It’s OK to lie about what McCain said because the “spin” comports with the alternate reality of “endless war” — which it’s the Liberal mission to confront, of course. McCain’s “100 years” gave that faltering meme a new lease on life.

It’s all part of the larger effort to frame McCain as a Bush clone — so that Dems can keep on deploying the same old arguments they’ve been polishing for years, without having to adjust their sights. Frankly, I suspect Democrats don’t really want to attack McCain — they really want to keep on attacking Bush, which is infinitely more gratifying psychologically. With Bush out of the picture, it’s like there’s a hole in the Liberal universe.

The war will continue as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq.

Hows the current war in Germany going?

We just can’t afford to bribe everyone in Iraq for 100 years.

alphie on April 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM

It’s easy to think this way if you’re poor.

mjk, you’re right about Germany. It was NOT a given that they would turn the corner and become peaceful and democratic after the war. In fact, for years things were sliding downhill, and the people were starting to turn back to Nazism. It took a massive effort (Berlin airlift,etc) to save them from chaos.

Although I disagree with him, there’s nothing wrong with his having that opinion, but I think it’s useful to see where he’s coming from on the issues.

The war will continue as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq.

We just can’t afford to bribe everyone in Iraq for 100 years.

For several years after WW2, there were bombings protesting the occupation of Germany by foreign troops. It stopped eventually.

What you’re essentially saying is that we should pull out all troops from Iraq and leave the Iraqi people to their doom. And maybe, while we’re at it, American troops should be pulled out of South Korea because we all know that Shorty McShortpants is totally peaceful in the North. And maybe we should just ignore genocides and the like in other countries. Because as long as American troops are in there, there will be war.

What you’re saying is that the Iraqi people are nothing but a bunch of Ignorant savages who deserve to be brutally oppressed and massacred by a dictator in the style of ol’ Saddam. That they don’t deserve a better life than that. Nice.

The 49th Parallel isn’t volatile?

pmm on April 2, 2008 at 11:10 AM

38th…forget it, he’s rolling.

Nothing wrong with advocacy journalism, so long as it’s properly billed as such. Michael Graham on WTKK in Boston calls it “The Boston Globe-Democrat,” and that’s what it is; any pretense of objectivity is a complete sham.

MrLynn on April 2, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Maybe it’s time to stop getting so annoyed at the MSM for their overwhelmingly liberal/democrat bias. If there’s a problem, it’s that we still somehow consider and expect the media to be objective, and then get angry when it isn’t. Maybe it was once like that, but things have changed. I think people have essentially awoken to that. I find it odd that it’s referenced so much in Republican/Conservative blogs. It seems like it’s more than just to tell us what the nutjobs are up to over there (as we hear with Kos from time to time). It’s still as if they’re the big important boys and what they say counts. It does, and it doesn’t.

I’m just a regular guy, but I don’t buy any newspapers or magazines anymore, or watch network or cable news, other than very occasionally FOX. I’ve never seen the Olberman guy, haven’t seen the late-night hosts/pundits since Carson, and don’t think I’m alone in neither consuming nor believing what they say. The 10% number some say Dem’s get in the polls from the media being on their side has got to be shrinking– hell, the whole MSM is shrinking.

Some analysts say the BG is a rag.

amerpundit on April 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM

The Globe is owned by the New York Times, and if anything is more shrilly left-wing than the Times is. The Mooney article that Ed cites is not even billed as an opinion piece, but it is nothing but a hit piece on McCain; that is typical of the Globe’s blatantly biased ‘reporting’.

Nothing wrong with advocacy journalism, so long as it’s properly billed as such. Michael Graham on WTKK in Boston calls it “The Boston Globe-Democrat,” and that’s what it is; any pretense of objectivity is a complete sham.

We just can’t afford to bribe everyone in Iraq for 100 years.

McCain’s argument fails to distinguish between other US occupations and an extended presence in a disputed, volatile flashpoint.

West Berlin wasn’t disputed? The Fulda gap wasn’t a flash point? The 49th Parallel isn’t volatile?

“My difference with McCain is I don’t think we will prevail militarily in Iraq.”

And glad I am that you won’t be in charge, Dr. Bacevich.

It looks like some of the media might finally be calling out Obama on his lies about McCain’s statements on Iraq. Nice work guys, but you’re only about two months late. An article at the Columbia Journalism Review accurately quotes McCain,…

One historian who opposes the war said yesterday that the Arizona senator’s analogy has no true precedent in those earlier conflicts.

He opposes the war, his opinion is we won’t win, and yet he’s a trusted “analyst” on whether or not McCain is right?

****

Some analysts say the BG is a rag.

I hope it continues.

“My difference with McCain is I don’t think we will prevail militarily in Iraq.”

That’s why you are where you are and he is where he is and I’m going with him.