.
Pase el otro, 94 anos en Iraq.

94 anos dicen a McCain, 94 anos en Iraq.
Pase el otro, 93 anos en Iraq.

maybe he just wants out if Iraq to get on with that invading of Pakistan endeavor.

History is the liberal Achilles heel. Hit em hard with Vietnam. How the Dems started it and Nixon ended it. The cost in lives and adjusted dollars. How there was no oil. How Dems forced Nixon to leave, precipitously and the humanitarian disaster that followed.

History. The words of Frederick Douglas. Mr. Obama you are no Frederick Douglas. (Mr. McCain you might have been old enough to know him – oops).

it would be nice if the two major parties could get together and call a truce on war rhetoric. It is harming us with our actual enemies watching this, not to mention the will of the people which they will need to govern.

What makes you think that this isn’t the goal?

“Not an exact representation”? That’s putting it mildly. McCain specifically made the point that he could not support indefinite combat conditions, but an American presence without American casualties would not be war at all. It would be very much like our bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, which kept the peace in those regions for decades after the shooting stopped in those war theaters.

OK, how long until the “shooting stops”?

100 years?

The truth is we don’t know, but the difference between the Dem camps and McCain is about the permanent presence, or the “till the shooting stops and beyond” vs. the “I think as long as we’re there, there will be shooting, so let’s leave in a responsible way” Perhaps that’s what the debate should be focused on.

But those of us whose paychecks don’t depend on keeping the Iraq war going forever aren’t going to be that excited about the “job creation” aspect of it.

Nor do we take the pro war stance of anyone on the war dole very seriously.

Who wouldn’t support a forever war that got them government money every two weeks at no risk?

David Paul Kuhn at The Politico reports how the Democrats are and will continue to demagogue McCain’s ‘100 years in Iraq’ comment as a way to define his candidacy:
John McCain is scheduled to deliver a major foreign policy speech Wedn…

In actual fact, most of the money is being spent at US companies. Cynical as it may sound, but the war is creating and securing jobs at home.

Niko on March 25, 2008 at 11:41 AM

That is correct. And if “it’s the economy stupid” a rapid shutdown of the War in Iraq will cause serious econimic woes.

But that will pale in comparison to the toll in human suffering.

And the backlash of another 9/11 will be devastating both in human lives and eco-chaos.

Poor thing just cain’t get no traction can he? I keep remembering that correlation of insanity with repetition of unsuccessful activity.

I’m glad I don’t live my life as a parasite.

Deal me in.

It is harming us with our actual enemies watching this, not to mention the will of the people which they will need to govern.
jp on March 25, 2008 at 11:00 AM

HotAir did a post on the Harvard study a couple of weeks ago. I read the whole thing, and did a longer post, pulling out more of the salient points.

Point is, you’re exactly right, and this study proves it.